[Foundation-l] Does "free content" exist in France?

[Ray Saintonge]

Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) wrote:

>Currently, based on the Free Content definition*, the copyright
>policy* requires that a work's licensing allow it to be "freely
>viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any
>form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without
>exception and without limitation (except as explicitly allowed [by the
>copyright policy])".
>
>Given that moral rights include the right to attribution and the right
>to object to modification of one's work (independently of copyright
>and even after the transfer or expiry of copyright)*, and given that a
>significant portion of the English-speaking world recognizes moral
>rights, does this mean that the copyright policy and definition
>require impossible freedoms?
>
Not at all!  It's a copyright policy, not a moral rights policy.  The 
moral rights are often included in copyright acts, but tend to still be 
defined as different from the economic right of copyright.  "Neighboring 
rights" is another term that more broadly covers moral rights.

>For example, this would mean that all works on Wikisource (including
>those in the public domain) would either:
>1. be retagged to require attribution and prohibit changes or derivatives;
>2. be deleted.
>
This proposal is extremist to the point of lunacy.

>I disagree with this assertion. I consider moral rights to be legal
>restrictions in some jurisdictions, much like anti-hate propaganda
>legislation in Canada, and not "attached" to a work as copyright is.
>However, I am not a lawyer nor particularly aware of the intricacies
>of copyright, and would appreciate input from the wider Foundation
>community.
>
Hate propaganda legislation is a red herring.  Just because a person has 
made modifications to someone's works does not imply hate propaganda.  
What do you mean by "attached to a work"?

Ec