Martin,
I would suspect my comment may be stale, but note that you are essentially asserting a 'attribution' right, that was the source of some difficulty in the BSD licensing
context for many.
Also, not that international copyright law interprets the governing laws differently depending on the context, and an author's citizenship and locus of development are important, in the international copyright anaylsis.
For example, AU copyright law may be relevant in much of the analysis of what "default" rights exist.
I notice that the tone of the discussion is quite U.S. centric. I don't recal the specifics, but I seem to recal that AU recognizes a right of attribution. Moral rights (eg. le droit d'auteur) are generally a Continental doctrine but are an important part of why the U.S. refused to become a party for so many years.
Also note that even after the treaty was ratified in the U.S., the U.S. made questionable accomodations for moral rights in their domestic copyright law. Despite the Berne international public law reuqirement to implement certain moral rights, the U.S. basically said, "oh, our law already protects" despite the fact the U.S. has always made quite a point of saying they did not recognize moral rights.
If this is of interest I could provide some interesting U.S. or French case law discussing the issues.
Also I've attached an article I wrote on the subject. I think fundamentally, as you demonstrate, Free and Open Source ("FOSS") authors are very concerned with attribution and it is still problematic under GPL and other licenses.
I advocate a solution whereby FOSS authors assert moral rights of attribution and integrity in teir software. I believe moral rights could provide a more rational framework for the FOSS author to protect their interests and ensure the publics continued access to their work.
Consider this. The reason we have the term copy*left* is copyright doesn't make sense to the FOSS author.
Copyright is about securing exclusive rights to me the author. Copyleft is about securing rights for you to never be excluded.
A right to exclude makes a bad basis for a right to force sharing.
My article can be found at
http://www.nihonlinks.com/JamesMiller/OpenSourceMoralRights/
It's long with the notes but the text is not too bad. You can probably skip the introduction discussion on FOSS and why we as software authors are just as entitled to moral rights as any other poet or novelist..
Find the Table of Contents attached.
All comments and critque of the article are welcomed!
Thank god.
