Henning Makholm said:
> Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> RMS could use his 'moral rights' to prevent someone from
>> distributing a version of Emacs which could read and write Microsoft
>> Word files (file format being reverse-engineered).
>
> No he can't. His placing Emacs under a free license, aside from his
> numerous writings about software freedom, clearly imply that his works
> have no intrinsic artistic character that could possibly be violated by
> any third-party modification.
Is this ("no intrinsic artistic character") a characteristic of Emacs, or of
Free Software in general? Does this "clear" implication extend to
documentation released under a Free licence? Does this "clear" implication
extend to literary, visual arts, or audio works released under a Free
license?
There have been conflicting statements on d-l about the applicability of
Free Software licenses in countries where 'moral rights' are irrevokable.
The boundary of your inference above is unclear.
--Joe
