Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Copyleft/archive1

Copyleft
The article is complete, well-structured, and well-written: it explains clearly what copyleft is; how and why it originated; the various forms it takes; and the views of both its opponents and proponents. The writing is of high quality. Sietse 13:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Insufficient references. Johnleemk | Talk 13:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree, i think there are sufficient links for reference, this is more of a concept article than something with verifiable scientific resources. Support Alkivar 23:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I actually read this entire article, and found it to be very informative. Masterhomer 10:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. No references. External links are not enough. I would find it hard to beleive there is nothing in print that covers this.  Also I'm sure there are available legal opinions on the concept.  A reliable external link is acceptable as a reference if it is formatted properly as shown in the link I've just given. That is basically assurance that the author has used the material there for material in the article or to fact check it. Otherwise the link could be entirely for additional informative material for the interested reader.  That is a critical difference. - Taxman 18:42, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Moved to "Former Featured Article Candidates"
End of January 2005 Copyleft was moved from FAC to FFAC. I didn't want to comment here before, because of having largely contributed to the article myself (well, call it false modesty).

Anyway, I thought making it a Featured Article would have been slightly to early. There are still some issues to be sorted out first:
 * Discussions on whether copyleft should be primarily approached from GNU/FSF/RMS/software/license-by-copyright-law approach(es), or primarily from an umbrella approach about the copyleft principle keep popping up (very interesting discussion!)
 * I tried twice to elaborate the example of how Wikipedia tackles the difficult problem of being copyleft for a unique object. Moved the second version (after being removed from the copyleft article) to BDFL, but there also it was removed. This second version of that contribution can now be found here. Still think this example might clarify the copyleft concept: not having been able to find a clear example not relating to wikipedia, the contribution however remains subject to both "self reference" and "original research" objections.
 * ... see above ... e.g. more "source references" might be great!
 * The article is still definitely too long (... I guess resulting from too many attempts of people to make their favourite approach crawl up to the first paragraph - see Talk:copyleft).
 * The short definition (= first paragraph) is still not completely OK -IMHO-, as it seems to exclude copyleft being implemented outside a "license-by-copyright-law" framework...

I plan to contribute to such improvements as much as I can, and promise to relist copyleft as FAC, once I feel at ease most of it has been covered appropriately!

--Francis Schonken 11:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)