[odc-discuss] About the responses on co-ment

[jean-christophe.haessig at dianosis.org]

Hello,

I've read the responses to my questions on co-ment, and I am not satisfied
with them.

In fact, they are not even the start of a decent response. I am quite
disappointed that my questions have been quickly dismissed and tagged as
"wontfix".

Granted, I am not a native sepaker nor a lawyer and I might not have
understood everything correctly, but I try hard to read that stuff many
times and try to understand it. I agree that a license can be somewhat
complex to a reasonable level, maybe due to legal reasons it needs to be
written in "legalese". These complexities can be overcome by explaining
what the text of the license rally says or implies. However I didn't get
such an explanation either.

My concerns were mainly about moral rights. Most of the issues I tried to
point out are supposed to be handled by 4.2c, but first of all how come
that an important aspect is addressed in so few words which can be
overlooked while the license expands lengthly on particular details?

Next I didn't understand how apparently contradictorial texts (waiver of
moral rights and obligation of attribution) can be put in the same license.
The answer ("Because they are part of the same license!") really doesn't
help. Is it because the text that appears first is "stronger"? This would
be a legal feature but I feel it confusing that it says blue and later red.

Finally there's my question about individual attribution. I feared that the
individual names of contributors can be removed, because it is only asked
to cite the original database. Again, 4.2c says that no copyright notices
must be removed, but how do user names in a database qualify as a copyright
notice?

Thanks,

JC