Hi, please point me to an older thread if this has been discussed before, I didn't find it in the archives.
Let's assume a piece of technical documentation (standalone, i.e not part of a software package; something like selfhtml or LaTeX's lshort), is licensed under GPL, with an additional text stating what the preferred form for modification is (say, LaTeX or docbook). As I understand it, anybody can take the text and publish it as a printed book, as long as he also prints where the source code can be found (GPL clause 3.b or 3.c). If he creates a derived work - for example by extending each chapter, but keeping the structure and most of the original text - he has to license that under GPL, too (and thus provide the source code). I have two questions 1. The first is whether there are any established criteria by which the creation of a derived work can be distinguished from mere aggregation. I assume that if a book on the technical aspects of computer typesetting would include, as an appendix, a GPL'ed text on typography, this would be only aggregation. At least if typographical questions don't play a role in the rest of the text. But what if there are extensive references to specific parts of the appendix in the text? What if it is a chapter in that book? 2. I fail to find the right technical or juridical terms here, but I guess in most jurisdictions it is allowed to cite other texts, or to publish a book that discusses some text in detail (like interpretation of a poem, or detailed rebuttal of a scientific paper). In such a case, the book would not exist without prior existence of the original text. 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? TIA, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer