On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
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.
I can't tell if we are actually disagreeing about something, or merely
talking past each other because of the confusing terminology. My assumption
is that C is a composite inter-dependent work where A and B augment each
other. Hence C cannot be an aggregate since it would violate the "separate
and independent" clause. Therefore creating C is forbidden unless the
copyright holder of B grants you a free license.
-Robert