Talk:Share-alike

message: Viral license is just a perjorative term for a share-alike license, so it makes sense to me that they should be merged. --Sanglorian (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge into [[Viral license]]

message: Anyone know for sure?  Thanks! - Richfife 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and No. But to answer your question, yes. Timeshift 17:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Share-alike images legal on Wikipedia? 

message: The license tree makes sense as a way to describe how licenses involve a series of options.  However many projects, including Wikipedia, license their work under CC-SA and do not use CC-NC-SA.  The current articles available about CC licenses (this one, which talks about 'share-alike' but is largely devoted to the CC notion of it, and Creative Commons licenses) are quite confusing for someone who simply wants to understand what a CC-SA license means. 
Each license that is in widespread use deserves its own article to make its description completely clear and free of this confusion. –SJ+ 19:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual licenses deserve separate articles 

message: Don't forget this one: CC SA 1.0 - the abbreviation CC SA is ambiguous - include the BY - K (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  CC SA 

message: Hi folks,
I'm going to change this article so that it discusses all public licences with reciprocal licensing terms, not just the two Creative Commons ShareAlike licences. This is consistent with modern usage (see, for example, the Open Data Handbook: http://opendatahandbook.org/en/glossary.html#term-share-alike-license).
Why? Mainly because a lot of non-free, libre and open licences on Wikipedia are being described as copyleft. However, there is no other article to point them to instead of copyleft, so I'd like to point them here. I would use 'reciprocal licences', but unlike 'share-alike' 'reciprocal' in popular usage refers exclusively to copyleft licences. --Sanglorian (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transitioning to include non-Creative Commons licences 

message: Just wondering? I think it has non-free associations? - Kim Tucker (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, Kim. I think reciprocal in its standard use is libre; Microsoft does have a 'Limited Reciprocal License' but typically 'reciprocal' is synonymous with copyleft. To remove ambiguity, we could use 'reciprocal libre' instead? --Sanglorian (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about "libre share-alike"? - Kim Tucker (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done :) --Sanglorian (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Is "reciprocal" appropriate under Copyleft?

message: Missing: ShareAlike 1.0. I think this retired licence is worthy of mention. --Kim Tucker (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Creative Commons ShareAlike Versions 

message: I deleted following wrong statement. The link used to verify this is dead.
Although CC Attribution-ShareAlike qualifies as copyleft because it is free content, CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike is non-free and therefore not copyleft.Archived version.
Bye. -- 87.151.25.249 (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong statement 

message: So there was one negative reply (Kim Tucker), and I hope the replies address the points raised.  The points raised by Kim should also be kept in mind so that we can clarify them in the merged article.
Given the above replies, do any objections remain?  Any other questions or things to discuss, or should we roll up our sleaves and get it done? Gronky (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to help out however I can, but have never done a merge before, so would be grateful to watch/learn from someone who has. —Luis (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Oh, and, while we're at it, do we nuke viral license? —Luis (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's go with the merge?