Per Inge Mathisen wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2004, Ricardo Gladwell wrote: > What if you want to read aloud and record FRINGE on an audio tape, or > create an audio play based on (derived from) FRINGE? A transparency clause > like the GFDL has would either prohibit or make this quite difficult. I disagree: in the case you mention above, the transparent copy of FRINGE would be the XML/raw-text, but the transparent copy of an audio play would simply be a copy of the audio information in a format that is in an open standard, i.e. Ogg Vorbis. > For cross-medium (multimedia?) content such as RPGs, I think the new CC > share-alike license seem far more appropriate than anything else, since it > takes into consideration all kinds of mediums, whereas the GPL is specific > for code and FDL specific for written text. The only missing piece is that > the CC-BY-SA does not include any provisions for turning it into code. I agree that the GPL is written primarily with code in mind, but I don't think the CCPL has any major advantages over the GPL. The GPL explicitly states that a copy of the content in the preferred format for modification be made available, whereas the CCPL hints at it: unfortunately, modifiable or transparent copies are not a priority for the CC. What is more, the GPL does all this without the dubious merits of shoving licensor liability onto the licensee and without the need for clauses protecting FSF trademarks. The GPL has been around for decades, whereas the CCPL is relatively new and untested. Finally, the GPL is compatible with a vast commons of free software, which makes the prospect of writing software using rules written under the GPL so much better. To be honest, there are no content licenses out there at present that satisfy all the requirements of free content as the FRPGC define it. The closest is, IMHO, the GPL, but no license is perfect and all are crafted with other priorities other than free content in mind. The CC is, first and foremost, an open-content, not free-content, organisation, and the FSF does not even believe that the freedoms they apply to software should apply to any other form of content :( Now, if the SA-CCPL explictly stated that modifiable copies should always be made available in a open format (i.e. not patent or copyright restrictions) AND was compatible with the GPL then I think I'd be a very happy man. -- Ricardo Gladwell President, Free Roleplaying Community http://www.freeroleplay.org/ president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx