Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / What Livense Does Art on Newgrounds Have if You Dont Click Creative Commons License

What Livense Does Art on Newgrounds Have if You Dont Click Creative Commons License

Post a Comment

Practice of mandating free use in all derivatives of a work

Small letter c turned 180 degrees, surrounded by a single line forming a circle.

Copyleft is the practise of granting the right to freely distribute and modify intellectual property with the requirement that the same rights be preserved in derivative works created from that property.[1] Copyleft in the class of licenses tin be used to maintain copyright atmospheric condition for works ranging from figurer software, to documents, fine art, scientific discoveries and even certain patents.[two] Copyleft is an organisation whereby software or artistic work may be used, modified, and distributed freely on condition that anything derived from it is bound past the same conditions.[3]

Copyleft software licenses are considered protective or reciprocal in dissimilarity with permissive free software licenses,[4] and crave that information necessary for reproducing and modifying the piece of work must be made bachelor to recipients of the software program, or binaries. This information is virtually commonly in the grade of source code files, which usually contain a re-create of the license terms and acknowledge the authors of the code.

Notable copyleft licenses include the GNU General Public License (GPL), originally written by Richard Stallman, which was the get-go software copyleft license to meet extensive use,[5] the Mozilla Public License, the Free Art License[6] and the Artistic Commons share-alike license condition,[7] the final two of which beingness intended for other forms of intellectual and artistic work, such as documents and pictures.

History [edit]

An early utilize of the give-and-take copyleft was in Li-Chen Wang's Palo Alto Tiny Basic's distribution discover "@COPYLEFT ALL WRONGS RESERVED" in June 1976.[viii] [nine] Tiny BASIC was not distributed nether any formal form of copyleft distribution terms, but it was presented in a context where source lawmaking was existence shared and modified. In fact, Wang had before contributed edits to Tiny BASIC Extended before writing his own Basic interpreter.[x] He encouraged others to adapt his source code and publish their adaptions, equally with Roger Rauskolb's version of PATB published in Interface Historic period.[11]

The concept of copyleft was described in Richard Stallman'south GNU Manifesto in 1985, where he wrote:

GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be immune to restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.

Stallman worked a few years earlier on a Lisp interpreter. Symbolics asked to use the Lisp interpreter, and Stallman agreed to supply them with a public domain version of his work. Symbolics extended and improved the Lisp interpreter, but when Stallman wanted access to the improvements that Symbolics had made to his interpreter, Symbolics refused. Stallman then, in 1984, proceeded to work towards eradicating this emerging behavior and culture of proprietary software, which he named software hoarding. This was not the first time Stallman had dealt with proprietary software, but he deemed this interaction a "turning betoken". He justified software sharing, protesting that when sharing, the software online can be copied without the loss of the original piece of work. The software can exist used multiple times without ever being damaged or wearing out.[12] [13]

Every bit Stallman deemed information technology impractical in the short term to eliminate current copyright police and the wrongs he perceived it perpetuated, he decided to work within the framework of existing law; in 1985,[14] he created his ain copyright license, the Emacs General Public License,[15] the first copyleft license. This later on evolved into the GNU Full general Public License, which is now one of the most popular free-software licenses. For the first time a copyright holder had taken steps to ensure that the maximal number of rights be perpetually transferred to a plan's users, no matter what subsequent revisions anyone fabricated to the original program. This original GPL did non grant rights to the public at large, only those who had already received the program; merely it was the best that could be done under existing law.

The new license was not at this fourth dimension given the copyleft characterization.[16] Richard Stallman stated that the utilise of "Copyleft" comes from Don Hopkins, who mailed him a letter in 1984 or 1985, on which was written: "Copyleft – all rights reversed."[16] In the early 1970s, the cocky-published book Principia Discordia contains the notice "Ⓚ All Rites Reversed – reprint what you lot similar" (sic). In the arts, Ray Johnson had earlier coined the term independently as information technology pertained to his making of and distribution of his mixed media imagery in his postal service art and ephemeral gifts, for which he encouraged the making of derivative works. (While the phrase appears briefly every bit (or on) one of his pieces in the 2002 documentary How to Draw a Bunny, Johnson himself is not referenced in the 2001 documentary Revolution OS.)

