On 10/26/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/26/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that GFDL really doesn't allow that kind of content-mixing. It's more strongly viral than CC-by-SA.
FUD!
From the GFDL v1.2:
- AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS
A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.
Of course you can argue that an image created specifically to illustrate an article, or that an article created specifically to elaborate an image is a derivative rather than an aggregation, there is no difference between the Creating Confusion - * licenses and the GFDL in this respect.
I find the CC licenses to be very explicit and very clear about what constitutes a "collective" work (their equivalent of the GDFL's "aggregate" section) and full of copius examples of what sorts of things would be considered to be that. The GDFL's "aggregate" section doesn't really indicate whether they mean that a final printed page with mixed-licensing materials would be considered an "aggregate" or not, or give any indication of what the real boundary is between "aggregate" and "derivative," in my reading of it. I'd consider that a rather big difference, personally -- clarity can go a long way.
FF