There's definitely a clear difference between an HTML page with img tags and
a jpeg cartoon.
On 12/3/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 12/1/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Then both licenses should apply. But this is
pretty clearly a
derivative,
not aggregate work.
Aggregate works under the GFDL almost always are derivative works.
In this case yes, it's clearly a derivative, but it's not clear
whether or not it's an aggregate (per the definition under the GFDL).
There really are no precedents as to what an aggregate is under the
GFDL. If mixing images and text into an integrated work is not
considered an aggregate under the GFDL, then the majority of
Wikipedia's articles which contain images are in violation of the
GFDL.
This is not really a can of worms worth opening.
Anthony
On 12/1/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org>
wrote:
>
> On 12/1/06, the wub <thewub.wiki(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Much as I hate meaningless fuss over copyright, aren't these comics
> > incorrectly licensed? The text is directly taken from Wikipedia
articles
> -
> > presumably under the GFDL. But the images are licensed as CC-BY-SA,
with
no
reference to either the GFDL or fair use.
That aside, they are quite brilliant.
the wub
Presumably text and images under different licenses can be combined to
form an aggregate work. Wikipedia articles do this all the time.
Anthony
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l