Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateCopyleft is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
September 18, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
January 31, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Advertising under "See Also"?[edit]

Why is Creative Commons listed under "See Also"? This does not directly relate to copyleft at all, and is more like an advertisement for the Creative Commons than anything else (and it certainly does not fit in with the other links there). If you object feel free to change it back, but I'm going to take a bushwhacker to it right now.

And now that I look at it, the same goes for "Magnatune". Let's keep the advertising out, please. -- mjk

I put CC and Magnatune back in. They are both orgs that promote and use copyleft licenses, and are in the external links section. MikeCapone (talk) 08:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just because they promote and use copyleft licenses does not make them relevent to the discussion of what copyleft is (the whole point of the article). If we're putting them under the "See also" links, I suppose that means that we should be putting links to every organization that promotes and uses copyleft licenses under the "See also" links as well, right? --mjk — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, just the really really famous ones — like Creative Commons. They've become nearly as well-known as the FSF of late. Magnatune is less well-known, but more remarkable here for being the best-known company applying copyleft ideas to a the medium of music. Take a look at these Google News searches:
I think they should stay. Deco 06:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agree.SR - RE (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CC use images similar to the copyleft. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Word play[edit]

Can anyone explain or show me a external link explain what word plays in Copyleft? I don't use English as mother tongue and guess that is the double-meaning of "right" in Copyright, right? Anyway, Wikipedia should explain this in the article. Vinhtantran (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right versus left of course. And the implication that copyleft is "leftist" -- i.e. left wing, politically. Xardox (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just that copyright and left is opposite of right sum to copyleft. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing elements[edit]

-Inowen (nlfte) 19:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classification of CC BY[edit]

The classification of CC BY as a Permissive licence is clearly wrong (modern variants of the OGL would probably be a better example). While often presented as an "attribution only" licence this is not carried by the actual licence text nor by the intent of CC. In CC BY 4.0 the relevant terms are in 2(a)(5)(B), earlier versions contain terms that work in a similar manner. This restricts the form and terms on which "adapted material", that is derivatives of the original, can be distributed, so "copyleft" like restrictions. SimonPoole (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose merging Design Science Licence into Copyleft. Design Science Licence is a very short article that overlaps with the coverage of the Design Science Licence in the CopyLeft article. Hmee2 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]