On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Point 3 should read: "GFDL document +
'separate and independent documents or
works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium' " = Non-GFDL
document (aggregate).
Those other two clauses are significant. Aggregates, as I understand them,
are resticted to combinations of documents that are functionally independent
and connected merely by proximity in a distribution medium, etc.
That may be, although I have doubts that "volume" implies
"functionally independent" here. However, it's a word that's
ill-defined here and so I have no evidence to cite one way or the
other.
4) GFDL document augmented by non-GFDL text or images
= GFDL document
(derivative).
They way I understand it is basically: If you can remove either work without
materially affecting the reader's understanding of the remaining work then
it can be an aggregate. If, on the other hand, the understanding and
appreciation of one work depends on the presense of the other, then the
collective work fails the "separate and independent" test must be treated as
a derivative and not as an aggregate.
No, this cannot possibly be true. For example, let's say you have a
document, A, that is GFDL. I have a picture, B, over which I maintain
a non-free copyright. You cannot make document C = A + B, and say that
C is GFDL, because that violates my copyright on B. You either need to
invoke fair use, or else C must be an aggregate that does not affect
the licenses on either A or B. Comparing sizes, just because A > B
doesn't mean that the copyright for A is more important then the
copyright on B, or that A's copyright license "wins" because it's more
substantial.
Including my image B in a large composite work C that is mostly
comprised of GFDL text A does not make C a GFDL document. From the
GFDL itself: "A 'Modified Version' of the Document means any work
containing the Document or a portion of it". If C = A + B, and C is
GFDL, then B is a portion of C, and therefore B is GFDL too. However,
this is impossible, because I hold exclusive non-free copyright over B
and never released it under the GFDL. C, therefore, cannot be a GFDL
document because all it's parts are not GFDL documents (unless, again,
we invoke fair use).
--Andrew Whitworth