<div dir="ltr"><div><br>Hi Bruce-san, Pamela-san,<br><br>Thanks for your thoughtful \u201cbelt-and-suspenders\u201d take on moral rights (waive where possible + non-assertion + severability). <br>Since this thread is largely about software, a few data points from Japan may help shape the clause:<br><br>- Unlike France (which narrows software under CPI L121-7), Japan does not carve software out: the full triad\u2014disclosure, attribution, integrity\u2014remains inalienable for programs as well.<br>- Under Japan\u2019s work-made-for-hire rule for programs (Art. 15(2)), the corporation can be the author, and moral rights are understood to vest in that corporate author.<br>- Where \u201cnatural persons\u201d are the authors, practice relies on non-assertion covenants rather than blanket waivers.</div><div><br>Net effect: in Japanese software practice, a pure \u201cwaiver\u201d rarely bites on its own. Your pattern fits well. A compact, travel-ready clause could be:<br>> Moral Rights:<br>> To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, each Licensor and Contributor waives and agrees not to assert any moral rights (including rights of attribution, integrity, and disclosure) in the Work and Contributions. Where such waiver is not permitted, each Licensor and Contributor irrevocably covenants not to assert such rights and consents to all acts that would otherwise infringe them, including modification, combination, and omission of attribution, provided there is no false attribution of authorship. This provision is severable and survives to the extent enforceable in any jurisdiction.<br><br>This keeps your structure, tolerates jurisdictions that forbid waivers, and still works in Japan, where non-assertion is the operative tool for software.<br><br>As you know, most OSI-style licenses are silent on moral rights. In Japanese practice, the broad permission to modify and create derivatives often functions in effect as a non-assertion of integrity-type claims, and we haven\u2019t seen widespread disputes in day-to-day OSS use. That said, depending on the jurisdiction and facts, modifications that are prejudicial to an author\u2019s honor or reputation could theoretically raise issues\u2014even under permissive licenses like MIT or copyleft licenses like GPL.<br><br>Best,<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">2025/10/7 21:22 Bruce Perens via License-discuss <<a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">To answer Pam's question, this is the French declaration, highlights mine:<div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div>Art. 5. The title of an intellectual work, always
provided that it is original, enjoys the same protection as the work itself.
No person may take the title of a work, even if
that work is no longer protected under articles 21
and 22, to designate a work of the same type if the
use of such title could give rise to confusion.
Art. 6. The author has the right to respect for
his name, his status and his works.
This right is vested in his person.
<font color="#ffff00" style="background-color:rgb(255,0,0)">It is perpetual, inalienable and indefeasible.</font>
On the author's death it can be transmitted to
his heirs.
The exercise of this right can be transferred to a
third person by testamentary disposition.</div><div><br></div></blockquote><div><div>An affirmative patent grant might be a useful differentiation from the other licenses, but he's not there yet.<div><br></div><div>As I think we have made clear every time a newby approaches license-discuss the license _user_ community, the developers themselves, are in general poorly educated on license issues and for the most part uninterested in improving that education, they want to program or be users. Which is fine, we need that. But it means we should do a little more to make sure they understand some of the implications of the license, for example that they don't, or at least don't reliably get the right to claim authorship of the work.<div><br></div><div>Thus, an explanatory text that is separate from the license but easily available might be of value.</div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 11:47\u202fAM Pamela Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
On 10/4/2025 2:59 PM, Balázs Hámorszky wrote:<br>
> In jurisdictions where attribution or other moral rights cannot be<br>
> fully waived, the author does not require their name to be displayed<br>
> beyond the minimal extent required by law,<br>
Are there jurisdictions that do not allow you to waive attribution?<br>
<br>
I would also like to see an explanation of how all the other licenses <br>
that attempt to achieve this fail, and how this license has remedied <br>
their flaws.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
4641 Post St.<br>
Unit 4316<br>
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><div><br clear="all"></div><div><br></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Bruce Perens K6BP</div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><div><br clear="all"></div><div><br></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Shuji Sado</div><div>Chairman, Open Source Group Japan<br><a href="https://opensource.jp/" target="_blank">https://opensource.jp/</a><br>English blog: <a href="https://shujisado.org/" target="_blank">https://shujisado.org/</a></div><div>Japanese blog: <a href="https://shujisado.com/" target="_blank">https://shujisado.com/</a></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>