In French republic, a series of meetings taking place in 2000 under the title "Copyleft Attitude" gave birth to the Free Art License (FAL),[17] theoretically valid in any jurisdiction bound by the Berne Convention and recommended past Stallman's own Complimentary Software Foundation.[eighteen] Soon thereafter, a separate, unrelated initiative in the U.s.a. yielded the Artistic Commons license, available since 2001 in several dissimilar versions (but some of which can be described as copyleft) and more than specifically tailored to U.S. constabulary.

Copyleft principles [edit]

Freedom [edit]

While copyright law gives software authors command over copying, distribution and modification of their works, the goal of copyleft is to requite all users/viewers of the work the freedom to carry out all of these activities. These freedoms (from the Free Software Definition) include:[12] [19]

Freedom 0
the freedom to utilize the work
Liberty 1
the liberty to study the piece of work
Freedom 2
the freedom to copy and share the work with others
Freedom 3
the freedom to modify the work, and the freedom to distribute modified and therefore derivative works

Similar terms are nowadays in the Open Source Definition, a carve up definition that contains similar freedoms. The vast majority of copyleft licenses satisfy both definitions, that of the Free Software Definition and Open up Source Definition.[12] By guaranteeing viewers and users of a work the freedom and permission to reproduce, accommodate, or distribute information technology, copyleft licenses are singled-out from other types of copyright licenses that limit such freedoms.

Reciprocity [edit]

Instead of allowing a work to fall completely into the public domain, where no ownership of copyright is claimed, copyleft allows authors to impose restrictions on the use of their work. I of the master restrictions imposed by copyleft is that derived works must also exist released under a compatible copyleft license.[12]

This is due to the underlying principle of copyleft: that anyone can benefit freely from the previous work of others, simply that any modifications to that work should benefit everyone else as well, and thus must be released under like terms. For this reason, copyleft licenses are also known as reciprocal licenses- whatever modifiers of a copyleft-licensed work are expected to reciprocate the writer'south action of copyleft-licensing the software by also copyleft-licensing any derivatives they might have made. Because of this requirement, copyleft licenses have also been described as "viral" due to their self-perpetuating terms.[twenty]

In add-on to restrictions on copying, copyleft licenses address other possible impediments. They ensure that rights cannot be later revoked, and crave the work and its derivatives to be provided in a class that allows farther modifications to be made. In software, this means requiring that the source code of the derived piece of work be made available together with the software itself.[12]

Economical incentive [edit]

The economical incentives to work on copyleft content can vary. Traditional copyright law is designed to promote progress past providing economic benefits to creators. When choosing to copyleft their piece of work, content creators may seek complementary benefits like recognition from their peers.

In the world of computer programming, copyleft-licensed calculator programs are often created by programmers to fill a need they accept noticed. Such programs are oftentimes published with a copyleft license simply to ensure that subsequent users can as well freely use modified versions of that program. This is especially true for creators who wish to foreclose "open up source hijacking", or the act of reusing open sourced code and then adding actress restrictions to it, an action prevented past copyleft licensing the software. Some creators, like Elastic[21] feel that preventing commercial enterprises from using and and then selling their product under a proprietary license is likewise an incentive.

Furthermore, the open up-source culture of programming has been described every bit a gift culture, where social ability is adamant past an individual's contributions.[22] Contributing to or creating open-source, copyleft-licensed software of high quality tin can lead to contributors gaining valuable feel and tin can lead to future career opportunities.[23]

Copyleft software has economical effects beyond individual creators. The presence of quality copyleft software can force proprietary software developers to increase the quality of their software to compete with free software.[24] This may also have the issue of preventing monopolies in areas dominated by proprietary software. Notwithstanding, contest with proprietary software tin also be a reason to forgo copyleft. The Free Software Foundation recommends that when "widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of costless software,"[25] allowing the code to exist copied and used freely is more important than a copyleft.

