[Foundation-l] Re: Copyright issues...walking on thin ice

Wed Aug 11 07:20:14 UTC 2004

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:36:53 -0700 "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> 
wrote:

>This is a common misperception, and one that I want to combat every
>chance that I get.  It is perfectly fine to aggregate independent
>works under clause 7 of the GNU FDL.  The sort of aggregation that is
>contemplated by the license is *precisely* of the sort that we do.

I disagree. The pictures and the text are not 'separate and independent 
documents', but have been combined into a single document by placing them on 
a single page in a single lay-out. Clause 7 in my opinion is meant for 
*separate* documents put into a single binding, on a single page, etcetera, 
not for *combining* documents into a single one. Distributing the pictures 
with the text would be clause 7. But we're not. We're embedding the pictures 
*in* the document, which makes it a modified document as per clause 4 (or a 
combined document if the picture itself is GNU FDL).

>It would be perfectly fine *under the terms of the license* for us to
>put any sort of image in an article, for example, images that are
>licensed solely to us, or images that the Foundation itself owns
>(works for hire, say) and simply publishes under default copyright.

I think this is a self-destructive interpretation of the license. Because if 
I can include a picture in this way, then why not text? That would make the 
by some lauded 'viral' aspect of the license just a dead letter - I can just 
use parts of a Wikipedia article, specify which they are and keep those 
under GNU/FDL, then incorporate them into my own copyright work.

Andre Engels