4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 39:
Line 39: + +
→AFSC
I'm not quite sure what the point was, then, of going through the business of what is legitimate to copy and under what rules... I could certainly rewrite it, but it would essentially be a rephrasing of what's there, though probably somewhat more concise. That, in the end, seems to be a dodgy way round the copyright rules, since AFSC is the best source on their own work. It seems a worthy subject, suitably encyclopedic, and links to the Religious Society of Friends article to expand it. Let me know when you've considered what I've said here, and if necessary I will rewrite.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:43, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not quite sure what the point was, then, of going through the business of what is legitimate to copy and under what rules... I could certainly rewrite it, but it would essentially be a rephrasing of what's there, though probably somewhat more concise. That, in the end, seems to be a dodgy way round the copyright rules, since AFSC is the best source on their own work. It seems a worthy subject, suitably encyclopedic, and links to the Religious Society of Friends article to expand it. Let me know when you've considered what I've said here, and if necessary I will rewrite.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 14:43, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:The point is that AFSC only permits exact copying of all of the material. If Conservapedia is happy with keeping ''it in its exact present form, exactly as written by AFSC,'' then everything is fine. If Conservapedia wants the page to be open to editing and changing, then it's not fine to use the AFSC article as a starting point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)