On 12/1/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Then both licenses should apply. But this is pretty clearly a derivative, not aggregate work.
Aggregate works under the GFDL almost always are derivative works.
In this case yes, it's clearly a derivative, but it's not clear whether or not it's an aggregate (per the definition under the GFDL). There really are no precedents as to what an aggregate is under the GFDL. If mixing images and text into an integrated work is not considered an aggregate under the GFDL, then the majority of Wikipedia's articles which contain images are in violation of the GFDL.
This is not really a can of worms worth opening.
Anthony
On 12/1/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 12/1/06, the wub thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
Much as I hate meaningless fuss over copyright, aren't these comics incorrectly licensed? The text is directly taken from Wikipedia articles
presumably under the GFDL. But the images are licensed as CC-BY-SA, with
no
reference to either the GFDL or fair use.
That aside, they are quite brilliant.
the wub
Presumably text and images under different licenses can be combined to form an aggregate work. Wikipedia articles do this all the time.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l