Difference between revisions of "ShareAlike compatibility analysis: FAL"
(Created page with "The Free Art License (FAL) was published by Copyleft Attitude in 2007. It is a copyright license with a ShareAlike mechanism and an attribution mechanism, and [http://freedomd...")
Revision as of 20:37, 13 June 2014
The Free Art License (FAL) was published by Copyleft Attitude in 2007. It is a copyright license with a ShareAlike mechanism and an attribution mechanism, and it does not violate the definition of Free Cultural Licenses. Thus, it satisfies the minimum criteria for ShareAlike compatibility set forth in our ShareAlike compatibility criteria. Overall, the FAL and BY-SA 4.0 are similar licenses, and the effect of each license as applied to a creative work is largely the same. Inevitably, there are differences between the two licenses, which are explained in more detail below.
Summary of comparison: FAL 1.3 and BY-SA 4.0
- The tone and scope of the licenses differ. The FAL is written more broadly and in general terms, and is designed for use with creative works protected by copyright. BY-SA is written in more specific terms, and is designed for use with creative works as well as material restricted by other rights closely related to copyright, such as databases protected by a sui generis right. Although the FAL licenses only copyright, it does have a provision preventing licensors from using related rights to prevent exercise of the rights granted under the license. BY-SA, on the other hand, contains an open ended definition of Copyright and Similar Rights that are licensed, but expressly excludes certain types of rights from the reach of the license. As to those rights that are licensed, BY-SA requires compliance with its conditions (attribution, ShareAlike) even when those rights, and not copyright, are implicated. As to those that are expressly excluded, the licensor waives and/or cannot assert those rights to interfere with the licensed rights.
- The specific attribution and marking requirements in the two licenses vary slightly. BY-SA has more total necessary elements for proper attribution, though it allows for flexibility depending on the context in which the work is used. Despite having fewer total attribution and marking requirements, the FAL does have some requirements that are not included in BY-SA, such as indicating where the licensed content can be found or how the licensed content was modified.
- The FAL does not expressly address the application of digital rights management (DRM) or other effective technological measures to the licensed content by licensees, while BY-SA explicitly prohibits it.
- Both licenses terminate automatically upon breach, but BY-SA is reinstated automatically if the breach is cured within 30 days of discovery. The FAL does not have an automatic reinstatement mechanism.
- The FAL provides licensees the option to decide which version of the FAL to comply with, regardless of whether the work has been adapted. BY-SA allows licensees to comply with the conditions of the license applied to the adaptation, which could be future (but not previous) versions of BY-SA.
- Note that CC reviewed the English language version of the FAL 1.3 to conduct this analysis.
- The rights expressly excluded from the license are moral rights, publicity, privacy and personality rights, and patent and trademark rights. The waiver and nonassert mentioned in the text apply to all of these rights except patent and trademark rights.