[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL as a license for documentation: What about derived works?

MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> schrieb:

> =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <frank@debian.org> 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 didn't find it helpful in this case.

>> 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.

Oh, thanks. This is a criterion that can be well used for documentation
(as opposed to the software-centric 

| depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc,
| function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics
| of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

> 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.

Thanks, that also made things clearer to me. It sounds so obvious once
someone said it...

Regards, Frank
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Reply to: