[cc-licenses] Compatibility with the Free Art License

Valentin Villenave valentin at villenave.net
Sat Dec 24 14:53:12 EST 2011

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Luis Villa <luis at tieguy.org> wrote:
> Possibly a dumb question, but what are the salient features of
> FAL/LAL? Why would one use it instead of CC-SA?

Well, FAL was born in France slightly before CC licenses. From its
inception, it was meant to rely exclusively on the Berne convention
and therefore virtually apply anywhere in the world without the hassle
of adaptating it to different jurisdictions.

Since it was primarily written by artists for artists, some find it
more suited for an author's mind (if there's such a thing). It does
carry some interesting legal hacks: for instance, the FAL only applies
to _copies_ of the original work (which, granted, doesn't make much
sense in a digital world but think of painters, for example).

Its legalese is much more concise than CC licenses, and I personally
find it quite elegantly written. However, the upmost advantage of FAL
is that there's only _one_ FAL, which is, well, the FAL (fully free as
in free speech, where there's no such thing as "the" CC license --
which doesn't prevent journalists and commenters from referring to CC
licenses in the singular form, notwithstanding free or non-free,
copyleft or non-copyleft differences).

Just for starters.

Cheers (and a merry Grav-Mass to all),

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list