Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Copyleft" in English language version.
Last modified:
Copyleft is a licence term referred to by Creative Commons as share-alike, and sometimes pejoratively as "viral" licensing, which requires those who receive a work under the terms of a particular licence to release any derivative works under the same licence.
TINY BASIC FOR INTEL 8080 VERSION 1.0 BY LI-CHEN WANG 10 JUNE, 1976 @COPYLEFT ALL WRONGS RESERVEDThe June date in the May issue is correct. The magazine was behind schedule – the June and July issues were combined to catch up.
More pejoratively known as 'viral' licences, copyleft licences (the most well-known of which are the GPLv2 and its successor GPLv3) provide that the terms that apply to original OSS are inherited by any subsequent software developed using the original OSS.
The choice of the term says more about Microsoft's view than the rest of it," Hayter said. "I think it's a pejorative and misleading term. To suggest that open-source software is somehow 'viral' is to confuse harm to your customers' machines and data with harm to Microsoft's profits.
Although often highlighted by some free software lawyers, this notion of "strong copyleft" has never been recognized by case law.
Because of this, and in so far linking (even statically) is done for interoperability, does not prejudices the legitimate interests of the rightholder and does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the covered program, it seems that the differentiation between strong and weak copyleft has few legal reality.
Such "copyleft" licensing models – often referred to pejoratively as "viral" licenses – are more likely to affect a company's value and therefore raise significant concerns in M&A transactions.
We recommend that developers consider using the GNU AGPL for any software which will commonly be run over a network.
This is not a free software license. It requires you to publish the source code publicly whenever you 'Deploy' the covered software, and 'Deploy' is defined to include many kinds of private use.
Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL
[M]y agreement with the idea of a lax [Ogg/Vorbis] license in this special case is just as pragmatic as my preference for the GPL in most cases. In both cases it is a matter of how we can attain freedom.
The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code. While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software.
in 1994 rick adams (then president of uunet) handed me a check to found isc and he said "none of that gnu public virus crap, got it?"
This is not a free software license. It requires you to publish the source code publicly whenever you 'Deploy' the covered software, and 'Deploy' is defined to include many kinds of private use.
The choice of the term says more about Microsoft's view than the rest of it," Hayter said. "I think it's a pejorative and misleading term. To suggest that open-source software is somehow 'viral' is to confuse harm to your customers' machines and data with harm to Microsoft's profits.
These licences tend to include a "ShareAlike" caveat, also known somewhat pejoratively as viral licensing, which demands that any derivative works must be licensed identically to the original piece of content.
Copyleft is a licence term referred to by Creative Commons as share-alike, and sometimes pejoratively as "viral" licensing, which requires those who receive a work under the terms of a particular licence to release any derivative works under the same licence.
More pejoratively known as 'viral' licences, copyleft licences (the most well-known of which are the GPLv2 and its successor GPLv3) provide that the terms that apply to original OSS are inherited by any subsequent software developed using the original OSS.
in 1994 rick adams (then president of uunet) handed me a check to found isc and he said "none of that gnu public virus crap, got it?"
These licences tend to include a "ShareAlike" caveat, also known somewhat pejoratively as viral licensing, which demands that any derivative works must be licensed identically to the original piece of content.
