Trusted
8,503
edits
Forum:Charity Stories that are TECHNICALLY licensed...: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Charity Stories that are TECHNICALLY licensed... (view source)
Revision as of 17:27, 26 July 2023
, 26 July 2023→Discussion
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
:::I think you can argue that this is what Czech meant in 2017 and that it thereby became standing policy at the time as a result of his ruling — but I think it was successfully left behind, and logically ceased to be policy by the time the clarification that "Rule 2 only applies to DWU concepts" was added to [[T:VS]]. Thus it's no longer standing policy now, just a bad ruling that's since been overwritten. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 15:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC) | :::I think you can argue that this is what Czech meant in 2017 and that it thereby became standing policy at the time as a result of his ruling — but I think it was successfully left behind, and logically ceased to be policy by the time the clarification that "Rule 2 only applies to DWU concepts" was added to [[T:VS]]. Thus it's no longer standing policy now, just a bad ruling that's since been overwritten. [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 15:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
::::I mean, given it was you who [https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/Tardis:Valid_sources?type=revision&diff=3029770&oldid=3029762 changed the policy] in 2020 surely this raises the question, did you intend for this to erase a previous implication of the policy that you were aware of or were you trying to elaborate on the reasoning behind the policy and incidentally retooled it in a way that inadvertently shifted it away from the original intent slightly? What was ''your'' intent here? When you were writing this did you actively intend for "''DWU'' concepts" to refer to DWU '''''concepts''''' ''specifically as a line of text in the policy in a way that disqualifies other forms of IP'', or was it meant as a clarification that we don't care about copyright infringement related to non DW related issues? The paragraph does literally begin: | |||
:However, "''relevant'' copyright holders" is an important word. | |||
The other reading seems deeply plausible to me if we're doing textualist games, which I really wish to avoid. What precisely was your intent here? [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 17:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
