[[Conservapedia:Copyright]] and [[Wikipedia copyright]] are interesting.  In my view, copyleft
licenses have done a lot of the "dirty ground work" in figuring out how a
mostly-free-but-with-a-few-reistrictions license can work.  I fully understand that Conservapedia
wants to take its own path, but that runs the risk of running into the exact same problems that
copyleft licenses have already run into and solved before.



This still needs to be added at [[Talk:Wikipedia copyright]]  (bah, time-based editing restrictions)

    == Derivative work ==
    To compare Wikipedia's license with Conservapedia's, the page says:
    :"any derivative work must be licensed under the same conditions"
    Does that imply that Conservapedia's license is different, that derivative works can use ''any'' license?  That would mean that someone could republish Conservapedia articles with the "revocable only in very rare..." clause removed, even if they made a trivial change, such as changing a semicolon to a comma.  That doesn't seem like it's something that's intended.  Or is there a third alternative to "license the same" and "license however you want"?  --~~~~ 



In the interest of maintaining a civil conversation, and not dumping all the issues on them at once,
some issues that still have to be discussed include:


    - [[Wikipedia copyright]] Authors always remain free to copy their own work, but cannot copy work that has been edited
      by others unless they comply fully with the requirements of the 3,289-word GFDL. 
    - [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] Conservapedia grants a NON-EXCLUSIVE license to you to use any of
      the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution.

            Unless Conservapedia is arranging this to be a [[w:work for hire]] or some other kind of
            copyright transfer, then it's not possible for Conservapedia to grant an exclusive
            license.

            Also, the "authors remain free to copy their own work" sounds really odd, since, even in
            their most simplified form, that's the very thing that copyright laws guarantee.

            Conservapedia needs to understand the difference between *copyright* and *license* (only
            one person can grant copyright rights, but many people may be able to grant license
            rights).


== References ==

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-c.html


- joint work
    http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/copyright/ownership.html
    http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/Litigation/Think_You_Are_A_Co-Owner_Of_A_Copyright_06-16-08.pdf


- license vs contract
    http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/