On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Bryan Tong Minh
<bryan.tongminh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
How about the Free Art License (FAL)?
<http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/>:
" All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why
you are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and
subsequents) into another work which would not be subject to this
license."
I don't really understand... does this mean that you can't show FAL
work aside GFDL, or does it mean that derivative works are only
allowed under the FAL? Curiously, the FAL does also not contain an
aggregation clause.
Bryan
Darn I knew someone would spot that sooner or latter. I suspect you
are right. Furthermore I suspect that since the FAL lacks an update
clause there is nothing we can do other than blunt force deletion.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Well, maybe we could try to get as many contributers as possible to
accept a clause that explicitly allows integration in a work that is
under a Free License? I actually think that a license such as the FAL,
but which allows redistribution in combination with any Free Work can
have its niche in the license possibilities. (Of course some people
interpret the GFDL as such).
I was not the one who originally spotted this btw, it was pointed out
to me some months ago in #wikimedia-commons.
Bryan