[aethertron]

Then they're incompatible with FOSS. If someone

- releases code under MIT/GPL/whatever, declaring that their work may be changed and redistributed

- then later asserts their moral right to NOT have their code changed and redistributed

then they have done a nasty bait-and-switch move. The have shown themselves dishonest, and using their software should be considered a legally dangerous idea. If their courts support their claims then FOSS, as we know it, is unviable in that realm.

But this hasn't ever happened, has it? Europe's FOSS development activity seems robust enough. But perhaps they are legally on a sand foundation...

[randy408]

Moral rights are part of the Berne Convention, it's not limited to Europe.

This is only an issue when someone 1. is very negligent with redistribution 2. has enough negative implications for the author to take issue with it.

NixOS is a big, funded project, what's wrong with holding them to a standard? If they package it right then moral rights wouldn't be an issue for them, it's not exactly a legal minefield.

[rcxdude]

The question then becomes what amounts to 'packaging it right' and who is the judge of that? It's certainly not so simple as the sole opinion of the author, at the very least they would need to demonstrate some damage to their reputation or similar.

[aethertron]

>Moral rights are part of the Berne Convention, it's not limited to Europe.

Not everywhere has unalienable ones. You can waive them in the UK and USA, which is what publishing under a FOSS license implies, to an extent.

Anyway, moral rights aren't just about mangling a work. It's about mangling work in a way that makes the original author look bad. But with software, with the internet, no matter how bad the mangling, you can Google the author and find, say, his disgruntled Github comments stating his disapproval of the changes, so no reputational damage should accrue. Moral rights violation: nullified. Eh?