On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Bryan Tong Minh
<bryan.tongminh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Bryan Tong Minh
<bryan.tongminh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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)
Bryan
I am confused now, because there is a clause called "Incorporation of
the work". I am probably confusing this license with an other, but I
can't remember which.
Bryan
Too answer myself: This was fixed in the 1.3 version of the license.
The 1.2 version read: "Tous les éléments de cette oeuvre doivent
demeurer libres, c'est pourquoi il ne vous est pas permis d'intégrer
les originaux (originels et conséquents) dans une autre oeuvre qui ne
serait pas soumise à cette licence." while the 1.3 one reads
"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." I don't exactly understand the 1.3 version but the 1.2
version is clear that works may only be incorporated in FAL works.