On 09/05/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
First off, this isn't a new or unusual interpretation. The FSF's statement is reasonable interpretation from the plain language of the license. It's also the one you would expect based on a comparative analysis with the GPL and our 15 years of experience with that license. It's also a position on the license depended on by many of our photographers, and it is one which has been successfully enforced. It's one that, if not taken, would have caused a lot of anger and dispute.
1. Could you please go to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reuse and clarify this in the GFDL section? I wrote that page specifically because I kept getting phone calls asking permission to reuse stuff. It's now linked in all sorts of places ...
2. You say "successfully enforced" - does that mean actual case law? I didn't know there was any about GFDL.
3. How much of a work does a photo infect? If it's in a book, does it infect its own caption? A section? A chapter? The whole book? (This is assuming the GFDL is reprinted in full, credits for photo, etc., per licence.) How much of a book counts as the "work" for these purposes? Is there any case law you know of?
- d.