"If it's not KopyLeft, it's not Discordian"

[Phineas T. Poxwattle]

interesting reading I actually hadn't seen before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

However, Anne Rice does not put her stuff into the public domain. In fact, she gives explicit restrictions on what would otherwise be part of fair use (Anne Rice fanfiction is not allowed, for instance).

If you put something into the public domain, it is public domain. I may not be able to credit a book full of dongs to Hoopla, but I can probably do it to Lewis Carrol because he's been dead for over a century and doesn't really give a fuck. Copyright law is not deeply intertwingled with restrictions on libel in this case.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

interesting reading I actually hadn't seen before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

Yes, good stuff there. Copyleft is a reference to open licenses... Kopyleft is a Discordian uh... thing.

[hooplala]

For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.

[AFK]

However, Anne Rice does not put her stuff into the public domain. In fact, she gives explicit restrictions on what would otherwise be part of fair use (Anne Rice fanfiction is not allowed, for instance).

If you put something into the public domain, it is public domain. I may not be able to credit a book full of dongs to Hoopla, but I can probably do it to Lewis Carrol because he's been dead for over a century and doesn't really give a fuck. Copyright law is not deeply intertwingled with restrictions on libel in this case.

You are taking my example too literally.  I thought it was understood that I was supposing the two's material were in the public domain.  It was just a little bit of make believe to make a point.  

[Phineas T. Poxwattle]

For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.

cool. It's your stuff, it's your right. 
please update your first post in the Kopyleft Author thread, because that's the first thing (and sometimes only thing) people check when they're putting together a PDF which contains others' work.

Note that it'll be problematic to un-kopyleft and re-protect the stuff already published in Intermittens.

[hooplala]

For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.

cool. It's your stuff, it's your right. 
please update your first post in the Kopyleft Author thread, because that's the first thing (and sometimes only thing) people check when they're putting together a PDF which contains others' work.

Note that it'll be problematic to un-kopyleft and re-protect the stuff already published in Intermittens.

Done.

And, I will have to put a great deal of thought into my future involvement with Intermittens.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Keep in mind that NONE of Bahweeds stuff is Kopyleft. Kopyleft is NOT REAL in any sense except the sense that Discordians choose to use it in. We don't have to 'go back' to fix anything, because there is nothing to fix. Intermittens content is legally Copyright of its authors.

[LMNO]

If it's any consolation, most people are too lazy to totally fuck up another person's piece of writing.


That said,

For future reference, my stuff is NOT kopyleft anymore.

Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes. , Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes. (Dongs.  Dildoes.) Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes.

Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes-Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes. Dongs.  Dildoes.

[Phineas T. Poxwattle]

DAMN YOU LMNO, DAMN YOU!!
MY WORK WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE PERVERTED LIKE THAT

 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Keep in mind that NONE of Bahweeds stuff is Kopyleft. Kopyleft is NOT REAL in any sense except the sense that Discordians choose to use it in. We don't have to 'go back' to fix anything, because there is nothing to fix. Intermittens content is legally Copyright of its authors.

Though we could add the PD.com addendum:

"This material is Kopyleft, unless you are an asshole."

[hooplala]

That's more like it.   

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

That's more like it.   

Ah good. That is just as 'legal' as Kopyleft

[LMNO]

Keep in mind that NONE of Bahweeds stuff is Kopyleft. Kopyleft is NOT REAL in any sense except the sense that Discordians choose to use it in. We don't have to 'go back' to fix anything, because there is nothing to fix. Intermittens content is legally Copyright of its authors.

Though we could add the PD.com addendum:

"This material is Kopyleft, unless you are an asshole."

That is 107% win.

[Phineas T. Poxwattle]

from the wikipedia entry:

Copyleft is a form of licensing and can be used to modify copyrights for works such as computer software, documents, music and art. In general, copyright law allows an author to prohibit others from reproducing, adapting, or distributing copies of the author's work. In contrast, an author may, through a copyleft licensing scheme, give every person who receives a copy of a work permission to reproduce, adapt or distribute the work as long as any resulting copies or adaptations are also bound by the same copyleft licensing scheme. A widely used and originating copyleft license is the GNU General Public License. Similar licenses are available through Creative Commons—called Share-alike.

Copyleft can also be characterized as a copyright licensing scheme in which an author surrenders some but not all rights under copyright law. Instead of allowing a work to fall completely into the public domain (where no copyright restrictions are imposed), copyleft allows an author to impose some, but not all, copyright restrictions on those who want to engage in activities that would otherwise be considered copyright infringement. Under copyleft, copyright infringement can be avoided if the would-be infringer perpetuates the same copyleft scheme. For this reason copyleft licenses are also known as "reciprocal" licenses.

While copyright law protects the rights of the creator by providing control of distribution and modification, the idea of copyleft is to grant subjective libre freedom to end users. Copyleft licenses specify clauses which explicity remove those restrictions the creator considers to not provide libre freedom to the end user.

So they're saying that the GNU GPL, Creative Commons, Share-Alike, etc, are all a type of Copyleft.
Framed like that, merely saying that your work is Kopyleft is meaningless because you haven't specified which rights you're protecting by naming a specific license.

How does this jibe with the note at the beginning of Intermittens which says

All content (unless otherwise marked) is from / for the public domain.

?