Moral rights
Moral rights
Posted Aug 13, 2009 8:56 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474)Parent article: The unending story of cdrtools
He's unforunately right about "violations of German copyright law (which, it seems, forbids any change which Jörg disapproves of)".
This is because many European countries provide what are known as "Moral rights". You can read that Wikipedia page for all the details, but I know it's a particular problem for free software in France (if you distribute it there and any of the authors come from France).
Moral rights include the right of the author to control the "integrity of the work". They are also not transferable. The author continues to control the moral rights even if they were done as work-for-hire or the copyright was transferred/sold to another party.
Yet another sillyness about copyright law ...
Rich.
Posted Aug 13, 2009 9:03 UTC (Thu)
by liw (subscriber, #6379)
[Link] (10 responses)
So I don't buy that argument.
I admit I haven't studied German law. If that really supports the claim, then the GPL is effectively dead in Germany.
Posted Aug 13, 2009 9:24 UTC (Thu)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link] (6 responses)
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.
Posted Aug 13, 2009 10:06 UTC (Thu)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (4 responses)
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.
Posted Aug 13, 2009 13:57 UTC (Thu)
by mjthayer (guest, #39183)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Aug 13, 2009 18:57 UTC (Thu)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 13, 2009 21:59 UTC (Thu)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link]
I think that this was in some interminable debian-legal discussion where someone claimed that the above requirement curtails freedom somehow.
Posted Aug 14, 2009 16:47 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
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.
Posted Aug 13, 2009 10:19 UTC (Thu)
by mp (subscriber, #5615)
[Link]
No idea if such limitations are present in the law of other countries, but I would think this cannot be only a local idea.
Posted Aug 13, 2009 9:59 UTC (Thu)
by rwmj (subscriber, #5474)
[Link] (2 responses)
[However note IANAL, and IANA European (C) Lawyer either]
Posted Aug 13, 2009 19:37 UTC (Thu)
by johill (subscriber, #25196)
[Link]
Posted Aug 13, 2009 21:17 UTC (Thu)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
(yes, this is a guess as to which project you're talking about, but I bet
Moral rights
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.
Moral rights
Moral rights - no problem, AFAICT
Moral rights - no problem, AFAICT
If anyone has a link, that would be very interesting.
Moral rights - no problem, AFAICT
I vaguely recall seeing the argument made that the (sometimes ignored) GPL requirement
Moral rights - no problem, AFAICT
a) 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.
Moral rights
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.
Moral rights
Moral rights
Moral rights
Moral rights
research group? It seems to me that unless there's a way to become 'not
outside', they've eliminated any possibility of getting new development
blood into the project, which cannot be good :/
I'm right ;) )