On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:08 PM,
<psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:
On Tue,
Nov 4, 2008 at 1:49 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2)It's taken years to get the FSF to agree to
let us get around one
set of compatibility problems. Switching to FAL means we may end up in
the same situation with a different organisation
Not to mention the uncertainty that arises from the lack of an
aggregration clause in the FAL.
Bryan
What do you mean by "aggregration clause", I fail to understand ? Could
you tell it with other words, please ?
The aggregration clause is a clause in the GFDL that allows you to
combine both GFDL and non-GFDL work into one aggregration. We rely on
this clause to embed non-GFDL images in GFDL text.
The FAL does unlike the GFDL and CC licenses not contain such a clause
and it is undetermined whether you can legally use FAL work in
combination with GFDL or CC licensed work. (AFAIK, IANAL)
Well there is this text in the FAL :
4. INCORPORATION OF THE WORK
Incorporating this work into a larger work that is not subject to the Free
Art License shall not challenge the rights granted by this license.
If the work can no longer be accessed apart from the larger work in which
it is incorporated, then incorporation shall only be allowed under the
condition that the larger work is subject either to the Free Art License
or a compatible license.
As far as I understand it, this this is what you are talking about, isn't
it ?