Archive:Should we permit or disallow commercial use of CZ-originated articles?: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
More particularly, should we use [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ CC-by-nc,] on the one hand, or [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ CC-by-sa] or [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html GFDL,] on the other, for articles that are not required to be licensed otherwise? For those articles that began life on Wikipedia, we are required to use the GFDL. For articles that make no use of Wikipedia content, we need not use the GFDL. | More particularly, should we use [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ CC-by-nc,] on the one hand, or [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ CC-by-sa] or [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html GFDL,] on the other, for articles that are not required to be licensed otherwise? For those articles that began life on Wikipedia, we are required to use the GFDL. For articles that make no use of Wikipedia content, we need not use the GFDL. | ||
= Affirmative: permit commercial use = | |||
== Argument: Commercial use permits maximum distribution of content. == | |||
Elaborate the argument here. | Elaborate the argument here. | ||
=== Reply: The ''Citizendium'' website ''is'' maximum distribution. === | |||
Elaborate the reply here. | Elaborate the reply here. | ||
= Negative: disallow commercial use = | |||
== Argument: Commercial use would permit people to profit on the backs of volunteers. == | |||
Elaborate the argument here. | Elaborate the argument here. | ||
=== Reply: There is nothing wrong with commercial use. === | |||
Elaborate the reply here. | Elaborate the reply here. | ||
== Argument: If contributors share copyright, the Citizendium Foundation could relicense articles commercially. == | |||
Elaborate the argument here. | Elaborate the argument here. | ||
=== Reply: Then the Citizendium Foundation, too, is profiting on the backs of volunteers. === | |||
Elaborate the reply here. | Elaborate the reply here. | ||
==== Rebuttal: ==== | |||
===== Counter-rebuttal: ===== | |||
Revision as of 11:35, 23 March 2007
Policy argument summary started March 23, 2007
The issue explained neutrally
At issue is the question whether entities may use (some of) our articles, under our standard license, for commercial purposes. There is no question that we do and will always permit noncommercial use of our content.
More particularly, should we use CC-by-nc, on the one hand, or CC-by-sa or GFDL, on the other, for articles that are not required to be licensed otherwise? For those articles that began life on Wikipedia, we are required to use the GFDL. For articles that make no use of Wikipedia content, we need not use the GFDL.
Affirmative: permit commercial use
Argument: Commercial use permits maximum distribution of content.
Elaborate the argument here.
Reply: The Citizendium website is maximum distribution.
Elaborate the reply here.
Negative: disallow commercial use
Argument: Commercial use would permit people to profit on the backs of volunteers.
Elaborate the argument here.
Reply: There is nothing wrong with commercial use.
Elaborate the reply here.
Elaborate the argument here.
Reply: Then the Citizendium Foundation, too, is profiting on the backs of volunteers.
Elaborate the reply here.