4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 322:
Line 322: − + +
Conservapedia talk:Commandments (view source)
Revision as of 10:13, March 14, 2007
, 10:13, March 14, 2007→Propose: "Don't copy"
::*"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and
::*"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and
::*"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."
::*"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."
:Now, if you "heavily edit it" than the situation is worse, because the GFDL license all of the above ''and'' requires that the fresh, original material ''also'' be subject to the GFDL ''and'' also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).
:Now, if you "heavily edit it" you actually make the situation '''worse,''' because the GFDL license all of the above ''and'' requires that the fresh, original material ''also'' be subject to the GFDL ''and'' also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).
::All of these remarks ''also'' apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object. However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally ''defying'' the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the blessing of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL actually might take some kind of action. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::All of these remarks ''also'' apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object. However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally ''defying'' the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the blessing of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL actually might take some kind of action. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::P. S. In case it isn't clear, the GFDL and friends carry some ideological baggage. Their main reason for being is to ''allow'' people to provide information that is "free" but to ''preventing'' exactly the situation you're proposing: taking free information, heavily editing it and adding new material to create a fresh, "derivative work," and then claiming that the derivative work is copyright or restricted. The jargon is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer," i.e. free for re-use, not just available without having to pay. It's all associated with Richard L. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation and heavily associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you want to read up on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==