Talk:Copyright Policy

Why on Earth would you let people modify your board minutes? That just doesn't make sense. They are a record of what happened at the board meeting - if they are modified, they are no longer the minutes of that board meeting. The same goes for a lot of other publications of the chapter. A blog post stating the chapter's official position on a certain issue, for instance, shouldn't be modified by anyone else because then if wouldn't be the official position.

The introduction to this policy also doesn't make sense - transparency requires that you publish things, it doesn't require that you make them available for re-use. Making content available for re-use, particularly with modifications, is a completely separate issue. --Tango 17:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Some material needs to be produced in a non-editableform, such as board meetings. We certainly don't want modified copies of board meetings floating around. Dougweller 17:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Whilst there is little benefit to openly-licensing minutes, etc (beyond the simplicity of having everything under the same license), surely there is also little harm. If you want to fraudulently misrepresent the view of WMUK or its board, you're going to do that anyway: whether you also happen to be infringing an ND licence at the same time is surely not something that would put you off. Jarry1250 18:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph, Tango: as I said on the mailing list, the harm is publishing private details, not releasing them under a free licence. Copyright licences are not the correct way to ensure Data Protection, nor prevent harm to individuals. Licensing and publication-at-all should be kept as separate issues. Jarry1250 18:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)