[Foundation-l] An argument for strong copyleft

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
>  I can't tell if we are actually disagreeing about something, or merely
>  talking past each other because of the confusing terminology.

This may be, and I apologize for my part if this is the case.

>  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.

I'm not entirely sure here that just because two documents "augment"
each other that they are somehow violating the idea of "separate and
independent". Ostensibly, if two works are being combined together in
the first place, they augment each other in some way. Just because two
independent works have some sort of synergistic relationship or
emergent value does not mean that they are dependent on one another. I
can have a news article with no pictures, and you can have pictures of
the crime scene, and it would certainly be helpful to put the two
together. However, saying that the two works compliment or augment one
another is not the same as saying that they are dependent on one
another. In the case of our news article and pictures, C can be an
aggregate because the two components can stand apart (even if it's
significantly less helpful to the reader to do so). I guess it all
comes down to trying to define things like "dependent", "independent",
and "inter-dependent". I would venture to guess that works by
different authors which are released under different licenses would
always be "independent".

--Andrew Whitworth