Re: GFDL definition of 'Modified Version'

["Joe Moore" <joemoore@iegrec.org>]

Peter S Galbraith said:
> Joe Moore <joemoore@iegrec.org> wrote:
>> From section 1 of the GFDL:
>>      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.
>>
>> Would emacs20_20.7-13.1_i386.deb fit the definition of "Modified
>> Version" above?  It is clearly a copyrightable work, and it contains
>> the Document (usr/share/emacs/20.7/etc/GNU for example) copied
>> verbatim.
>>
>> If so, section 4 of the GFDL requires that work (the Modified Version
>> ~= the work containing the document or a portion of it) to be
>> distributed under "precisely this license".
>>
>> Debian can not distribute GNU emacs under the GFDL, can it?
>
> No, but that's called bundling of separate works.

Which is specifically _in_cluded in the definition of "Modified Version" in
the GFDL. (work containing the Document or any portion of it)

The other place independant works are mentioned is in section 7,
"AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS".  Assuming emacs20_20.7-13.1_i386.deb
meets the (unclear to me*) requirement that "the copyright
resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights
of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit", the
only result is that the license doesn't apply to other works in the
aggregate.
This would seem to "contaminate other software".  Especially if the Debian
OS were considered a "work", which contains GFDL-licensed text.

--Joe

* I think it means that you can't place a more restrictive license on the
"editorial selection" content of the aggregated works, BICBW.