Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎A bit over the top…: revocable license?
Line 6: Line 6:     
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." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:07, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
 
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." [[User:Dpbsmith|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).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:27, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
    
==What about Creative Commons?==
 
==What about Creative Commons?==
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,581

edits

Navigation menu