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