[WikiEN-l] GFDL and images

[Anthony]

On 6/12/07, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/11/07, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Do you have a real-life example where it is impossible for you to
> > > comply with the license?
> >
> > Impossible?  The same example I gave, a 4" square image accompanied by
> > a couple of pages of text.  Impossible?  I'm a starving artist, I can
> > afford to frame a 4" square image, but can't afford the 24" by 24"
> > frame, paper and matboard for the accompanying text.
>
> Who said the license had to be on the picture? I appreciate the
> ridiculous idea, but it isn't very helpful in a discussion.
>
This is actually a common interpretation.  Common enough that RMS has
explicitly disagreed with it:  <blockquote>Someone mentioned the fact
that the GFDL says the work must "include" the license where as the
GPL says that the license must "accompany" the work.  His assumption
was that this distinction had major consequences, but on reflection I
believe it does not make a difference.  A work can consist of multiple
volumes, so the GFDL could be in one volume while the other volume is
as short as you need it to be.

So it seems that you could indeed make a reference card from a
GFDL-covered manual.  You would just have to distribute a little
booklet along with the reference card.  The booklet would include the
license and any invariant sections.</blockquote>

http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.legal/browse_frm/thread/d04e3fc61800f867/5847311e34354d6a

Now, granted, RMS can be just as wrong as the rest of us non-lawyers,
but his argument does seem reasonable.