[Commons-l] Is copyleft unfree?

[geni]

On 11/02/2008, Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh at 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