Talk:Copyleft

Advertising under "See Also"?

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 69.139.5.241 (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:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=creative+commons&btnG=Search+News

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=magnatune&btnG=Search+News

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)

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

Word play

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)

Missing elements

• Section on the various specific copyleft licenses.
• Link to a list of copyleft licenses
• Article on list of copyleft licenses

-Inowen (nlfte) 19:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Classification of CC BY

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)

Merger proposal

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)

Self-Redirect

The supposed 'Main article' for Viral license (linked at the top of the 'Viral license' section) redirects back to this article. Littlecat456^{💬(here be shitty edits)} 17:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Missing history

I would like to assert that the history section of this article misattributes the origin of the copy left concept and name. It describes both as being conceived in the 1980s, but the first use of the concept was in the 1960s in the Principia Discordia by Greg Hill and Kerry Thornley, albeit spelled differently and using a different symbol: the relevant page said "KOPYLEFT - ALL RITES REVERSED" and was accompanied with a circled K. That history IS included in the Wikipedia article for "All Rights Reversed", but not in this article as it should be. 2001:56A:FCD0:BE00:ADBB:2B9D:30EE:40E2 (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: IFS213-Hacking and Open Source Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katlinbuchanan (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kylezip.

— Assignment last updated by KAN2035117 (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Commercial Copyleft.

There are also commercial copyleft licenses, which differ from the free and open ones in restricting certain use case, but still allow the extension of the code base. In special there is the Server Side Public License from Mongodb and the Open Compensation Token License (fair code license) which is already applied by projects from the German government to optimize public transport. I think it is worthwhile mentioning that there is also commercial copyleft for completeness. 93.201.207.121 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

All copyleft licenses are commercial - as allowing commercial activity is a requirement of a license being free. Such are proprietary licenses that masquerade as copyleft licenses. I don't regard either as notable enough to be worth mentioning, but if those are going to be mentioned, the article must correctly point out that such are proprietary licenses that attempt to exploit the goodwill towards copyleft licenses.Suiseiseki42 (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Disputed Edit

"Therefore, any person utilizing a source licensed under a copyleft license for works they invent is free to choose any other license (or none at all) provided they meet the fair use standard." - the sentence implies that it's common to take a copylefted work and put it under your wanted license, which is wrong - fair use applies to extremely limited situations.

It should be; "Therefore, in extremely limited situations, people utilizing a work licensed under a copyleft license to produce their own works may be able to choose any other license (or no license), provided they meet the fair use standard - although in almost all situations that produce a derivative work, fair use is not applicable and the copyleft license applies." Any problems with that? Suiseiseki42 (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

What is the wording of the cited source? MrOllie (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The cited source is not available, but I really doubt the source says it's fair use to remove the copyleft license and slap your own license on the copyleft work. I have found a source that covers the same topic, which is a better source as it is actually available; https://people.debian.org/~dktrkranz/legal/Understanding%20Open%20Source%20and%20Free%20Software%20Licensing.pdf on pg 2 (187) it says; '“Fair use” allows persons other than the creator to make certain limited uses of the copyrighted material for purposes of commenting upon or criticizing the work, reporting, or teaching related to the copyrighted material'. On pg 2 (188) it says; 'In addition, one additional category of work is held to be non-infringing. A “transformative derivative work” is one that, although based on a copyrighted work, so fundamentally alters it that a new work results. Such a “transformative derivative work” is considered a new work for copyright pur poses, and the holder of the copyright of the work—from which such a “transformative derivative work” is derived—has no rights over', pg 100 (285) it points out that fair use is very limited; "After all, without the privileges granted by the license, the user has no right to use the work except in the very limited manner permitted by fair use" Therefore that would be; 'Therefore, in extremely limited situations, people utilizing a work licensed under a copyleft license in a manner that "so fundamentally alters it that a new work results" may be able to choose any other license (or no license), provided they meet the "transformative derivative work" standard - although in almost all situations, a "transformative derivative work" is not produced and the copyleft license applies.' Suiseiseki42 (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The cited source is a published book, it is clearly available. You should not be changing cited content in the article if you don't know what the cite actually says. MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I finally found a copy - every effort was taken to make the book unavailable. As I knew, it says; "Thus, when an author uses GPL-licensed or LGPL-licensed codes as examples in a book or as references, he (or she) may not have to apply the GPL or LGPL to the book as long as the application falls within the scope of fair use. Under this circumstance, the author can choose a license at his (or her) will, for example, any traditional proprietary copyright license or any CC license for the book." The sentence makes a very different claim to the source - my edit was correct, but I guess I should quote directly from the source - I'll fix that up later. Suiseiseki42 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Suiseiseki42 As I mentioned in the edit summary, I initially clocked this change as suspicious because you mentioned fair use in your summary. This content has nothing to do with fair use, and neither does the (purported) content of this source. But, that aside, there is no support here for the proposition that there are "extremely limited" circumstances in which a copyleft work may be copied and the result may be distributed under a different license. That proposition is just not true.

I think someone with more time should review the recent edits by this editor. There are signs that these are POV edits. lethargilistic (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2026 (UTC)