Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Fair use (was: Static html)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Je Vendredo 30 Majo 2003 03:09, Erik Moeller skribis: I assume you're referring to the row over linking binary-only modules in the Linux kernel. For the uninitiated: The GPL license forbids linking GPL'd code with non-GPL'able code, excluding standard system libraries on non-free operating systems. This is to prevent fake "free" code that in fact is dependant on third-party non-free libraries in order to function. The Free Software Foundation claims that this forbids _any_ linking, including dynamic run-time linking such as is common today in plug-in module/driver architectures. Linus doesn't interpret it this way, and says it's okay to distribute binary-only (non-free, no-source, limited distribution) driver modules that can be linked into the GPL'd Linux kernel at run-time. Coupla notes: * Said modules are distributed by their copyright owners with the supported hardware, not as part of the Linux kernel. * The Linux kernel runs just fine without them. The modules provide additional support for certain hardware only. * Said linking is done at run time on the user's machine; the combined result exists only in memory and is never redistributed. So by analogy "Linus Torvalds style pragmatism" might provide for a third-party filter program that inserts non-FDL images into Wikipedia articles on a reader's computer as they're loaded. ;) But it's real questionable whether it could mean "sure, let's put a whole bunch of stuff that's not compatible with our license directly into our main distribution and embed them directly into pages served from our server. After all, we can tell people to remove them if they can't use them (even though we say it's absolutely vital that we include these images to have a legitimate encyclopedia)." Wonderful. Can't redistribute these under the terms of the GFDL, so can't embed them in articles. This is a greyer area, as such licenses have much the same goals, but may or may not be letter-compatible. There's a fair chance that someone releasing material under such a license would be willing to dual-license if asked. How can these be shown to be distinct from claiming "fair use" on copyrighted material that hasn't given us *any* rights (the default being 'all rights reserved')? Unless one of us is a lawyer familiar with the licenses and laws involved, I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere useful at this point. :) - -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)