[cc-licenses] The FSF On FDL Derivatives
dana.powers at gmail.com
Fri May 11 15:09:17 EDT 2007
>From the FDL:
A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the
Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with
modifications and/or translated into another language.
Section 4 of the FDL allows copying and distributing Modified Versions
using what CC would call a Share-Alike condition.
A lawyer could probably pick this apart ("work" ? "contain" ?), but
the intent seems to be clearly directed at compilations and collective
works like the photograph+article structure.
On 5/10/07, Wolfgang Wander <wwcsmail at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the update Rob,
> this is perfect news. Since the discussion about the editorial combination
> of images and text with regards to CC-by-SA I've not published another single
> image under a free license and worked to educate people about CC's
> of CC-by-SA. The FSF's clarification was exactly what I was waiting
> for and this
> will surely mean more material for wikimedia from me and my friends.
> Given the GPL and it's use in free software development any other statement
> from the FSF would have been very unexpected, yet this clarification is a relief
> after all that waiting...
> On 5/9/07, rob at robmyers.org <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> > (I'm posting this here because of the recent debate about photography.)
> > The FSF have blogged about their interpretation of the scope of the FDL:
> > http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-05-08-fdl-scope
> > They support the position that Ben Mako Hill described, where use of
> > an image to illustrate a text creates a derivative. It's well worth a
> > read.
> > I was particularly interested by this statement:
> > "In cases like these where the materials complement each other, we
> > believe that the end result is a derivative work."
> > This contains two useful distinctions. The materials have been chosen
> > to complement each other to form a unit of presumably increased value
> > or greater use rather than just being aggregated. And *the end result*
> > is the derivative work, not the text or the photo, so legal causality
> > isn't broken.
> > What I am curious about is what exactly this "end result" is
> > (collective work, new multimedia work, or ...?) and how far-reaching
> > this effect is (particularly with regard to e.g. contextual
> > advertising).
> > - Rob.
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the cc-licenses