Imran Ghory wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
>For example, if an original (by Dr. X) said
>"Churchill was a pompous windbag that everybody hated.",
>then I might write "Dr. X wrote "Churchill was a pompous
>which is fair use in the context of an encyclopaedia article,
>and release that under the FDL. Then a derivative FDL encyclopaedia
>should be able to shorten it to "Dr. X called Churchill "a pompous
>but that wouldn't be possible if my FDL release classified the quotation
>as an invariant section.
Yes it would be, as Invariance only make a specific
non-modifiable, it does not stop you from deleting the invariant section
and replacing with an equivalent statement.
What is the derivative author's justification
for using the phrase "a pompous windbag"?
Is that fair use of Dr. X? No, the derivative author never read Dr. X.
Is that fair use of my article (that is,
mostly they're making a derivative work of my article under the GFDL,
but at one point they're separately making fair use of my article instead)?
No, because they're not attributing anything to me or commenting on me;
they're attributing things to Dr. X and commenting on Dr. X.
Ultimately, what the heck is the difference between
changing an invariant section
and replacing an invariant section with something very similar,
when the similar replacement is, in actual fact,
based on the invariant section?
If I release something under the GFDL with an invariant section,
I won't take to kindly to it if you alter my invariant section
and then claim that you were really *replacing* my invariant section!