[Foundation-l] An argument for strong copyleft

[Anthony]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>  > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>  >  >  >  Being an "aggregation" under the GFDL does not preclude being a
>  >  >  >  "derivative work", so far as I can tell.  Do you disagree with this?
>  >  >
>  >  >  Yes, I do disagree with this.
>  >
>  >  Which is this?  [[Image:Jimbo_and_friends.png]]  What part of the
>  >  definition of the other does it fail?
>
>  I'm not a lawyer, I've read through the GFDL and have formed a general
>  understanding of it. If I had to guess about the specific image you
>  are referencing, I would probably guess that it could be a derivative
>  because the cartoon characters can probably be considered "parody",
>  and can therefore be included as fair use. Barring that, I have no
>  idea and won't venture to speculate on it any further.

Well, it's pretty assuredly a derivative work - in fact it's currently
used as Wikipedia's example of what a derivative work is.  And believe
it or not, all those characters are either GFDL or public domain.

Anyway, I think I figured out the answer to my own question.  It's a
derivative work, and it's not an "Aggregation", because it fails the
"separate" test.

OTOH, that gives me an idea of an image which clearly passes the
"derivative work" test and probably also passes the "Aggregation"
test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WikimediaMosaicCapture.png

A rare case, but only because I wanted the answer to the "derivative
work" test to be so obvious.