Copyleft awarding [edit]

Common practice for using copyleft is to codify the copying terms for a work with a license. Any such license typically includes all the provisions and principles of copyleft within the license's terms. This includes the liberty to use the piece of work, study the work, copy and share the work with others, change the work, and distribute modified versions of that work.

Different similar permissive licenses that also grant these freedoms, copyleft licenses also ensure that any modified versions of a copyleft licensed work must also grant these freedoms. Thus, copyleft licenses have restrictions: that modifications of any copyleft-licensed work must be distributed nether a compatible copyleft scheme and that the distributed modified piece of work must include a means of modifying the piece of work. Under fair employ, however, copyleft licenses may be superseded, only like regular copyrights. Therefore, any person utilizing a copyleft-licensed source for their ain work is free to cull whatsoever other license provided they meet the fair use standard.[26]

Copyleft licenses necessarily brand creative use of relevant rules and laws to enforce their provisions. For example, when using copyright law, those who contribute to a work under copyleft usually must gain, defer or assign copyright holder status. By submitting the copyright of their contributions under a copyleft license, they deliberately surrender some of the rights that commonly follow from copyright, including the right to be the unique distributor of copies of the work.

Some laws used for copyleft licenses vary from one country to some other, and may also be granted in terms that vary from land to land. For example, in some countries information technology is acceptable to sell a software product without warranty, in standard GNU GPL fashion (run across manufactures 11 and 12 of the GNU GPL version 2), while in most European countries it is not permitted for a software benefactor to waive all warranties regarding a sold product. For this reason the extent of such warranties are specified in most European copyleft licenses. Regarding that, see the European Marriage Public Licence EUPL,[27] or the CeCILL license,[28] a license that allows one to use GNU GPL (see article 5 of the EUPL and commodity v.3.four of CeCILL) in combination with a limited warranty (run into article vii and eight of the EUPL and 9 of CeCILL). For projects which will exist run over a network, a variation of the GPL is provided in the Affero General Public License, which ensures that the source lawmaking is available to users of network software.

Types and relation to other licenses [edit]

Free Non-free
Public domain & equivalents Permissive license Copyleft (protective license) Noncommercial license Proprietary license Trade secret
Description Grants all rights Grants use rights, including right to relicense (allows proprietization, license compatibility) Grants utilise rights, forbids proprietization Grants rights for noncommercial employ only. May exist combined with share-akin. Traditional use of copyright; no rights need be granted No information fabricated public
For software PD, Unlicense, CC0 BSD, MIT, Apache GPL, AGPL JRL, AFPL Proprietary software, no public license Private, internal software
For other artistic works PD, CC0 CC-BY CC-By-SA, FAL CC-BY-NC Copyright, no public license Unpublished

Copyleft is a distinguishing characteristic of some free software licenses, while other free-software licenses are not copyleft licenses because they do not require the licensee to distribute derivative works under the same license. At that place is an ongoing fence equally to which course of license provides the greater degree of freedom. This contend hinges on complex issues, such as the definition of liberty and whose freedoms are more than of import: the potential future recipients of a piece of work (freedom from the creation of proprietary software) or but the initial recipient (liberty to create proprietary software). However, the current availability of both types of licenses, copyleft and permissive, allows authors to choose the type that best fits their piece of work.

For documents, art, and other works other than software and code, the Creative Commons share-alike licensing system and GNU's Complimentary Documentation License allows authors to apply limitations to certain sections of their piece of work, exempting some parts of their creation from the full copyleft mechanism. In the case of the GFDL, these limitations include the utilise of invariant sections, which may not be contradistinct by hereafter editors. The initial intention of the GFDL was as a device for supporting the documentation of copylefted software. However, the event is that it can exist used for whatsoever kind of document.

Potent and weak copyleft [edit]

The strength of the copyleft license governing a work is adamant by the extent its provisions can be imposed on all kinds of derived works. Thus, the term "weak copyleft" refers to licenses where not all derived works inherit the copyleft license; whether a derived work inherits or not oft depends on how it was derived.

