User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr

A bit over the top…

IMO, this should not threaten legal action. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 10:54, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I think a policy is needed, so I think this is appropriate. I agree with Geekman314 Geo.plrd, if you're not actually a lawyer... specifically an intellectual property lawyer... these are deep waters. You might as well just as well make this a plain statement of policy and leave out the legalese. Is it a contract? Is it not a contract? Who knows? It probably isn't a contract just because you say it is, and it quite likely could be a contract even if you don't say it is. In other words, lose parts I and VI.

Otherwise it looks pretty reasonable, although I'm not sure what you have in mind when you say "You may only use the necessary amount of content for your purpose." Dpbsmith 11:07, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Geo, your draft is a splendid piece of work! I wonder if this is too restrictive, however. Do we need to require attribution? I suggest deleting Part III points 1 and 2 concerning attribution. I'd like to relax point 5 also.

Maybe we should grant a revocable license to use anything and everything, anyway anyone wants, while reserving the right to revoke that grant if something unforeseen and improper happens (like wholesale copying in a way that confuses or interferes).--Aschlafly 18:27, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

In furtherance on my suggestion above, how about something like this: a revocable, non-exclusive license to copy and reuse without attribution; revocation would occur only in the rare instance of protecting Conservapedia or its editors against harm. Such a license would be broader than Wikipedia's because it would free users from the need to give attribution, which can be a burden.--Aschlafly 23:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about Creative Commons?

The chief question I have is whether this entire area might not be covered better by one of the Creative Common licenses. I am not a free licensing maven at all, but I'm thinking the intent of what you've written is pretty close to cc-by-nc-nd, i.e. must be attributed; no commercial use; no derivative work (i.e. cannot be changed).

However, that does not include points 3, You may not use content to defame, libel, or slander another, or to perpertuate a libel, defamation, or slander, or 4, You may not alter content to discredit Conservapedia, or in a way not harmonious with its mission." Still, if you can't alter the content period, that would take care of point 4, and if the unaltered content is actually libellous or slander then Conservapedia has a problem anyway.

See http://creativecommons.org/license/

If a Creative Commons license will do, then their lawyers have already handled the legalese. Dpbsmith 11:07, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The Creative Commons seems close to what we need, but why require attribution? Also, conservatives dislike the concept of "public ownership". It seems the better approach might be a revocable, completely free license.--Aschlafly 19:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Free licensing

Again, IMO, it should simply be free licensing, that is all. The apparent restriction of content from Conservapedia, people ranting about how "they own the copyright to their work", strongly repels me. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 19:09, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Linus, whom are you quoting here? I haven't heard anyone say that in our entire discussion of this. My comments have been that we should be less restrictive (e.g., more free) than the Wikipedia license is.--Aschlafly 19:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)