Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎A bit over the top…: further refinement
Line 10: Line 10:     
: 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)
 
: 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)
 +
 +
:: 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 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