"Weak copyleft" licenses are often used to create software libraries. This allows other software to link to the library and exist redistributed without the requirement for the linking software to also exist copyleft-licensed. Only changes to the weak-copyleft-licensed software itself become subject area to copyleft provisions of such a license. This allows programs of whatsoever license to exist compiled and linked against copylefted libraries such as glibc and then redistributed without any re-licensing required. The concrete issue of strong vs. weak copyleft has even so to exist tested in court.[29] Free-software licenses that use "weak" copyleft include the GNU Lesser Full general Public License and the Mozilla Public License.

The most well-known free-software license using strong copyleft is the GNU General Public License. A stronger copyleft license is the AGPL, which requires the publishing of the source code for software as a service utilize cases ("encounter also" the term sometimes used, "service as a software substitute [SaaSS]"[30] [31] [32]) e.1000. when software is deployed on servers.[33] The Sybase Open Watcom Public License is one of the strongest copyleft licenses, as this license closes the "individual usage" loophole of the GPL, and requires the publishing of source code in any use case.[34] A final, notable stiff copyleft license is the Design Science License, as information technology can employ to whatever work, non only software or documentation, only likewise literature, artworks, music, photography and video. The Pattern Science License was created by Michael Stutz after he took an interest in applying GNU-style copyleft to non-software works, which subsequently came to exist chosen open content. In the 1990s the DSL was used on music recordings, visual art, and fifty-fifty novels. It is now hosted on the Free Software Foundation website's license listing,[35] simply it is not considered uniform with the GPL by the Free Software Foundation.

Full and fractional copyleft [edit]

"Total" and "partial" copyleft chronicle to another issue. Full copyleft exists when all parts of a piece of work (except the license itself) may just be modified and distributed under the terms of the work'due south copyleft license. Partial copyleft, by contrast, exempts some parts of the work from the copyleft provisions, permitting distribution of some modifications under terms other than the copyleft license, or in some other style does not impose all the principles of copylefting on the piece of work. An case of fractional copyleft is the GPL linking exception made for some software packages.

[edit]

The "share-alike" condition in some licenses imposes the requirement that whatsoever freedom that is granted regarding the original work must be granted on exactly the same or compatible terms in any derived work.

This implies that any copyleft license is automatically a share-alike license but not the other way around, as some share-alike licenses include further restrictions such as prohibiting commercial utilise. Some other restriction is that non anybody wants to share their piece of work and some share-akin agreements crave that the whole body of piece of work be shared, even if the author only wants to share a sure part. The plus side for an author of source code is that any modification to the lawmaking will not only benefit the original creator, but that the author volition exist recognized and hold equal claim over the changed code.[36] Some Creative Eatables licenses are examples of share-akin copyleft licenses.

Permissive licenses [edit]

Permissive software licenses are those that grant users of the software the aforementioned freedoms as copyleft licenses, but practice not require modified versions of that software to besides include those freedoms. They have minimal restrictions on how the software can be used, modified, and redistributed, and are thus not copyleft licenses. Examples of this type of license include the X11 license, Apache license, MIT license and the BSD licenses.

Debate and controversy [edit]

It has been suggested that copyleft became a divisive result in the ideological strife between the Open Source Initiative and the free software motion.[37] Withal, in that location is evidence that copyleft is both accepted and proposed by both parties:

  • Both the OSI and the FSF accept copyleft and non-copyleft licenses in their corresponding lists of accepted licenses.[38] [35]
  • The OSI's original Legal Counsel Lawrence Rosen has written a copyleft license, the Open Software License.
  • The OSI'southward licensing how-to recognises the GPL every bit a "best practice" license.[39]
  • Some of the software programs of the GNU Project are published under non-copyleft licenses.[xl]
  • Stallman himself has endorsed the use of non-copyleft licenses in sure circumstances, most recently in the example of the Ogg Vorbis license modify.[41]

Viral licensing [edit]

Viral license is a pejorative name for copyleft licenses.[42] [43] [44] [45] [46] Information technology originates from the terms 'General Public Virus' or 'GNU Public Virus' (GPV), which dates back to 1990, a year after the GPLv1 was released.[47] [48] [49] The name "viral licenses" refers to the fact that whatsoever works derived from a copyleft piece of work must preserve the copyleft permissions when distributed.

