Talk:All rights reversed
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Sorting
editUser:Sn0wflake, why do you think this is a "linguistics" stub rather than a "discordian" one? I believe it is primarily used within the Discordian community. If not that, I'd expect it to be legal if anything - it doesn't really have anything to do with linguistics. DenisMoskowitz 17:06, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
--
If this helps show real world usage, the following statement is on FreeSharing.org:
All information on this site is CopyLeft (K) 2005, All Rights Reversed and considered to be eternally in the public domain for non-profit usage. You may freely use, duplicate or modify any information on this site provided it remains in the public domain.
Feel free to add it to the article if you wish, I'm not very Wiki literate myself.
eb - 2/15/06 - a bit after 5pm.
I think Discordians tend to spell it All Rites Reversed. At least that's how my Principia has it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.250.125 (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Page 75 of the 1970 4th edition uses "all rights reversed". the rites variant appears at the top of the 1979 interview with norton cabal afterword to the loompanics edition. --PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
--
Belle & Sebastian also used the "All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Reversed" on their 1996 debut, Tigermilk. Don't really know if this deserves to be added or not.
Merge with CopyLeft
editMerge - Agree with proposer (though they should have put their reasons here). I agree that this is a far better merge than the previous suggestion to merge with public domain. Use of "All Ri(ght|te)s Reversed" and "(K)" do not appear to be globally consistent enough as discordianist memes, and are used by many others. There is no clear definition of these terms, even on the discordianist site. It does seem to fall entirely within the umbrella of Copyleft. If the split is voted down, then those that voted against it might want to recycle some of the discussion under public domain and add it to the body: I am afraid I don't care enough about this topic to bother.--DewiMorgan 04:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to say Don't Merge. The intent of All Rites Reversed is closer to public domain: it is a disavowment of copyright. The distinction is that to describe something as "public domain" is to assert that nobody has proprietary control, whereas to describe something as "All Rites Reversed" just means that the immediate author does not claim proprietary control. Or some such. Even if "All Rites Reversed" is taken in the same sense as Copyleft (i.e. a statement of copyright with an implicit licensing agreement), then "All Rites Reversed" is functionally the same as public domain. And, now that I've looked at it, good suggestion about the stuff under Talk:Public domain. Thank you. That'll be useful if somebody ever gets around to rewriting this. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 06:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't Merge, for the same reasons as above, and because it would be an extraneous footnote, lost in the copyleft article. It has a culture of its own that predates copyleft, anybody who's interested in it is interested in precisely the info being collected here. --PopeFauveXXIII (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Actual symbol
editWhy isn't the actual symbol represented on the page? --130.132.171.54 (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
add something about the other pun?
editim talking about the "all wrongs reversed" found in tinybasic Natelabs (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)