Follow-up Comment #22, task #4371 (project administration):
I'm not a lawyer and it would be interesting to hear it from the FSF, but I am
willing to bet that the problem is the vagueness of the CC-SA in regards to
Collective vs. Derivative works combined with the infectous nature of the
license.
In other words, distributing a GPL'd product in conjunction with materials
under the CC-SA might introduce the "Collective Works" loophole (which the GPL
does not have) into the entire product, which is probably seen as bad at the
FSF. (Does linking a static library to an executable make it a collective
work? What about a dynamic library? etc...)
Whether it is actually seen as bad or not, this would be a violation of the
GPL since it changes/contradicts the terms of the original (GPL) license and
relicensing a copyrighted product is not legal unless all copyright holders
agree.
So the FDL and FAL are not seen as a problem despite their similar infectous
natures, since, even if they are eventually interpreted in a court of law to
extend to the software, they set up essentially the same copyleft terms for
their manuals and/or art as the GPL sets up for software, but in terminology
more appropriate to their mediums. In other words, they do not introduce
anything like the Collective Works loophole and are not seen as introducing
terms which conflict with the GPL.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?func=detailitem&item_id=4371>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
