| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Moral rightsMoral rightsPosted Aug 13, 2009 9:24 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313)In reply to: Moral rights by liw Parent article: The unending story of cdrtools if an author releases the work under the GPL, they explicitly give permission to do almost any kind of change to the work, including changes the original author disapproves of. As far as I know, under Hungarian law the author is actually not allowed to give up/sell/transfer/etc. his moral rights. I guess its similar in German law. I don't know how this relates to the GPL, though.
(Log in to post comments)
Moral rights - no problem, AFAICT Posted Aug 13, 2009 10:06 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
My understanding of moral rights is also that you can't give them up. That's their point. It's to put limits on how much a powerful publishing house can bully an individual author.
But, that doesn't mean that Jorg is right or that moral rights are a problem for free software. Moral rights are interpreted by a judge, and no judge has yet ruled that a software developer has moral rights about the technical direction of a project.
Further, if moral rights are a problem for free software, they they're also just as much a problem for proprietary software. Example: I work for CompanyX, I write some software, I leave, the subsequent maintainer makes changes, I wail about my masterpiece having been ruined and I take CompanyX to court over violation of my moral rights. That's never happened, so there's nothing to substantiate worries about moral rights in software.
Moral rights - no problem, AFAICT Posted Aug 13, 2009 13:57 UTC (Thu) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
I seem to recall (although I don't have the details) that there was a court decision in Germany which clarified the situation with moral rights and free software, basically stating that releasing your code under a free software licence was already a clear statement of how you wished your work to be used.
Moral rights - no problem, AFAICT Posted Aug 13, 2009 18:57 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] If anyone has a link, that would be very interesting.
Moral rights - no problem, AFAICT Posted Aug 13, 2009 21:59 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] I vaguely recall seeing the argument made that the (sometimes ignored) GPL requirementa) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.is intended in part to address the moral rights issue: if my changes to your program break it, it should be made clear that you are not to blame. I think that this was in some interminable debian-legal discussion where someone claimed that the above requirement curtails freedom somehow.
Moral rights Posted Aug 14, 2009 16:47 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] My understanding of moral rights is also that you can't give them up. That's their point. It's to put limits on how much a powerful publishing house can bully an individual author. What kind of bullying do you think the law contemplates? Kidnapping the author's child? Offering the author so much money he can't refuse? Blacklisting the author with other publishers so he can't work? Or maybe the point is just to protect an author from his own ignorance or foolishness.
Moral rights Posted Aug 13, 2009 10:19 UTC (Thu) by mp (subscriber, #5615) [Link]
Checking the Polish copyright law: computer programs have some specific rules applied to them. This includes limiting the applicable moral rights to only being considered the author of a work and being able to publish it under your name, pseudonymously or anonymously. Control over integrity and uses of the work is specifically excluded for computer programs here.
No idea if such limitations are present in the law of other countries, but I would think this cannot be only a local idea.
|
|
||||||||||||