Talk:Wikipedia copyright

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Derivative works

"any derivative work must be licensed under the same conditions "

Conservapedia:Copyright doesn't really mention derivative works right now. But is the above implying that derivative works of Conservapedia can be licensed under different conditions than Conservapedia:Copyright? That anyone can get rid of the "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense" clause just by creating a derivative work (even if it's a totally trivial change, such as a semicolon to a comma)? That doesn't seem like that's what's intended.

Or is there some fourth alternative to "license however you want" (public domain, BSD licenses), "license the same way" (copyleft licenses), and standard U.S. copyright (derivative works are mostly prohibited)? --Interiot 15:56, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd support something like the New BSD License, as it is about the length of Conservapedia's current license, is open-source compliant, include a waiver, and something like the "no-endorsement clause" may be of use to a political site. I would not recommend Creative Commons at all (Wikipedia uses it now instead of the GFDL I think), as (like the GFDL) it is maintained by an organization and subject to potential revisions. An often-ignored notable change occurred after Creative Commons 2.5 Share-"Alike", which allows material to be relicensed under licenses the organization approves as "compatible". None have been approved "yet" but their right is still there. You have to read "the legal code" to see this right, and unless you use Google it is impossible to find the "compatible license" link I put here on their page, so what does that tell you? Will they w*&%# out like the FSF did? New BSD License all the way. -danq 18:01, 15 March 2010 (EDT)

Free and unrestricted use for teaching

I'm looking through Conservapedia:Copyright, and I cannot find anywhere in the text that suggests that use of Conservapedia articles for teaching is free and unrestricted. I understand that the policy states that "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution," but reuse is subject to the conditions that "[w]hen material is copied from this site, a link to the page copied is appropriate. This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees or stopping unauthorized copying or mirroring of entire parts of this site." Moreover, there appear to be no explicit special exemptions for teaching use. The last sentence of paragraph one looks like a restriction on the use of Conservapedia content for any purpose, including teaching. Thus, I think that the paragraph should be restored to its previous version. GregG 20:35, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Greg, the clear meaning of the above-quoted language is that Conservapedia does not impose any burdens on reuse for legitimate purposes, including teaching. Wikipedia does.--Andy Schlafly 20:47, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
Is it allowed then to create a mirror of all of Conservapedia (except the images) if the purpose is teaching? GregG 21:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
You would also agree that Conservapedia:Copyright contains no explicit exception to its policy for teaching? GregG 21:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
Greg, I don't know any teachers who use a website mirror to educate. Do you? Your question appears contradictory to me.--Andy Schlafly 21:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
It's just a hypothetical, but a perfectly reasonable one. Teachers may want to have reference copies of Conservapedia to use as textbooks or resourced, much in the same way that classrooms have complete copies of dictionaries, textbooks, and reference books. GregG 21:14, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
Greg, teachers have a full copy available for use here. And teachers can reuse portions without any burdens or restrictions (unlike Wikipedia's 3100+ word license). If you're asking a question beyond those two scenarios, then I don't think the hypothetical has any plausibility, so I'm going to move on to more productive editing now.--Andy Schlafly 21:44, 22 April 2012 (EDT)
Some schools simply do not have the resources to buy computers for each student or high-speed Internet access. For those, an offline copy of Conservapedia or a print version would have a good place in the classroom. Also, nowhere in the license is there an explicit statement that teaching exempts reusers from other conditions of the license. After examining Conservapedia's license, it looks like the requirements are covenants (where the penalty for breach is revocation of the license), rather than conditions (where failure to comply results in the copies/distributions being copyright infringement. You are correct on this point that Conservapedia imposes no conditions on redistribution, merely covenants to not harm Conservapedia or mirror sections or the whole site. GregG 21:53, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Changes to Copyright policy--suggested changes

I like the paragraph in my version better because it makes clearer the distinction between adding a new license and changing the terms of a license.

Conservapedia's policy states in paragraph 5 that "Conservapedia may clarify and amend its copyright from time to time by updating this document here." Therefore, it is possible for the new policy to take away rights already granted. To take a hypothetical situation (and one that I trust would not happen), if a school district wanted to use Conservapedia articles to make a reference book, and Conservapedia did not want this to happen on account of these copies detracting from Conservapedia's site and mission to promote the creation of a Trustworthy Encyclopedia, the presses would have to be shuttered, and if the copies had not already been distributed, they could not be. (This is assuming, of course, that the school district does not get separate licenses from individual contributors, who still hold their copyrights.) Here, a license is revoked at Conservapedia's discretion, which the terms allow. On the other hand, additional permissions could also be granted. For example, if a website wanted to mirror Conservapedia to help diffuse server load or create an offline version for use in areas with limited Internet access, the terms could be changed to explicitly allow this.

Wikipedia's license are irrevocable. However, Wikipedia can change the license that users are required to give Wikipedia when contributing content. Additionally, the entities who write the licenses (the Free Software Foundation and Creative Commons) can write new versions, which may be alternatively applied be reusers, depending on the terms of the original license. In the case of Wikipedia, prior to June 2009, edits were required to be licensed under GFDL version 1.2 or later. GFDL version 1.3 allows reusers to alternatively use CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later for redistribution. After June 15, 2009, contributors are only required to license their content under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Thus, the situation is as follows:

  • For contributions made prior to June 15, 2009, reusers can comply with GFDL version 1.2, GFDL version 1.3 or later, or CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later.
  • For contributions made after June 15, 2009, reusers can comply with CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later.

However, this addition of the CC-BY-SA option did not revoke the GFDL license for content already licensed under GFDL. That is to say, if I have a copy of a Wikipedia article from June 2008 (before the migration), I was allowed to redistribute the article under GFDL version 1.2 or later at the time I received the copy. Today, in April 2012, I can still use GFDL version 1.2 to redistribute my June 2008 copy. Alternatively, I can use CC-BY-SA 3.0 to distribute the June 2008 copy. This is true no matter what has happened to the article in the meantime. However, if I grab a copy of the current Wikipedia article that has been edited since June 2009, I cannot use GFDL, and I never was able to use it, because the post-June 2009 edits were never licensed under GFDL in the first place. This is not a revocation of a license already granted, it is merely a refusal to require contributors to license new content under an old license. I hope this helps clarify the situation.

Also, I have no idea why you readded the sentence "On a wiki it is very cumbersome and nearly impossible to separate contributions prior to a certain date from those after, for most entries." I discussed how this is simply not true on your talk page, and you replied that my commentary was true. I hope that the reinsertion of this sentence was inadvertent and will be removed.

Thank you for your patience in addressing these issues. Copyright is a very complicated subject, and I hope that together we can write an article that best explains to readers the differences between Conservapedia's and Wikipedia's copyright licensing policy. GregG 21:02, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Personal tools