Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: CC licenses and "moral rights"

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc: cc-community <cc-community AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: CC licenses and "moral rights"
  • Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:16:16 +0000

This is a community discussion. Everyone on there?

On 24 Mar 2005, at 22:47, Peter Brink wrote:

When two people agree upon something that agreement is a legally speaking a contract. No open source license is anything else but a contract.

American law disagrees with you:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851

"A license like the GPL, on the other hand, which is a true license by intent, and which, if you remember the original definition, is a permission to do what otherwise you could not legally do, fits the definition of license precisely."

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

"Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits."

Other jurisdictions may well differ.

the fact that there is room for creativity when writing source code doesn't mean that such possibilities are used. Functions, procedures and methods run a real risk of not being copyrightable, simply because they do tend to contain expressions which are purely functional.

Code (program listings) is a form of writing, that is what makes it copyrightable.

- Rob.

--
http://www.robmyers.org/art - All my art, Creative Commons Licensed.
http://www.robmyers.orgt/weblog - Free Culture and Generative Art blog.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page