On the Portland IMC homepage this notice appears: |
"(copyleft) independent media center. all content is free for reprint and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere, for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted by author."
For something to be copyleft no restriction can be placed on who may use the work or for what purpose, only that the freedom to use it and works derived from it be passed on to others. Specifying that items may be only be used for non-commercial purposes contradicts that. Indeed there are quite a number of commercial companies that make money selling copyleft material.
I refer you to the originators of the idea of copyleft
"Free software" does not mean "non-commercial". A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
They refer to "free software" but the idea extends to broader forms of expressions said to be copyleft.
The publish page references the website opencontent.org. If you visit that website and read the licenses there you will find that there are no such restrictions that works be used for noncommercial purposes.
If the Portland IMC wants the default license for material published to its website to be used for only noncommercial purposes then I suggest it remove the references to copyleft from its website so as to avoid confusion. If it is committed to the idea of copyleft then it should remove the noncommercial restriction. Which one it chooses I have no opinion on. I don't mean to attack the Portland IMC in bringing this up, I just mean to point out the inconsistency in their licensing situation.