Axel Boldt wrote:
I guess that's what it all comes down to.
Here's how I would try to
convince a non-technical judge of my interpretation: "Assuming Mr. Toby
is correct, the New York Times could freely take one of Wikipedia's
GFDL images taken by Mr. Mav and use it to illustrate a front page
article of its web version, without any license problems or negative
repercussions. But if they were to include the image into their paper
version, they'd have to license the whole article (newspaper?) under
GFDL. Your honor, isn't that obviously bollocks, isn't the distribution
medium a mere technical detail, since anybody can simply print out the
web version?"
-- "Yes of course, oh eloquent attorney."
This seems to me like a reasonable argument that the NYTimes could make
to allow themselves to use mav's photo on their front page.
They'd have to argue that the front page is a *compilation*.
And if they really did include with mav's photo
everything that they'd need for the GFDL to apply when it's alone
(text of the licence, link to a source that hasn't been smudged, etc),
then I'd be inclined to let them get away with it.
-- Toby