Max Brown wrote:
Bad solution: in this way the license is compatible only with itself.
Actually, it's not. It's compatible with itself, and any license which grants the same rights and only a subset of the restrictions. For example, MIT, or zlib.
However, artworks are different from functional works: the concept of derivative work is not the same (it is not necessary to specify"in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof", because a derivative artwork is a work *based* upon another work:only substantial modifications constitute derivative artworks).
The GPL uses this language because it is intended to apply not only to derivative works, but also to works that aren't derivative but do contain the work.
AIUI from the recurring discussion on debian-legal, a compilation of short stories is not derivative of any of them, but contains all of them. If one were GPLed, the GPL might require the whole book to be GPLed (though it might be argued that the stories are merely aggregated).
The copyleft clause does not require the distributor to grant any rights to anyone receiving the work; it only requires them to grant these rights to someone before redistributing. It's clearly intended to grant rights to the receiver like the GPL does, but that's not what it actually says."Copyleft clause" is simple and clear, imho (I'm not a lawer).