On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/02/2008, Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongminh@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
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Well, maybe we could try to get as many contributers as possible to accept a clause that explicitly allows integration in a work that is under a Free License? I actually think that a license such as the FAL, but which allows redistribution in combination with any Free Work can have its niche in the license possibilities. (Of course some people interpret the GFDL as such).
I was not the one who originally spotted this btw, it was pointed out to me some months ago in #wikimedia-commons.
Bryan