Really, I'd just like to see Conservapedia have a clearer less unambiguous license, that's it. I don't do parody there, and I generally only edit there if I think I amicably do something that's beneficial for all involved. So I always try to shy away from subjective statements and focus on objective statements. But even that's difficult, so for a while I just stayed away. But the license inconsistencies continue to grate at me, so I'm back.
- Conservapedia:Copyright (originally created as User:Geo.plrd/copyr2)
- Conservapedia:Guidelines#Copying from other sources, an elaboration on commandment #1 (and the noticeboard Conservapedia:Copying)
- Wikipedia copyright
- Conservapedia:General disclaimer "our contribution of information here irrevocably waives any personal claims to copyright that you may have in that information"
- Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia (RationalWiki's response)
- When someone contributes to Wikipedia, they remain the copyright owner for their contributions. Copyright ownership isn't transferred to Wikipedia.
Things to clarify
- Does Conservapedia want to limit or encourage the right to fork? (the license is one of the core things that enables or prevents this)
- To what extent does Conservapedia want to encourage offsite derivative works?
- Corollary: To what extent, and how, does Conservapedia want to be able to prevent other sites from reusing its content? (i.e. to what extent does it consider it "Conservapedia's content" rather than "content owned by the contributors"?)
- To what extent does Conservapedia rely on standard copyright semantics (e.g. relying on others being able to use Conservapedia's articles under fair use), particularly in cases (like fair use) where it's much easier on content users if Conservapedia states exactly what they wish to allow and prohibit.
- To what extent are GFDL and Conservapedia's licenses compatible?
Things I don't care about
- Subjective statements about Wikipedia's license — from a license-clarification standpoint, most of them are irrelevant.
- Any notion that Conservapedia has no choice but to eventually move towards a copyleft license — while copyleft licenses are useful in that Conservapedia seems to want a "more permissive than standard U.S. copyright but with one or two meaningful restrictions" license, and copyleft licenses have already explored many of the problems that Conservapedia's license is now exploring, it's pretty clear they're not going to head that direction.