Talk:Open Content License

= Additional Citations Needed? =

I removed the two-year-old tag saying that additional citations were needed in the article because I couldn't see where new citations were needed. If you can find any, do let me know and I'll try to fix them. --Sanglorian (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

= Not a copyleft or open content licence =

It just occurred to me that since the first and second sections of this licence forbid commercial copying of the work, it does not meet the definition of copyleft or the narrower definition (the Open Definition) of open content. Unless someone can point out a flaw in my reasoning, I'll remove that text from the wiki after a few days. --Sanglorian (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Broken links to OPL
The two links to the OPL nolonger work. This link presumably shows the original OPL (Version 1.0, July 14, 1998), and this one shows a polished version (v1.0, 8 June 1999 ) which seems to still stand. --K (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The 2nd link is to a different license, with a different article. I'll add archiveurl to the broken links right now. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)