Some BSD License advocates used the term derisively in regards to the GPL's tendency to absorb BSD licensed code without allowing the original BSD work to benefit from information technology, while at the aforementioned fourth dimension promoting itself equally "freer" than other licenses.[50] [51] [52] Microsoft vice-president Craig Mundie remarked, "This viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the intellectual holding of any organization making use of it."[53] In another context, Steve Ballmer declared that code released under GPL is useless to the commercial sector, since it can merely exist used if the resulting surrounding code is licensed under a GPL compatible license, and described it thus as "a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual holding sense to everything it touches".[54]

In response to Microsoft's attacks on the GPL, several prominent free-software developers and advocates released a joint statement supporting the license.[55] According to FSF compliance engineer David Turner, the term "viral license" creates a misunderstanding and a fear of using copylefted free software.[56] While a person tin catch a virus without active action, license conditions take effect upon constructive usage or adoption.[57] David McGowan has also written that there is no reason to believe the GPL could force proprietary software to go costless software, but could "try to enjoin the firm from distributing commercially a program that combined with the GPL'd lawmaking to form a derivative piece of work, and to recover damages for infringement." If the firm "really copied code from a GPL'd program, such a suit would be a perfectly ordinary exclamation of copyright, which most private firms would defend if the shoe were on the other pes."[58] Richard Stallman has described this view with an analogy, saying, "The GPL's domain does not spread past proximity or contact, simply by deliberate inclusion of GPL-covered code in your program. Information technology spreads like a spider plant, non similar a virus."[59]

Popular copyleft licenses, such as the GPL, have a clause allowing components to interact with non-copyleft components every bit long as the communication is abstract[ failed verification ], such every bit executing a control-line tool with a gear up of switches or interacting with a Web server.[60] As a consequence, fifty-fifty if one module of an otherwise non-copyleft production is placed under the GPL, it may still exist legal for other components to communicate with it normally[ description needed ]. This allowed communication may or may non include reusing libraries or routines via dynamic linking – some commentators say information technology does,[61] the FSF asserts it does not and explicitly adds an exception assuasive it in the license for the GNU Classpath re-implementation of the Java library. This ambivalence is an important divergence betwixt the GPL and the LGPL, in that the LGPL specifically allows linking or compiling with the covered work.[62]

Symbol [edit]

© 🄯

Copyleft symbol
In Unicode U+1F12F 🄯 COPYLEFT SYMBOL
Alternative symbol: (É”)
Different from
Different from U+00A9 © COPYRIGHT SIGN

The copyleft symbol is a mirror paradigm of the copyright symbol, ©: a reversed C in a circle. It has no legal status.[63] A 2016 proposal[64] to add the symbol to a time to come version of Unicode was accepted past the Unicode Technical Committee.[65] The code point U+1F12F 🄯 COPYLEFT SYMBOL was added in Unicode 11.[65] [66]

As of 2018,[update] information technology is largely unimplemented in fonts, merely tin be approximated with character U+2184 ↄ LATIN Small-scale Letter of the alphabet REVERSED C or the more widely available character U+0254 É” LATIN SMALL Letter of the alphabet OPEN O betwixt parenthesis (É”) or, if supported by the application or web browser, by combining a reversed c with the character U+20DD ↄ⃝ COMBINING ENCLOSING CIRCLE: ↄ⃝.[67]

For a listing of fonts that include this glyph, come across Unicode fonts#Listing of SMP Unicode fonts and then row "Enclosed Alphanumeric Supplement (173: 1F100–1F1FF)" (This listing is not guaranteed to be current).

