Francesco Poli <frx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:10:03 +1000 Ben Finney wrote:
>
> [...]
> > A party who wishes to exercise their freedoms can do so without
> > identifying themselves, if they anonymously declare that all their
> > modifications are transferred to the existing copyright holders.
> >
> > This allows them full exercise of all the freedoms under DFSG. DFSG
> > requires the freedom to modify and redistribute, but does *not*
> > require the freedom to hold copyright in one's modifications.
>
> Wait, are you saying that you consider DFSG-free to require transfer of
> copyright to the original author(s) in order to redistribute modified
> versions of a work?
No. That's only necessary if they want to do *all* of the following:
- maintain a clear copyright ownership path (which I argue is
necessary to avoid unfair burden on all recipients of copyright
status verification), *and*
- modify the work (thus creating the question of copyright status of
those changes), *and*
- redistribute the modified work, *and*
- refrain from giving any personally-identifying information.
The latter is *not compatible* with also holding an
externally-verifiable copyright in the modified and redistributed
work.
> Moreover, take into account that, in some (if not many)
> jurisdictions, transfer of copyright (of economic rights, to be more
> precise) requires legal paperwork signed by the parties (a statement
> in a README file does not suffice)... Hence, we are back in the
> identity diclosure problem.
Yes, we can find many jurisdictions that are pathological to
maintaining both freedom and anonymity/pseudonymity. We still need to
choose what we accept and what we don't.
--
\ "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "I think so, |
`\ Brain, but how will we get the Spice Girls into the paella?" |
_o__) -- _Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney
|
