On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Daniel Kinzler <daniel(a)brightbyte.de> wrote:
[...]
The only problem I see is with "strongly viral" copyleft licenses other than
the
GFDL - material under such a license would not be usable for other WMF projects.
In fact, it can't even be used on commons really, because text (and pages) on
commons are GFDL, can thus can't use media that requires the entirety of the
work to be under a different license. This is the nasty side effect of mutually
incompatible copyleft licenses - and the stronger the "virality" is, the
more
problematic the incompatibility becomes.
-- Daniel
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
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