[Foundation-l] An argument for strong copyleft

Anthony wikimail at inbox.org
Tue Apr 8 00:49:00 UTC 2008

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>  >  Most people have no clue what the term "derivative work" means, but I
>  >  would assume that most people who do have a clue would agree that a
>  >  newspaper article which contains both photos and text is a derivative
>  >  work of both the photos and the text.
>  To be honest, I've always considered such a mash-up of objects to be
>  an "Aggregation", which is defined in section 7 of the GFDL. Including
>  a picture with some text, neither of which actually cause the other to
>  be modified, and both of which use different licenses, form a single
>  aggregate document and not a derivative.
Being an "aggregation" under the GFDL does not preclude being a
"derivative work", so far as I can tell.  Do you disagree with this?

More information about the foundation-l mailing list