See also [edit]

  • List of copyleft software licenses
  • All rights reversed
  • Anti-copyright notice
  • Commercial use of copyleft works
  • Comparison of open source and closed source
  • Copyfraud
  • Copyright
  • Copyright alternatives
  • Artistic Commons licenses
  • Criticism of intellectual property
  • Internet freedom
  • Gratis Art License
  • Gratis content
  • Free Culture movement
  • Free software motion
  • GNU General Public License
  • HESSLA – a license which prohibits uses that violate human rights or add spyware
  • History of complimentary and open-source software
  • Kopimi
  • Open content
  • Open source
  • Opposition to copyright
  • Patentleft
  • Permissive complimentary-software licence
  • Public copyright license
  • Public domain
  • Share-alike
  • Steal This Moving picture

References [edit]

  1. ^ "What is Copyleft?". GNU Projection.
  2. ^ Newman, John (29 Dec 2011). "Copyright and Open Admission at the Bedside". NEJM. 365 (26): 2447–2449. doi:ten.1056/NEJMp1110652. PMID 22204721.
  3. ^ "Scheibner, James --- "What toll liberty (of software)? A guide for Australian legal practitioners on open source licensing" [2017] PrecedentAULA 23; (2017) 139 Precedent 39". classic.austlii.edu.au . Retrieved 27 Nov 2021.
  4. ^ Open Source from a Proprietary Perspective at the Wayback Machine (archive alphabetize)
  5. ^ Stallman, Richard (29 June 2007). "GNU General Public License". GNU Projection . Retrieved 1 May 2017.
  6. ^ "Free Art License 1.3". Copyleft Attitude. Copyleft Attitude. Retrieved six October 2021.
  7. ^ "Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC By-SA 4.0)". Creative Commons. Creative Commons. Retrieved fourteen August 2015.
  8. ^ Wang, Li-Chen (May 1976). "Palo Alto Tiny BASIC". Dr. Dobb'south Journal of Computer Calisthenics & Orthodontia, Running Light Without Overbyte. 1 (5): 12–25. (NB. Source code begins with the following six lines. "TINY Bones FOR INTEL 8080; VERSION 1.0; Past LI-CHEN WANG; 10 JUNE, 1976; @COPYLEFT; ALL WRONGS RESERVED". The June date in the May issue is right. The magazine was behind schedule, the June and July issues were combined to catch upwards.)
  9. ^ Rauskolb, Roger (Dec 1976). "Dr. Wang'south Palo Alto Tiny BASIC". Interface Age. 2 (one): 92–108. (NB. The source code begins with the following nine lines: "TINY Basic FOR INTEL 8080; VERSION ii.0; BY LI-CHEN WANG; MODIFIED AND TRANSLATED TO INTEL MNEMONICS; BY ROGER RAUSKOLB; ten OCTOBER, 1976 ; @COPYLEFT; ALL WRONGS RESERVED")
  10. ^ "Tiny BASIC Extended". Dr. Dobb'south Periodical of Computer Calisthenics & Orthodontia, Running Light Without Overbyte. 1 (2). February 1976.
  11. ^ Rauskolb, Roger (December 1976). "Dr. Wang'southward Palo Alto Tiny BASIC". Interface Age. 2 (1): 92–108. (NB. The source lawmaking begins with the post-obit nine lines: "TINY BASIC FOR INTEL 8080; VERSION 2.0; BY LI-CHEN WANG; MODIFIED AND TRANSLATED TO INTEL MNEMONICS; By ROGER RAUSKOLB; x October, 1976 ; @COPYLEFT; ALL WRONGS RESERVED")
  12. ^ a b c d due east Carver, Brian Due west. (5 April 2005). "Share and Share Alike: Agreement and Enforcing Open up Source and Complimentary Software Licenses". Berkeley Applied science Law Journal. SSRN 1586574. Retrieved 6 February 2012.
  13. ^ Williams, Sam (March 2002). "7". Free as in Freedom – Richard Stallman'due south Crusade for Free Software . O'Reilly Media. ISBN978-0-596-00287-nine.
  14. ^ Moody, Glyn (2002). Rebel Lawmaking. p. 26.
  15. ^ "Emacs Full general Public License". 5 July 2001. Retrieved 23 August 2008.
  16. ^ a b Stallman, Richard (21 January 2008). "Near the GNU Project". Gratuitous Software Foundation. Retrieved 1 May 2017.
  17. ^ "Costless Art License – Frequently Asked Questions". Copyleft Attitude. Copyleft Mental attitude. Retrieved 6 October 2021.
