Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wikipedia"
From Conservapedia
(→GFDL issue is dubious: new section) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
=Page archived= | =Page archived= | ||
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 15:15, 21 December 2011 (EST) | [[User:JonM|JonM]] 15:15, 21 December 2011 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == GFDL issue is dubious == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Out of caution, I did not remove the section outright as I planned to do, but I would like to raise this issue on the talk page. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Could someone point me to the specific provisions of the GFDL that '''require''' Wikipedia to continue making content available to the public once it has been published online? If Wikipedia deletes content or otherwise makes it unavailable, I don't see any obligation for them to continue providing texts and attributions required by distribution of that text. Further, the anti-DRM provisions are aimed at reusers who want to deny downstream persons the rights of the GFDL, and I don't think Wikipedia is opposed to sites mirroring deleted content. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 17:11, 22 July 2012 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 21:11, July 22, 2012
Page archived
JonM 15:15, 21 December 2011 (EST)
GFDL issue is dubious
Out of caution, I did not remove the section outright as I planned to do, but I would like to raise this issue on the talk page.
Could someone point me to the specific provisions of the GFDL that require Wikipedia to continue making content available to the public once it has been published online? If Wikipedia deletes content or otherwise makes it unavailable, I don't see any obligation for them to continue providing texts and attributions required by distribution of that text. Further, the anti-DRM provisions are aimed at reusers who want to deny downstream persons the rights of the GFDL, and I don't think Wikipedia is opposed to sites mirroring deleted content. GregG 17:11, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
