Talk:Archive:Should authors share copyright with the Citizendium Foundation?

Thanks for your work on this, Joseph. I find it quite useful. --Larry Sanger 20:43, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

I'm very glad to be of help, thank you for your nice words. I'll add some more material tomorrow and also bring across relevant stuff into the commercial use discussion.

If there's anything in this article that isn't clear or that needs expansion (or greater brevity:-) please let me know and I'll try to fix it. —Joseph Rushton Wakeling 21:45, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

I think I've covered everything really important now. Does anyone else have comments or suggestions? —Joseph Rushton Wakeling 20:31, 24 March 2007 (CDT)

The section titled "Citizendium does not have the principles or purpose of the Free Software Foundation" really isn't an argument so much as a loose polemic. Can it be reworded with premises and conclusion more clearly stated? --Larry Sanger 09:31, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

I'll see what I can do. Someone else posted that argument and I already reworded the original to try to make it less polemic, more clear about the important issues. I'll see if I can put it better.

The core issue that I can see is that the FSF does not request copyright for its own convenience but as a means of perpetuating programmers' intentions for their work (i.e. that it should be, and remain, free software). That contrasts with some of the reasons proposed for Citizendium requesting copyright.

It might be better put as an extra part of the "reply", to clarify the issue, rather than as a "rebuttal", which it's not, really. —Joseph Rushton Wakeling 15:38, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

OK, I've done a rewrite which I think is an improvement both stylistically and in terms of explaining the issues. It may even include some new arguments previously unvoiced. —Joseph Rushton Wakeling 17:52, 30 March 2007 (CDT)