Changes

User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr (view source)

Revision as of 23:21, March 11, 2007

552 bytes added , 23:21, March 11, 2007

comments on copyright

Line 20: Line 20:

If a Creative Commons license will do, then their lawyers have already handled the legalese. [[User:Dpbsmith|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly

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

Changes

User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr (view source)

Revision as of 23:21, March 11, 2007

Navigation menu

Search