This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2005 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
Just that copyright and left is opposite of right sum to copyleft. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
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)