Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
571
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 115:
Line 115: + +
Conservapedia talk:Copyright (view source)
Revision as of 15:59, February 6, 2011
, 15:59, February 6, 2011→Creative Commons Attribution 3.0: notes on public domain suggestion
The [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license] is a pretty good one. It's not a [[copyleft]] license like the [[GFDL]] or [[Creative Commons Share-Alike]] licenses, so cumbersome contractual entanglements pertaining to derivative works are avoided. Functionally, it's not all that different from a [[public domain]] license (see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ this page]), except that it's perhaps on firmer legal footing. (There is still some question as to whether a copyright owner is allowed to release his work into the public domain.) I don't think it would be such a bad idea to migrate this site to Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. [[User:NathanLarson|NathanLarson]] 15:33, 1 March 2010 (EST)
The [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license] is a pretty good one. It's not a [[copyleft]] license like the [[GFDL]] or [[Creative Commons Share-Alike]] licenses, so cumbersome contractual entanglements pertaining to derivative works are avoided. Functionally, it's not all that different from a [[public domain]] license (see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ this page]), except that it's perhaps on firmer legal footing. (There is still some question as to whether a copyright owner is allowed to release his work into the public domain.) I don't think it would be such a bad idea to migrate this site to Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. [[User:NathanLarson|NathanLarson]] 15:33, 1 March 2010 (EST)
:NathanLarson et al, I thought you should know that Creative Commons at some point introduced something called CC0. It is a list of waivers, not a license, and it waives not only the copyright but all of the "all rights reserved" which come with copyright (this doesn't include patents or trademarks). If any part of waiver is not legally possible, the unwaivable rights are re-waived in a "public license fallback", and if that doesn't work, you agree to not to pursue any legal action against others regarding the work. I have applied this to my journal/poetry/opinion blog, but in terms of something like Conservapedia, every editor and administrator would have to know that there is no "taking back" of anything other than deleting it from Conservapedia.com, discouraging automatic spidering using ROBOTS.TXT, and asking/requesting/begging people. Also, there is no attribution requirement, so people can claim not only full credit for our work but partial credit as well (they cannot claim anyone here endorses it). For example, those liberal and atheist spammers can take whatever content they want, pervert it into something else, and claim it it was based on real Conservapedia content, so long as they don't say it's approved/endorsed by any of us. Links: [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ|CC0 FAQ] [[http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/|CC0 main link] [http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode|CC0 legal code]. Personally I personally think it would be too much of a hassle to put out press releases on what is and isn't genuine all the time, especially with people like Jon Stewart making fun of us on national TV. I just thought I'd share info on the new CC0 system with NathanLarson and anyone else who happens to read this. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 10:59, 6 February 2011 (EST)
:Thanks, Nathan. The owner of this site is a licensed Attorney and not merely a wiki-lawyer, however. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 19:46, 1 March 2010 (EST)
:Thanks, Nathan. The owner of this site is a licensed Attorney and not merely a wiki-lawyer, however. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 19:46, 1 March 2010 (EST)