New version of Debian summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses
zotz at 100jamz.com
Sun Apr 3 18:55:16 EDT 2005
On Sunday 03 April 2005 06:21 pm, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > > "2. **Waive attribution after request to remove references**.
> > >
> > > In a country with "moral rights" this would not be possible and
> > > would in fact be an illegal clause.
> > If a request to remove attribution can effectively take away the
> > licensee's right to distribute the work, then the work isn't free.
> In a country with "moral rights", what happens if an author asks to remove
> references? AFAIK, the ability to request references removed is supposed to
> be a "moral right". Now, here drew is saying that removing a request for
> attribution is not permitted by "moral rights".
I may have expressed that poorly. I am not sure. The post I was replying to
talked of waiving the right to attribution if the person had requested
removal of references.
I was just pointing out that last weekend it was pointed out to me that
clauses which mentioned "moral rights" were illegal clauses in contracts in
morla rights countries.
It would seem odd for someone to demand the removal of all references to
themselves and then come back and demand the "right of parentage?" but, from
what I was told, they could not give any legal assurances otherwise.
I hope that was clearer.
> It seems strange to me that those countries would have a natural dead lock
> like that. Does this mean that in France any author can freeze the
> distribution of any work he particpated in, regardless of other agreements?
> That just /can't/ be right. It would allow any employee to kill the company
> he works for if he doesn't like his pay raise.
> There /must/ be some way that moral rights avoid this dead-lock. I suggest
> someone find out what that is. Because whatever it is, holds the key to
> solving this conflict here.
One would hope so, does anyone know?
all the best,
More information about the cc-licenses