=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > please point me to an older thread if this has been discussed before, I > didn't find it in the archives.
Did you check http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html first? I'll answer because I doubt the hard-pressed FSF enquiry service will give answers quickly on this discouraged use of GPL. Their FAQ about use for documentation has recently been made worse, I notice. (Also now in sans-serif. Someone send FSF on a typography course.) > 1. The first is whether there are any established criteria by which the > creation of a derived work can be distinguished from mere aggregation. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation is a starting point, if you translate it to documents. I think it depends whether the first work could be replaced with an equivalent without requiring changes to the later one. > [...] Would such a thing be regarded a > derived work, and would therefore a text published under GPL impose > restrictions that would not hold for a text published without a > license, simply in printed form? I think it would be a derived work, but you might not need to satisfy the GPL, the same as you don't need to satisfy a "copyright me, all rights reserved" in some cases. I don't know about your law, but blanket permission to copy a bit for the purpose of commentary is in English law (CDPA Pt1 Ch3). I think the Berne Convention means similar provisions are in most laws, but the exact extent varies. AIUI, the GPL can't override copyright law and it only grants extra permissions. It doesn't take any away. A text published with no licence defaults to "all rights reserved" usually. Hope that helps. I am not a lawyer. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
