[Foundation-l] An argument for strong copyleft

[Andrew Whitworth]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>  >  >  Being an "aggregation" under the GFDL does not preclude being a
>  >  >  "derivative work", so far as I can tell.  Do you disagree with this?
>  >
>  >  Yes, I do disagree with this.
>
>  Which is this?  [[Image:Jimbo_and_friends.png]]  What part of the
>  definition of the other does it fail?

I'm not a lawyer, I've read through the GFDL and have formed a general
understanding of it. If I had to guess about the specific image you
are referencing, I would probably guess that it could be a derivative
because the cartoon characters can probably be considered "parody",
and can therefore be included as fair use. Barring that, I have no
idea and won't venture to speculate on it any further. Some general
relationships that are spelled out in the GFDL:

1) GFDL document   GFDL modifications = GFDL Document (derivative)
2) GFDL document   GFDL document = GFDL Document (collection)
3) GFDL document   Non-GFDL document = Non-GFDL document (aggregate).

I may certainly be wrong on this, I would like to hear from a lawyer
before I talk about it any further.

--Andrew Whitworth