No subject

Fri Mar 14 23:02:16 UTC 2008

original authors rights)

Note also that the paragraphs are not complete, but I guess the text is
sufficient.

Djiiisezzzz, this translation stinks..!
John

=A7 4. Opphavsmannen kan ikke sette seg imot at andre benytter hans
=E5ndsverk p=E5 en slik m=E5te at nye og selvstendige verk oppst=E5r.
Opphavsretten til det nye og selvstendige verk er ikke avhengig av
opphavsretten til det verk som er benyttet.

=A7 4. Original author can not oppose (?) others use of his work such tha=
t
new  and independent work emerges. The (copy)right to the new and
independent work is not dependent on the (copy)right for the original wor=
k.

http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html#4

In short, a license (even GFDL) can not block others use of the work to
create a new and independent work.

=A7 5. Den som ved =E5 sammenstille flere =E5ndsverk eller deler av =E5nd=
sverk
skaper et litter=E6rt, vitenskapelig eller kunstnerisk samleverk, har
opphavsrett til samleverket, men denne rett gj=F8r ingen innskrenkning i
opphavsretten til de enkelte verk som samleverket best=E5r av.

=A7 5. The one who by combining/collecting other works or parts of works
creates a litterary, scientific or artistic collected work, has the
(copy)right to the combined/collective work, but this right creates no
limitatuions in the (copy)right for the individual works in the combined
work.

http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19610512-002.html#5

In short, norwegian law does not support a notion that a copyleft
article with a license in itself taints the new and independent work.
This can be covered if the license is a binding _contract_, but then,
you get into troubles if you change that contract.

Anthony skrev:
>>  >  For those Bill's who don't mind Carrie's using their work in this =
way,
>>  >  there's always CC-BY or some other non-copylefted free license.
>>
>>  I want to protect the "freeness" of actual derivatives of my work,
>>  which is why I dislike CC-BY.  What I don't want is a purity test for
>>  something that I and most people would not consider a derivative work=
,
>>  but merely using two works on the same page.
>>
> Most people have no clue what the term "derivative work" means, but I
> would assume that most people who do have a clue would agree that a
> newspaper article which contains both photos and text is a derivative
> work of both the photos and the text.
>=20
> The FSF has confused this point by trying to claim that in some
> instances the text is a derivative work of the photos.  That part's
> generally nonsense.  But the *combined* work is pretty clearly a
> derivative work.  Of course, there's very little case law on this,
> because it almost never matters.
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>=20