Shouldn't there be a license category added to this template just like most other license templates have ? -- Denniss 22:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
If no rights are reserved, then it isn't really copyrighted is it? Isn't this the same as releasing it into the public domain? -- Pmsyyz 08:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I would think that in some cases there is a difference, for example in some countries you might only be able to claim authorship if it is copyrighted, even if you give up all other rights. Although in the UK at least, the moral right to assert authorship is separate from copyright. Unless we have an offical legal opinion from the Foundation that giving up all rights to a work is legally the same as putting it in the public domain, I think we still have to use this to avoid potential snafus. (As ever, IANAL.) Hairy Dude 16:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there a difference at all, apart from No_rights_reserved trying harder to explain what it means? — Bromskloss 15:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to say that this template really expresses a nice attitude. It starts out forcefully, stating, in boldface, that the work is someones property, it's copyrighted… This is mine, I have all rights to it, and I have the right to decide any conditions of use of it in any way it pleases me. I decide that you may do anything you want with it, use it precisely as you see fit, and there is nothing whatsoever you can do about it! Amusing. :-) — Bromskloss 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Could there be an uncopyrighted symbol along with the green symbol or omit the green symbol since the category would be for stuff in the public domain? Pronoun 14:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a contradictionary. I don't like this license tag. If it is copyrighted, then it is not suitable for wikipedia, unless under the term of fair use. This template is prone to be abused. — Indon ( reply) — 16:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Legally, there is no difference between this license template and Template:PD-release. Both renounce all rights to the work. Whether it is called "public domain" or "copyrighted" makes no difference. If all rights are renounced, the licensing status is legally equivalent no matter what jurisdiction you're talking about. Whether or not it is actually possible to renouce all rights is immaterial. We don't need one template for people who believe it is possible and another template for people who don't. That only servers to confuse people, as evidenced by the hundreds of images that now using both templates, which is a waste of bandwidth and processing power. This template should be merged with Template:PD-release. Kaldari 17:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
In case there is confusion, "public domain" is not a magical legal term. It simply means works for which no rights are reserved, which is exactly what this template describes. Kaldari 17:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)