Archive:Should we permit or disallow commercial use of CZ-originated articles?: Difference between revisions
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>DavidGoodman |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Elaborate the reply here. | Elaborate the reply here. | ||
*We are not in competition with WP, nor are we a branch of WP. What we are is a separate but similar project, with the same general goal of producing a free public encyclopedia by community writing and revision, but the specific goal of producing one with controlled expert review. There are good reasons to have both, and therefore they should both be done optimally after their different fashions. We want our project to be as good as possible, so we wish to use good attributed copyright-free material from other sources, subject to our editing and review. We also want to encourage their project to be as good as possible, and therefore want them to use whatever of our material may serve their good purposes, realizing that they will be subject to their processes of editing. [[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (CDT) | |||
= Negative: disallow commercial use = | = Negative: disallow commercial use = | ||
Revision as of 17:07, 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.
Argument: A noncommercial license is incompatible with Wikipedia.
Elaborate the argument here.
Reply: There's no good reason to prefer to let Wikipedia use our articles.
Elaborate the reply here.
- We are not in competition with WP, nor are we a branch of WP. What we are is a separate but similar project, with the same general goal of producing a free public encyclopedia by community writing and revision, but the specific goal of producing one with controlled expert review. There are good reasons to have both, and therefore they should both be done optimally after their different fashions. We want our project to be as good as possible, so we wish to use good attributed copyright-free material from other sources, subject to our editing and review. We also want to encourage their project to be as good as possible, and therefore want them to use whatever of our material may serve their good purposes, realizing that they will be subject to their processes of editing. DavidGoodman 17:07, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
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 1: Then the Citizendium Foundation, too, is profiting on the backs of volunteers.
Elaborate the reply here.