On 10/26/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/26/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com>
The problem is that GFDL really doesn't allow
that kind of content-mixing.
It's more strongly viral than CC-by-SA.
From the GFDL v1.2:
7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS
A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate
and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright
resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights
of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit.
When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not
apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves
derivative works of the Document.
Of course you can argue that an image created specifically to
illustrate an article, or that an article created specifically to
elaborate an image is a derivative rather than an aggregation, there
is no difference between the Creating Confusion - * licenses and the
GFDL in this respect.
I find the CC licenses to be very explicit and very clear about what
constitutes a "collective" work (their equivalent of the GDFL's
"aggregate" section) and full of copius examples of what sorts of
things would be considered to be that. The GDFL's "aggregate" section
doesn't really indicate whether they mean that a final printed page
with mixed-licensing materials would be considered an "aggregate" or
not, or give any indication of what the real boundary is between
"aggregate" and "derivative," in my reading of it. I'd consider
rather big difference, personally -- clarity can go a long way.