More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.
-- 16:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- 1 File:Back of the envelope with the "Copyleft (L)" sticker, mailed from Don Hopkins to Richard Stallman in 1984..jpg
File:Back of the envelope with the "Copyleft (L)" sticker, mailed from Don Hopkins to Richard Stallman in 1984..jpg
|File:Back of the envelope with the "Copyleft (L)" sticker, mailed from Don Hopkins to Richard Stallman in 1984..jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.
- File:Front of the envelope with the "Copyleft (L)" sticker, mailed from Don Hopkins to Richard Stallman in 1984..jpg
- File:"Copyleft (L)" sticker, from an envelope mailed from Don Hopkins to Richard Stallman in 1984..jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Well this is bullshit. Why do you think they're copyrighted? Do you not believe what I wrote, that I created and scanned them myself? I am the original author. Why did you delete them so quickly and with no reason, without waiting for me to respond?
Here is the explanation of what happened
Don Hopkins uploaded a scan of the original "Copyleft (L)" sticker and envelope (from the Copyleft talk page)
Feel free to include the illustration or other details I've provided in the article. Since the details I've written here and in the picture description are probably considered "original research", what more do you suggest I do so you can use them in the article?
The envelope contained a 68000 manual that Richard lent to me while I was visiting Tech Square at MIT. I got the sticker in the dealer's room of some random east coast science fiction convention (which RMS also frequents).
Anetode claimed that "Hopkins and Stallman borrowed the term from an occult cultural movement and applied it in a different context to a new form of copyright licensing now referred to as copyleft." -- maybe he considers SciFi fandom to be an "occult cultural movement"? There may be some truth to that...
From the looks of it, I must have had a lot of free time on my hands back then.
I am both disappointed and relieved that St IGNUcius didn't incorporate anything else from that envelope into the mythology of his Free Software Religion, the Church of Emacs.
READ NOTE BEFORE OPENING!
The material contained in this envelope is Copyleft (L) 1984 by an amoeba named "Tom". Any violation of this stringent pact with person or persons who are to remain un-named will void the warantee of every small appliance in your kitchen, and furthermore, you will grow a pimple underneath your fingernail. Breaking the seal shows that you agree to abide by Judith Martin's guidelines concerning the choosing of fresh flowers to be put on the dining room table. Failure to break the seal on a weekday is [...]
Also, here is an email message he sent to me (quite) some time after he received the package. I'm not sure why it took him so long to respond. I don't remember the exact years, but I wrote "1984" on the envelope, and I replied to this message five days later. Maybe the package was sitting around his office for a few years until he finally got around to opening it? Or maybe it just takes him a while to respond sometimes (I have that problem too). You'll have to ask him.
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 86 12:45:28 EDT From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Richard M. Stallman) I figured out what a copyleft is. It's the sort of thing that I put on GNU software and manuals. The left-wing version of the copyright that rightists use to exploit the masses.
Update: Oh, this is just too funny. A negligent Wikipedia editor deleted the images, without bothering to ask me for an explanation to clear up his extremely ironic misunderstanding, because he mistook "All rights reversed" for "All rights reserved", and failed to read the copyright explanation I wrote that said I created the images, and he totally missed the irony of what he did.
We had this exchange on his talk page after he deleted the images:
Copyleft images (from Magog the Ogre's talk page)
What gave you the idea that the files I scanned and uploaded were copyright violations? Did you not believe the explanation that I wrote that I created them? Why did you delete them? And why didn't you wait to hear back from me before deleting them? An explanation would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xardox (talk • contribs) 04:51, November 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. You specifically wrote on the images "All rights reserved." What's more, just because they used the word "copyleft" does not mean that the artist is releasing the images as free in a way compatible with CC-BY-SA, especially given that he used the term before it had its modern meaning. In fact, he seemed to be mostly using the term in jest. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Good lord you are dense.
Specifically the part that says "All rights reversed is a phrase that indicates a release of copyright or a copyleft licensing status. It is a pun on the common copyright disclaimer "All rights reserved", a copyright formality originally required by the Buenos Aires Convention of 1910."
The go back and look at the images and the explanation I wrote. I specifically wrote the phrase "All rights REVERSED", not "All rights RESERVED".
REVERSED: verb, past tense: reversed; past participle: reversed. move backward. "the truck reversed into the back of a bus" synonyms: back, back up, drive back/backward, move back/backward
The word "reversed" has a totally different meaning than the word you mistook it for, "reserved":
RESERVED: adjective, 1. slow to reveal emotion or opinions. "he is a reserved, almost taciturn man" synonyms: reticent, quiet, private, uncommunicative, unforthcoming, undemonstrative, unsociable, formal, constrained, cool, aloof, detached, distant, remote, unapproachable, unfriendly, withdrawn, secretive, silent, taciturn; 2. kept specially for a particular purpose or person. "a reserved seat" synonyms: booked, taken, spoken for, prearranged;
And "the artist" in question is ME. Did you not read the explanation I wrote, that explained quite clearly that I stuck the sticker on the envelope, and that I drew on the envelope? I am the artist in question, who originally created the artwork on the envelope that I sent to Richard Stallman years ago, and that I more recently scanned and uploaded. I already explained that, but you failed to comprehend or believe it. Do you think I am a liar? What is your evidence that I am lying? Can'y you clearly read my name "Don Hopkins" and even most of my address written on the envelope?
All the sticker says is "Copyleft (L)", as you can plainly see. And "Copyleft" is NOT the same as "Copyright", in the same way that "reversed" is not the same as "reserved".
The WORD "Copyleft" is NOT copyrighted. And the phrase "All rights reversed" does not bestow a copyright. In fact it means exactly the OPPOSITE of that. Does the irony of mistakenly claiming that a scan of a "Copyleft" sticker is copyrighted totally escape you? Do you see how totally ridiculous your mistake is? Do you hear a "WHOOSHING" sound? That is the sound of you totally missing the point.
It is a joke, get it??? The phrase "All rights reversed" is commonly used after the term "Copyleft". I guess you have never heard of Richard Stallman or Project Gnu or the Free Software Foundation or Copyleft or anything that the image is about or that I wrote about in the explanation of the rights that I wrote, because all of that went totally over your head. WHOOSH.
So please restore the file, or offer some proof that I am lying.