On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote:
My
understanding of the GFDL is that it would be a violation of the license to
create composite work C while including unfree image B. Without obtaining a
free license on image B (or perhaps invoking fair use)
Unless C is an aggregate.
In other words, creating the composite work C would
be a
violation of the license you were granted to use A. So in this case, the
license restrictions on A do "win" since they limit the ways that A may be
combined with other works.
You can only talk about "winning" in this sense if you have two
different licenses present in a composite work. If A and B are both
GFDL, then C is also GFDL. If A is but B isn't, then C can't be
either. The viral clause of A does not supersede the license
restrictions on B. The viral clause only manages to prevent C from
being GFDL, and prevent A from changing to any other license. The
license of B is not affected in any way.
Of course, in general, this may mean you are
forbidden from creating C since
it may be impossible to obtain that free license on B.
Again, unless C is an aggregate.
--Andrew Whitworth