It's kind of a non-issue Rob. In the United States, authors have no moral rights. In the Netherlands, there are 4 moral rights:
* Right of attribution (already covered in the license)* Right to keep the work published under the same name (this is really terrible for wikis)* The right to prohibit changes (which basically have to be waived in order for a wiki to work)* "the right to oppose any distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to the honor or reputation of the author or his dignity as such." -- Google Translate doing a really good job. This only applies to modification of the work, which is either protected speech as parody, illegal speech as libel, or operations necessary to run a wiki.
Moral rights are essentially anathema to running a wiki, and if we didn't ask for them to be waived, we would probably have to leave the Netherlands. Although in reality most exercises of moral rights against a wiki would be misbruik van recht or abuse of rights. In theory we could do this in the Terms of Service rather than the copyright license so it wasn't a relicensable right, but I am not a lawyer and I don't want to get it wrong.
Canadian rights do not apply on the wiki, as we do not conduct business in Canada.
I think that if English Wikipedia goes to 4.0, we will probably want to follow, and stop the dual licensing scheme. This is mainly to allow us to safely copy and paste Wikipedia content onto the wiki, as reusable open knowledge has always been one of our goals. In fact the 3.0 licensing exists to allow content to go back to Wikipedia! So if you want to fight this, I suggest you do it over there because once they change a lot of websites will follow.
I have nothing against a disclaimer about sui generis DB and moral rights, if you want to add it to our copyrights page.
-- ∇×V
* Right of attribution (already covered in the license)* Right to keep the work published under the same name (this is really terrible for wikis)* The right to prohibit changes (which basically have to be waived in order for a wiki to work)* "the right to oppose any distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to the honor or reputation of the author or his dignity as such." -- Google Translate doing a really good job. This only applies to modification of the work, which is either protected speech as parody, illegal speech as libel, or operations necessary to run a wiki.
Moral rights are essentially anathema to running a wiki, and if we didn't ask for them to be waived, we would probably have to leave the Netherlands. Although in reality most exercises of moral rights against a wiki would be misbruik van recht or abuse of rights. In theory we could do this in the Terms of Service rather than the copyright license so it wasn't a relicensable right, but I am not a lawyer and I don't want to get it wrong.
Canadian rights do not apply on the wiki, as we do not conduct business in Canada.
I think that if English Wikipedia goes to 4.0, we will probably want to follow, and stop the dual licensing scheme. This is mainly to allow us to safely copy and paste Wikipedia content onto the wiki, as reusable open knowledge has always been one of our goals. In fact the 3.0 licensing exists to allow content to go back to Wikipedia! So if you want to fight this, I suggest you do it over there because once they change a lot of websites will follow.
I have nothing against a disclaimer about sui generis DB and moral rights, if you want to add it to our copyrights page.
-- ∇×V