[Foundation-l] An argument for strong copyleft

[John at Darkstar]

>From norwegian copyright law (really "opphavsrett", which covers the
original authors rights)

Note also that the paragraphs are not complete, but I guess the text is
sufficient.

Djiiisezzzz, this translation stinks..!
John

§ 4. Opphavsmannen kan ikke sette seg imot at andre benytter hans
åndsverk på en slik måte at nye og selvstendige verk oppstår.
Opphavsretten til det nye og selvstendige verk er ikke avhengig av
opphavsretten til det verk som er benyttet.

§ 4. Original author can not oppose (?) others use of his work such that
new  and independent work emerges. The (copy)right to the new and
independent work is not dependent on the (copy)right for the original work.

http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html#4

In short, a license (even GFDL) can not block others use of the work to
create a new and independent work.


§ 5. Den som ved å sammenstille flere åndsverk eller deler av åndsverk
skaper et litterært, vitenskapelig eller kunstnerisk samleverk, har
opphavsrett til samleverket, men denne rett gjør ingen innskrenkning i
opphavsretten til de enkelte verk som samleverket består av.

§ 5. The one who by combining/collecting other works or parts of works
creates a litterary, scientific or artistic collected work, has the
(copy)right to the combined/collective work, but this right creates no
limitatuions in the (copy)right for the individual works in the combined
work.

http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html#5

In short, norwegian law does not support a notion that a copyleft
article with a license in itself taints the new and independent work.
This can be covered if the license is a binding _contract_, but then,
you get into troubles if you change that contract.


Anthony skrev:
>>  >  For those Bill's who don't mind Carrie's using their work in this way,
>>  >  there's always CC-BY or some other non-copylefted free license.
>>
>>  I want to protect the "freeness" of actual derivatives of my work,
>>  which is why I dislike CC-BY.  What I don't want is a purity test for
>>  something that I and most people would not consider a derivative work,
>>  but merely using two works on the same page.
>>
> Most people have no clue what the term "derivative work" means, but I
> would assume that most people who do have a clue would agree that a
> newspaper article which contains both photos and text is a derivative
> work of both the photos and the text.
> 
> The FSF has confused this point by trying to claim that in some
> instances the text is a derivative work of the photos.  That part's
> generally nonsense.  But the *combined* work is pretty clearly a
> derivative work.  Of course, there's very little case law on this,
> because it almost never matters.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>