[Foundation-l] Re-licensing

[Anthony]

> >> What is the legal distinction you're drawing
> >> here? (I ask for the "legal distinction" because you are articulating
> >> your concern in terms of what you purport to be violations of your
> >> legal rights.)
> >>
> >
> > Actually, I'm purporting them to be violations of my moral rights.
>
> How are you distinguishing between "moral rights" and "legal rights"?


A legal right is recognized by law.  A moral right may not be.


> A moral right is a kind of legal right, in those jurisdictions that
> recognize moral rights.
>

Sure, but I'm not in a jurisdiction that indisputably recognizes the right
to attribution.

> But the
> > distinction is pretty obvious - in one case the page is a click
> > away, in the
> > other case it at least requires finding internet access and typing
> > in a url,
> > and quite possibly requires jumping through even more hoops than that.
>
> So if you were unhappy that your attribution was at the back of a
> book, because a reader has to turn to the end and read through a lot
> of small print in order to find your name, that would give you a basis
> for objecting to that form of attribution?


Barring a license to use my content in that way, sure.  Just like a film
director has a basis to demand "the last solo credit card before the first
scene of the picture".

>> But an online attribution on a separate page (or server) when the
> >> article is offline is *not*
> >> "direct"?  What is the legal (or "rights") basis for this
> >> distinction?
> >
> > Common sense?
>
> So you're saying your legal rights are defined by "common sense"?


To some extent, sure.  Not entirely by common sense, of course, but legal
rights can't be understood without employing common sense.


> Are you sure that's the direction in which you want to take your argument?


I'm sure you'll take my comment out of context in any case.