passepartout

They are considered "public information", so no droit d'auteur. All government data considered as public information were published starting 2011 with an open data licence, the Etalab licence similar to the UK one.

Your licence should be more precise because you cannot put a CC licence on the legal texts, just on your ReadMe file.

When Facebook makes you use a real name it's not because theres some "Mr. Evil" at the top level plotting to steal your freedom, it's because it leads to a better working social network.

You clearly have not thought of the situations where using your real name can be dangerous (see for example activists) or just plain misleading for the purpose of the page (see for example, famous authors etc.). The factors of real life and people needing to hide behind a pseudonym should not be disregarded so absolutely by Facebook. I can see where your comment is coming from, but as you say about Stallman, the world is not all black and white and people should have a right to this grey area even on a social network.

Read this: https://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/10-reasons-to-le... Also, The Circle by Dave Eggers is a bit of a frightening example.

"Everything is free to read* they say. But there’s an asterisk, pesky and persistent, next to read. And it’s a big one.The asterisk is that you can’t do anything but read the document, and you have to download use their proprietary reader software in order to read the document, and you have to hope that someone who has a subscription or is a journalist is kind enough to share a link to the document that you want to read, and if you try to do anything other than look at the document passively on a screen you’re basically gonna get sued for copyright infringement." http://del-fi.org/post/104125242971/natures-shareware-moment

But by all means, let's celebrate a step forward taken by Nature.

I posted the question on lawyeritis.com with a link here, maybe a lawyer will give us an answer. But an example could definitely help.

I will too criticize a nation that just spent the last few days bombing children and civilians, breaking basically most of international conventions. My baseline for criticizing a nation is, and i hope we can all agree to that, killing children.

I guess yours is the only correct definition of a "useful thing".

Basically this:

>> Right now, the license does not properly disclaim any implied warranties, which puts the developer at risk.

Although the validity of the license could be disputed because of the obscurity of the permission, the legal recourse you'd have is the "estoppel". Meaning if I have a license (and thus the author's permission that goes with it) to act, and the author later sues me for something that is already permitted, the estoppel defense is raised to dismiss the claim.

Noone disputes his tech skills or contribution. You're missing the point here.

To quote Adventure Time's Lemon Grab, "unacceptable"!!

And yet this happened a couple of years ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/salman-rus...

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.

This is the general problem with share alike clauses and GPL is known for adopting a very limited interpretation of their Share Alike clause. They have recognized CC0 as being compatible with GPL, which is a step. In your example, I'd say that most definitely software cannot be under CC. My perception is that the software license always prevails. Now the image in the game could be implemented with an authorization from the author (it's the best way to avoid problems in any case).

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

The compatibility would not be part of the license in any case. Some licenses could be considered compatible with GPL (specifically the CC BY SA). However, CC generally suggests that the licenses are used for non-software creations.