[Foundation-l] An argument for strong copyleft

[Robert Rohde]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.



I can't tell if we are actually disagreeing about something, or merely
talking past each other because of the confusing terminology.  My assumption
is that C is a composite inter-dependent work where A and B augment each
other.  Hence C cannot be an aggregate since it would violate the "separate
and independent" clause.  Therefore creating C is forbidden unless the
copyright holder of B grants you a free license.

-Robert