5 ms·

> As noted above, I'm skeptical that this right exists in Australia. The right to control the integrity of one's work is a Moral Right, and moral rights fall o

by shakna 5y ago

> As noted above, I'm skeptical that this right exists in Australia. The right to control the integrity of one's work is a Moral Right, and moral rights fall outside of copyrights in Australia. A very basic introduction is here [0]. Granting the use of a work in perpetuity is permitted, but revoking that perpetuity is also permitted and cannot be limited. > But if it does, the worst that would happen is that a person's contributions would need to be removed from Linux. In the example I gave, Linux wouldn't need to make that change, as the revocation only occurred for a single sublicensee. The Foundation might choose to make that change, but they also might not. > because you'd need a dev with plenty of wealth to pay lawyers, who also really hates some company beyond any practical economic extent, and also contributed a lot to Linux as a private individual. I don't know how many of that type of person you're going to find. Individuals like Richard Stallman? He may not have direct wealth, but he has the means to obtain it. And the ideology necessary to become a thorn in the side of a particular corporation if he so chooses. [0] https://www.copyright.org.au/browse/book/ACC-Moral-Rights-INFO043 https://www.copyright.org.au/browse/book/ACC-Moral-Rights-IN...

yeahforsureman 5y ago
Looks like the moral rights regime in Australia is pretty similar to that in many civil law systems. You cannot just revoke your license based on the right of integrity. Where do you get that idea from? Based on the introduction, it works just like in most other systems: you would have to show derogatory treatment. And that, considering the nature of the work (computer code committed to an open source project), seems to be hard if not impossible in any conceivable circumstances.
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
> In the example I gave, Linux wouldn't need to make that change, as the revocation only occurred for a single sublicensee. The other person already responded to your understanding of moral rights. I would also question this assumption. A copyleft license that excludes certain participants who are otherwise complying with this license because of animus on the part of one contributor is not really a copyleft license in spirit. It would be an untenable precedent to set that any contributor can effectively ban anyone they like from using Linux. I strongly doubt the Linux community would keep code like this even if they were technically allowed to. > Richard Stallman ... Would never countenance a situation like the one you're contemplating. He cares most about software freedom and what you're describing is basically the opposite.

by shakna 5y ago

yeahforsureman 5y ago

Looks like the moral rights regime in Australia is pretty similar to that in many civil law systems. You cannot just revoke your license based on the right of integrity. Where do you get that idea from? Based on the introduction, it works just like in most other systems: you would have to show derogatory treatment. And that, considering the nature of the work (computer code committed to an open source project), seems to be hard if not impossible in any conceivable circumstances.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

> In the example I gave, Linux wouldn't need to make that change, as the revocation only occurred for a single sublicensee. The other person already responded to your understanding of moral rights. I would also question this assumption. A copyleft license that excludes certain participants who are otherwise complying with this license because of animus on the part of one contributor is not really a copyleft license in spirit. It would be an untenable precedent to set that any contributor can effectively ban anyone they like from using Linux. I strongly doubt the Linux community would keep code like this even if they were technically allowed to. > Richard Stallman ... Would never countenance a situation like the one you're contemplating. He cares most about software freedom and what you're describing is basically the opposite.