Comment by drakaal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by drakaal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Waive of moral rights. It was hinted in 3 but is now explicit.

As written you can now own data created by your software used by others. The intent was likely that you could license data as CC some rights reserved, but in the process it appears that you can now claim rights to data created by the software you are licensing.

Most licenses for Personality or likeness of a human allow restrictions on the way that image is to be used. I can't take a picture of your mom, and then have it be used in an ad that implies she has STD's. With good reason. If I posed a model to look like she was basting a turkey for thanksgiving, and then modded the image to be part of a pornographic image she would now be a porn star rather than a cooking personality. She would have no problem being in a derivative work that added titling or changed the color of the walls, or featured a different brand oven, but probably wouldn't be ok if the image was modded to look like she was inserting a turkey baster in to a persons rectum.

If you want to have control about how your creative works are reused, then you should choose to stay with plain-old Copyright and grant (or deny) authorizations as requested.

It's a little bit crazy to say "Yeah, this license gives you total freedom to reuse this work however you want without asking permission, except when the original author doesn't like the result". Where do you draw the line? It defeats the purpose of the license.

You can make a parallel with FOSS, your software could be used to run nuclear missiles, a pedophilia network or other nasty things. I don't like it quite a bit, but the other option is a slippery slope in my opinion.

GPL and MIT both allow you to put any restriction you want in the license. "Free for use to academia and by organizations which are working for the betterment of Animals"

The courts might have given the copyright holder a hard time, but the license was setup such that in the documentation you could add restrictions.

Because this wasn't specifically blocked by 3.0, this is a new restriction because it is explicit in this license.

You cannot add additional restrictions to GPLed works, they are void. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary

Sorry that was a change from V2 of GPL. I had forgotten that GPL changed in v3. I try to avoid V3 because several bad things came from that change. The Free for Noncommercial use change being among them.

> The Free for Noncommercial use change being among them.

GPLv3 added two new concept.

1#, you may not give people software under false pretense, and then later go sue them for patents.

2#, you may not work around the license with the use of technical restrictions. The rights provided in the license to users should not be limited by legal (gplv2), and gplv3 simply adds same rule to cover identical restrictions from technical means.

What has either to do with commercial use?

That is completely incorrect. If a piece of software is licensed under the GPL or the MIT, you have the right to use it for any purpose. If it didn't, it wouldn't meet the free software definition, nor the open source definition.

The rights you are describing are not moral rights. Moral rights belong to the artist, the photographer for example. He can say whether his work is being used in a way to hurt his honor or reputation. The rights of the person involved in the picture are called privacy and publicity rights which can be waived by the Licensor as long as he has obtained them from the original person exposed in the picture. See this case for example: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Chang_v._Virgin_Mobile

Yes I combined two changes in the same comment for brevity. You also waive all of the personalities rights with this new version.

If you have them. The rights are originally held by the third person, not the photographer (to keep your example). If that person has licensed them to the Licensor/photographer, then they will be considered waived. In any other case, the third person holds them and can have a valid argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com