>responsibility and accountability comes with authorship, we dont need
>ownership for that.
Sorry Diego :-(
Sloppy use of language on my part, sloppy thinking.
With maybe a bit of etymological complication thrown in.
Therefore I think that we are in fact saying the same thing.
I believe that the original document was considering the rights of a person
as regards something non-tangible, "virtual"? - which he/she had created.
Those rights often, but not always, have to do with the type of "ownership"
which allows the "owner" to place restrictions on access (sometimes
negotiated with money). But in English "ownership" carries the connotation
of "acknowledge as one's own, as true or
valid, admit responsibility for", in fact what I think you mean by
"authorship", and I believe that we DO need that. As the
readers/users/audience I believe that we have rights too, and one of those
rights is the guarantee provided by the name(s) of the person(s)
who own to having produced whatever it is. And I think that if the law
ceases to protect "ownership" then it will very soon cease to protect
"authorship" as well.
Este archivo fue generado por hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Jul 1 11:02:37 2005 AST