[ILUG] In other news

[Niall Walsh]

Rick Moen wrote:

>Quoting Niall Walsh (linux at esatclear.ie):
>  
>
>>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/12/msg00004.html
>>http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/01/msg00952.html
>>    
>>
>
>That other bit about fixed attributions making a work
>non-free/proprietary is one reason why, although I'm a long-time
>subscriber to debian-legal, I only rarely read it, in order to safeguard
>my blood pressure:  Author attributions may not be stripped in
>derivative works by _default action of copyright law_, so it is utter
>lunacy to assert, as poster Garrett and numerous others do, that clauses
>to that same effect make the work non-free through it "failing the
>Chinese Dissident Test".
>  
>
I'd have thought the Chinese Dissident Test would be referring to:

*"3.3. Required Notices.*

You must include a notice in each of Your Modifications that identifies 
You as the Contributor of the Modification."

So that the theoretical dissident programmer could distribute a 
modification without having to admit to ownership.  To be honest I 
wonder how copyright law treats assignments from unverifiable anonymous 
parties though.

The rest of clause 3.3 just leaves me thinking about invariant sections 
and just how much "descriptive text giving attribution" can reasonably 
be carried.  Though I guess this is more a problem for people accepting 
modifications.  I see it more as excessive and wasteful then bad.  Then 
again perhaps as you suggest even the modifier of a work can embed their 
modifications in any amount of attributive text they want and nobody can 
deny them the right (as long as you carry their modification)..

But like you, I find many many reasons to avoid reading debian-legal too 
much!

Niall