[Foundation-l] Fwd: [cc-licenses] The FSF On FDL Derivatives

David Gerard dgerard at gmail.com
Wed May 9 22:07:18 UTC 2007

On 09/05/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at 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.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list