[Foundation-l] An argument for strong copyleft

Andrew Whitworth wknight8111 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 8 02:46:38 UTC 2008

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at 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.

--Andrew Whitworth

More information about the foundation-l mailing list