Share-alike: Difference between revisions
complete article on share-alike issues, including viral license debate (same issue different name)
(#REDIRECT sharealike) |
(complete article on share-alike issues, including viral license debate (same issue different name)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Share-alike''' is a required reintegration clause of several [[parametric license]]s in [[Creative Commons]] and some monolithic ones like [[GFDL]]. It simply means that anyone improving a work must share the improved work with others who wish to use or improve it. | |||
It is a key feature of the [[GPL]] too which applies this principle to [[source code]]. It is sometimes called the '''viral license''' feature (see below) - the fact that accepting the license breeds more acceptance of the license. This is considered very desirable by some and very undesirable by others (who started the [[open source]] movement to oppose the '''share-alike''' requirement. ''See also [[problems with free software and open source models]].'' | |||
The most common '''share-alike''' licenses used are in '''open content''' and in '''free documentation''' efforts, which require such licenses by definition: | |||
*the [[GFDL]], strictly share-alike, no license but the GFDL can apply to any improvements, and there are strict rules about what can go in [[Secondary Section]]s and [[Invariant Section]]s to which asymmetric rules might apply - this license is used at [[Wikipedia]] | |||
*the [[CC-by-sa]] license, quite close to the [[GFDL]] but is incompatible with it. ''Things licensed under the CC regime are not part of the [[GFDL Corpus]].'' This license is used at [[Wikitravel]] | |||
Most efforts use share alike licenses for both code and content, e.g. the '''CC-nc-sa''' license - the closest approximation yet to a [[Green Documentation License]] - is used for [[GetWiki]] code. | |||
''See [[w:Share_Alike]] for a more general introduction linked to other legal topics.'' | |||
--------- | |||
See [[GPL]] and other [[free software]] [[license]]s to understand the details of what is meant by a '''viral license'''. | |||
This term is '''''not well defined'''' and should be avoided. [[Microsoft]] widely uses the term '''viral''' to portray both free software and consortia as being like [[computer virus]] creators, exploiting the confusion. | |||
The term is also sometimes used to imply [[required reintegration]], which is the controversial requirement that [[open source]] objects to in both free software and [[Consortium license]] software. When this is what is being discussed, it is far better to use this more specific term and not "'''viral'''". | |||
Some think they are two separate concerns, but they aren't: [[required reintegration]] *is* a part of making a license viral - without it, new software under new licenses can be produced, thus making the original license not apply, and thus not viral, or "as" viral, as the original. | |||
-------- | |||
[[faction]]al comment: | |||
[[Reds]] prefer [[Free Software]] apparently because everything "has to be free". | |||
[[Golds]] prefer [[Open Source]] apparently so they can exploit the commons without obligation to give back. | |||
[[Trolls]] like sharing, but bite you on the leg if you try to tell them they have to share with you, even if you are doing harm to them. | |||