  18. ^ "Licenses". GNU Projection. GNU Project. Retrieved half-dozen Oct 2021. : "Nosotros don't take the position that artistic or amusement works must be free, simply if you desire to make 1 free, we recommend the Costless Art License."
  19. ^ "What is free software?". gnu.org. 30 July 2019. Retrieved 22 July 2020.
  20. ^ Mundie, Craig (3 May 2001). "Prepared Text of Remarks by Craig Mundie, Microsoft Senior Vice President – The Commercial Software Model". New York University Stern School of Business. Archived from the original on 21 June 2005. Retrieved 1 Oct 2009.
  21. ^ The New York Times. Retrieved 23 April 2022
  22. ^ Maher, Marcus (2000). "Open up Source Software: The Success of an Alternative Intellectual Belongings Incentive Paradigm" (PDF). Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Police force Journal. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 May 2014. Retrieved i May 2014.
  23. ^ Sarmah, Harshajit (23 September 2019). "v Reasons Why Contributing To Open Source Projects Helps In Landing A Job". Analytics India Magazine . Retrieved 22 July 2020.
  24. ^ Mustonen, Mikko. "Copyleft - The Economics of Linux and Other Open Source Software" (PDF). Information Economic science and Policy. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 May 2014. Retrieved one May 2014.
  25. ^ "How to choose a license for your own work". Free Software Foundation'due south Licensing and Compliance Lab. Retrieved one May 2017.
  26. ^ Kirk St.Amant & Brian However (2008). "Examining Open Source Software Licenses through the Creative Commons Licensing Model". Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives. Informatics Reference. pp. 382 of 728. ISBN978-one-59140-999-1.
  27. ^ "The EUPL – European Union Public Licence". European Commission. Retrieved 9 Jan 2007.
  28. ^ "Complimentary Software Licensing Agreement CeCILL" (PDF). INRIA. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 August 2010. Retrieved 24 August 2010.
  29. ^ Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz (3 April 2015). "The pregnant of "Copyleft" in EUPL". Joinup.
  30. ^ For some of the philosophy backside the term "SaaSS", run into the "Server Software" section of "How to choose a license for your ain work". GNU Project. twenty Dec 2015. Retrieved 1 May 2017.
  31. ^ Stallman, Richard (18 November 2016). "Who does that server really serve?". GNU Projection. Retrieved 1 May 2017.
  32. ^ "Why the Affero GPL". GNU Projection. 10 May 2015. Retrieved i May 2017.
  33. ^ List of gratis-software licences on the GNU website: "Nosotros recommend that developers consider using the GNU AGPL for any software which volition commonly exist run over a network".
  34. ^ "Various Licenses and Comments about Them - Sybase Open Watcom Public License version 1.0 (#Watcom)". GNU.org. Retrieved 23 December 2015. 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.
  35. ^ a b "Diverse Licenses and Comments most Them". GNU Projection.
  36. ^ Engelfriet, Arnoud (2010). "Choosing an Open Source License". IEEE Software. Athens University of Economic science and Concern. 27: 48–49. doi:ten.1109/MS.2010.5. S2CID 36712745.
  37. ^ Biancuzzi, Federico (30 June 2005). "ESR: "Nosotros Don't Need the GPL Anymore"". ONLamp.com. Archived from the original on 6 March 2018. Retrieved 23 Baronial 2008.
  38. ^ Tiemann, Michael (18 September 2006). "Licenses past Name". Retrieved 23 August 2008.
  39. ^ Raymond, Eric Steven (9 November 2002). "Licensing HOWTO". Retrieved 23 August 2008.
  40. ^ "What the GPLv3 Means for MS-Novell Agreement". Yro.slashdot.org. viii March 2007. Retrieved xiv May 2014.
  41. ^ Stallman, Richard (26 February 2001). "LWN.internet: RMS on the Ogg Vorbis license". Retrieved 23 August 2008. [M]y agreement with the idea of a lax [Ogg/Vorbis] license in this special case is just as businesslike equally my preference for the GPL in well-nigh cases. In both cases it is a affair of how we can attain freedom.
  42. ^ "Microsoft license spurns open source". CNET. CBS Interactive.
