444
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2 (view source)
Revision as of 08:21, March 17, 2007
, 08:21, March 17, 2007no edit summary
OK. This may be an absurd example - but there is already some criticism of the legal statement on the front page, and it would be well to be quite clear on this and the retroactive question before posting it. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:07, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
OK. This may be an absurd example - but there is already some criticism of the legal statement on the front page, and it would be well to be quite clear on this and the retroactive question before posting it. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:07, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:i am removing 5. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:41, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:i am removing 5. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:41, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
== Misuse ==
In the clause below there seems to redundancy in the introduction and sub-points.
''
This license can and will be revoked if you misuse content in any way, shape, or form, such as causing harm to Conservpedia or its editors. For the purposes of this section, misuse is defined as;
* Changing information negatively and then citing Conservapedia
* Harming an editor in some way, such as publishing his name with his entries in a way that hurts his employment
* Copying the entire site and using it to confuse potential visitors in some manner (Forking)
* Copying material and then incorporating it into something that claims a new copyright that is asserted back against Conservapedia or an editor
''
The part about causing harm to an editor is duplicated. Might I suggest something like:
This license can and will be revoked if you misuse content in any way. For the purposes of this section, misuse includes;
* Changing information negatively and then citing Conservapedia
* Harming an editor in some way, such as publishing his name with his entries in a way that hurts his employment
* Copying the entire site and using it to confuse potential visitors in some manner (Forking)
* Copying material and then incorporating it into something that claims a new copyright that is asserted back against Conservapedia or an editor
I'm also not clear what the final point, "''Copying material and then incorporating it into something that claims a new copyright that is asserted back against Conservapedia or an editor '' "actually means. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 04:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)