Marco Krohn wrote:
On another
front, it is often alleged that _true_ "fair use" of some
non-FDL material (both text and images) _is_ compatible with the FDL.
I might missed that, but what does "true fair use" mean?
The exact law:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
I think by _true_, Brion only means to indicate that a person can't
just hand wave past the 4-part test outlined in the law. Just saying
'fair use' doesn't automatically make it so.
The legal point is that if you really are using something "fairly" as
outlined in the law, then you are on solid legal ground regardless of
the licensing conditions someone may place on the material in
question.
The problem with fair use for us, and the reason I think we should be
conservative about it, is that fair use depends on the _use_ of the
material in a way that may be somewhat inconsistent with the spirit of
GNU-freedom.
Also, the 4-part text is vague.
Here's some excellent reading material:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.ht…
As you read over the case summaries, you'll begin to get a sense of
how puzzling this doctrine can be. It seems that we'd be safer using
movie stills (which are a small portion of the overall work) than
individual photos (which are arguably the entire work) from a photo
shoot. There are lots of quirks like that, and lots of cases that I
think would be hard to predict.
I think it's pretty clearly that there will be lots of cases where
*we* are on solid ground, but where potential re-users of our content
will not be. I think that's problematic.
Both Richard Stallman and Larry Lessig have indicated to me,
informally, that they see no problem with using fair use materials in
GNU FDL licensed materials. They actually seemed puzzled by the
question -- that's my interpretation, of course, and not something
they should be directly held responsible for, if the confusion was
mine!
--Jimbo