  43. ^ "Some rights reserved: the alternatives to copyright". Wired UK.
  44. ^ "Glossary". a2knetwork.org. Archived from the original on 26 Apr 2009.
  45. ^ Jason Greenberg; Daniel Glazer (March 2013). "Inoculating Your Purchase – Contractual Protection from Viral Licenses in M&A Transactions" (PDF). Fried Frank. Association of Corporate Counsel. Retrieved 10 June 2016.
  46. ^ Philip Wood; Amy Ryburn; Allan Yeoman; Andrew Matangi; Steve Nightingale (1 July 2013). "Legal update on Data and Communication Technology – July 2013". Archived from the original on 21 September 2013. Retrieved ten June 2016.
  47. ^ Vixie, Paul (6 March 2006). "Re: Section five.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollover requirement draft". IETF Namedroppers mailing list. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 29 April 2007.
  48. ^ "General Public Virus". Jargon File 2.ii.1. 15 December 1990. Retrieved 29 April 2007.
  49. ^ Hackvän, Stig (September 1999). "Reverse-engineering the GNU Public Virus – Is copyleft too much of a good thing?". Linux Periodical. Archived from the original on 18 July 2011. Retrieved 29 April 2007.
  50. ^ Stewart, Neb (8 October 1998). "Re: propose: 'cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)". Cypherpunks mailing list. Archived from the original on 29 May 2007. Retrieved 29 April 2007.
  51. ^ Buck, Joe (10 October 2000). "Re: Using of parse tree externally". GCC mailing listing. Retrieved 29 April 2007.
  52. ^ Griffis, L. Adrian (15 July 2000). "The GNU Public Virus". Retrieved 29 Apr 2007.
  53. ^ Mundie, Craig (3 May 2001). "Speech communication Transcript – Craig Mundie". New York University Stern School of Business. Archived from the original on 21 June 2005. Retrieved 23 August 2008.
  54. ^ Newbart, Dave (1 June 2001). "Microsoft CEO takes launch break with the Sun-Times". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 15 June 2001. (Internet archive link)
  55. ^ Free Software Leaders Stand Together – via Wikisource.
  56. ^ Byfield, Bruce (29 August 2006). "Information technology Manager'southward Journal: ten Mutual Misunderstandings About the GPL". Retrieved 23 Baronial 2008.
  57. ^ "The license term smorgasbord: copyleft, share-akin, reciprocal, viral, or hereditary? – Luis Villa: Open Law and Strategy". lu.is. 3 February 2012. Retrieved 22 August 2018.
  58. ^ David McGowan (2005). "Legal Aspects of Free and Open Source Software". In Joseph Feller; Brian Fitzgerald; Scott A. Hissam; Karim R. Lakahani (eds.). Perspectives on Gratuitous and Open up Source Software . MIT Printing. p. 382. ISBN978-0-262-06246-half dozen.
  59. ^ Poynder, Richard (21 March 2006). "The Basement Interviews: Freeing the Code". Retrieved five Feb 2010.
  60. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions well-nigh the GNU Licenses". Complimentary Software Foundation. 24 June 2008. Retrieved one May 2017.
  61. ^ Raymond, Eric Steven (9 November 2002). "Licensing HOWTO". Retrieved 21 March 2010.
  62. ^ Stallman, Richard. Why yous shouldn't employ the Lesser GPL for your adjacent library. GNU Project
  63. ^ Hall, Yard. Brent (2008). Open Source Approaches in Spatial Information Handling. Springer. p. 29. Bibcode:2008osas.volume.....H. ISBN9783540748311.
  64. ^ "Proposal to add the Copyleft Symbol to Unicode" (PDF).
  65. ^ a b "Proposed New Characters: Pipeline Tabular array". Unicode Character Proposals. Unicode Consortium. Retrieved 18 April 2017.
  66. ^ "Announcing The Unicode® Standard, Version 11.0". blog.unicode.org . Retrieved 6 June 2018.
  67. ^ "Unicode copyleft enquiry". 6 May 2000.

External links [edit]

  • What is copyleft? – by Richard Stallman
  • Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism – by Richard Stallman

phillipswasseen.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

Post a Comment for "What Livense Does Art on Newgrounds Have if You Dont Click Creative Commons License"