[okfn-discuss] Problems of nomenclature

[Rob Myers]

On 05/03/12 19:42, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Chris Sakkas <sanglorian at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As an update on the second half of the discussion, about a term for
>> copyleft-like terms, I've settled on 'share-alike' rather than 'reciprocal'.

The Open Data Handbook says that 'share-alike' is broader than copyleft?

This sounds...interesting...

>> That's because I could find a reference to share-alike that was broader than
>> copyleft (in the Open Data Handbook!) but 'reciprocal licence' seems to have
>> only been used to refer to copyleft licences.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source#Microsoft_Limited_Reciprocal_License_.28Ms-LRL.29
> :-/

"Limited Reciprocal" is like "NonCommercial ShareAlike". If "reciprocal"
is a Microsoft meme then I'm not aware of it being a particularly
successful one?

- Rob.