[Commons-l] Is copyleft unfree?

[para]

Bryan Tong Minh 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.

Goes to show how bad an idea homebrewn or less scrutinized licenses are. 
The original language of the license at 
<http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/> words it differently:

  L' INTEGRATION DE L'OEUVRE.
  Toute intégration de cette oeuvre à un ensemble non soumis à la LAL
  doit assurer l'exercice des libertés conférées par cette licence.

  Si l'oeuvre n'est plus accessible indépendamment de l'ensemble, alors
  l'intégration n'est possible qu'à condition que l'ensemble soit soumis
  à la LAL ou une licence compatible.

It specifically handles the weak copyleft case where the original work 
is integrated into the new work, though independent accessibility is 
ambiguous. When the license says it's subject to French law, does it 
also mean that the official language of the country should be used?