On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de wrote: [...]
The only problem I see is with "strongly viral" copyleft licenses other than the GFDL - material under such a license would not be usable for other WMF projects. In fact, it can't even be used on commons really, because text (and pages) on commons are GFDL, can thus can't use media that requires the entirety of the work to be under a different license. This is the nasty side effect of mutually incompatible copyleft licenses - and the stronger the "virality" is, the more problematic the incompatibility becomes.
-- Daniel
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
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