[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] GFDL compatibility of image licenses

Tue Nov 29 11:13:48 UTC 2005

On the wikien list I had written:

> > By the way, this sentence contains at least one common misconception
> > about copyleft.  Images only "become GFDL" if they are released by
> > their copyright holder under the GFDL.  They don't automatically
> > become released under the GFDL.

Someone replied the following (privately, so I'm not sure if ey wants
eir name divulged):

> Well, there is one more case: If the copyright-holder mixes his
> own images with GFDL contents, the result, if distributed, should
> become GFDL, because of the "viral" (or "cascade") effect.

Now that I realize it was a private message I begin to suspect even
more that the person was simply being sarcastic, but since I wasted my
time writing a reply here it is:

No, that is specifically what I'm saying is *not* true (maybe you were
being sarcastic in which case I apologize).

If a copyright holder "mixes his own images with GFDL contents", i.e.
prepares a derivative work derived from GFDL content and his own
images, and does not release the derivative work under the GFDL, then
that copyright holder has committed copyright infringement (barring a
defense such as fair use, at least).  The work is not *automatically*
released under the GFDL.

Like I said, a work can only be released under the GFDL if the author
intentionally grants a license.  If they don't grant such a license,
then there may be an instance of copyright infringement, but there is
no automatic release under the GFDL.  In this regard it is the same as
the GPL.

I just looked for a good description of this in Wikipedia, but I
really can't find one.  Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but Wikipedia
could really use some improvement in this regard.  I was looking for a
detailed description complete with citations from prominent experts
and advocates on different ends of the spectrum (Eben Moglen, RMS,
Bill Gates, etc.).  Anyway, the best I could find was in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft, under "Is copyleft "viral"?":
"Second, even when the included code is substantial enough to warrant
copyright protection, the remaining code will never automatically fall
under a copyleft license. What will happen is that it will not be
legal to distribute the derived work, unless the owner of the
remaining work put it under a compatible license (not necessarily
copyleft). If the work is distributed anyway, that is a simple
copyright violation, and will not affect the license of the work."

Anthony