Talk:Share-alike
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Open Access | (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
[edit] Merge into copyleft?
Should this article be merged with Copyleft? 80.177.208.41 21:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think it should be. I've never heard "share-alike" used outside of CC licenses and it seems just to be a synonym for copyleft. I'm putting a merge tag on the article. Nathan J. Yoder 22:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. Someone asked me to make some maps I created, and liscences under {gfdl} up on the creative commons. So I tagged them with the creative commons share-alike liscence. Then I did a little looking around. I had assumed that the two liscenses would be sufficiently compatible that they would be no confusion over releasing the images under both. What I found was that it was not that clear. And I am grateful that there is a separate article on share-alike.
- What I found is that the debian-legal group recommends debian contributors not use cc-sa liscense, at all. They don't consider those liscenses "free".
- My initial understanding is that when I first put the {gfdl} on my images I released a bunch of rights. I don't regret that. And that is a good thing, because, my understanding is, the release of those rights was irrevocable. The rights released under the cc-sa liscenses are also irrevocable.
- The articles point to one another, at the appropriate points, correct? So, if there are really significant differences, as the debian-legal people claim, a merge would result in more confusion, and more work for the editors, than leaving them separate. I don't see any benefit in doing so. -- Geo Swan 15:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- The term “copyleft” is not applicable on non-free licenses such as the CC-BY-SA-NC. -- Sloyment 08:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- How I see it: the term “share-alike” defines a type of license, it is "merely" аn adjective which describes on which terms a work would be shared. Copyleft on the other hand could represent a special mechanism with whom you assure that a work maintains a specific license or copyright. Copyleft is, as its article says, a play on the word, but I would call it a way, a mechanism, maybe even an ideology. I believe that karatekas would use the term "DO" for this. It looks to me that that it can be used as an adjective defining the property of copyright. Anyway, as I understand the terminology: a license could be share-alike, and not conform to the idea of copyleft, and thus not be a copyleft license. If this makes any sense. :-) Biblbroks 01:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree this should be merged into copyleft. That copyleft is sometimes called "share-alike" should then be mentioned in the intro of copyleft. --Gronky (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit]
Anyone know for sure? Thanks! - Richfife 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Individual licenses deserve separate articles
The license tree makes sense as a way to describe how licenses involve a series of options. However many projects, including Wikipedia, license their work under CC-SA and do not use CC-NC-SA. The current articles available about CC licenses (this one, which talks about 'share-alike' but is largely devoted to the CC notion of it, and Creative Commons licenses) are quite confusing for someone who simply wants to understand what a CC-SA license means.
Each license that is in widespread use deserves its own article to make its description completely clear and free of this confusion. –SJ+ 19:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
