Talk:Viral copyright license
Not bad. One down. Now, how do you cover the use of the GPL (clumsily) to cover patents, as at openpatents.org (where 15 so far have been released, mostly in image processing?), or other patent pools run by consortia, corps universities or governments?
Do you want that as a side note here or in "viral patent license" - if so then "viral trademark license" is going to need to be added for symmetry, and discuss things like Java and X/Open and POSIX, which require extensions to the standard to be integrated into the test suites once the consortia agree.
Yeah, there should be some coverage of those things, but maybe not right away. The terms and the culture clearly came out of the free software movement, and so the others should be described in terms of that. For example, openpatents should have its own page, and should simply note that it uses patent licenses with features similar to those found in the GPL, etc. There should probably be some overall IP-licensing discussion that points to various specific pages. Let me think about it. --LDC
This should be merged with copyleft. The claim in the first paragraph, that "other" copyleft licenses are not viral, is wrong. The concept of copyleft is inherently viral, and I don't think there are licenses which are viral but not copyleft. AxelBoldt 01:52 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)
This article was started early in Wikipedia's history, but represents the most invented and poor language I've seen, not to mention POV. good laugh. should probably be deleted. --71.161.220.206 02:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)