Nyenyec N wrote:
What is the definitive source to read about which
image licenses are
compatible with the GFDL?
Or perhaps a GFDL text with non-GFDL images added doesn't count as
derivative work?
There is a slightly related discussion on meta,
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Do_fair_use_images_violate_the_GFDL%3F Do
fair use images violate the GFDL?
In it Jimbo seems to argue that the addition of fair use images does not
mean that the images become GFDL, but rather that the usage of the
specific images in such a way become compliant with the GFDL. At least
that is my reading of the comments. The position I base that upon is
his argument:
"The experts I have consulted on this (including Richard Stallman and
Larry Lessig) find no merit in this argument. Remember that the GNU FDL
works inside the framework of copyright law. The GNU FDL is a way for
authors to conditionally give up some of the rights they have under
copyright. It is not a claim to be able to impose additional
restrictions above and beyond what copyright grants. Since fair use is
legitimate in copyrighted works, an author may use fair use. But this
doesn't preclude that author from releasing the work under the GNU FDL,
because the GNU FDL does not pretend to impose ad"
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/184 - Release Date: 27/11/05