[freeroleplay] Re: Descriptive vs. Proscriptive, frpgc.org vs. freeroleplay.org

  • From: "Mark Havenner" <laveaux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:29:45 -0600

I've camped at your site for a few months, ever since I officially launched
my game system. I haven't really participated because I saw that my license
may not be compatible with the community. I definitely salute the vision and
purpose of this community and would very much like to be a part of it and
plug in all of my gaming resources, however strict qualifications on what is
considered 'free' may make my participation (and others like me)
prohibitive.

I believe the overall community would benefit from not being exclusive.
Although I may see weaknesses in CC, it is too late to alter it in this
current version and that may exclude my game from the community.
Additionally, I see benefits to using CC over other existing open licenses
because of its own community, distribution channels, and market share and
these reasons may outweigh the approach it takes on open content philosophy.

Perhaps the community can focus on all open content RPGs (as the name
implies), but provide additional support for game-makers to choose licenses.
Although the community may not necessarily determine what licenses are used,
they can certainly advise, help, and support licenses. Had I seen this
discussion before my version 2 release, I would likely have reconsidered CC
- or at least looked at it closer.

I'm not sure I see the benefit of restricting what licenses the community
supports if the intent is for open content (albeit different definitions of
what is 'open'). There could be more strength pooled in the idea of open
content itself allowing efforts for the real battle: reducing proprietary
content (or at least making a substantial alternative). Challenging
different open content licenses may be a misdirection (IMHO). Advising the
pros and cons of various licenses, however, would be a very worthwhile
service.

-----Original Message-----
From: freeroleplay-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:freeroleplay-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ricardo Gladwell
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 11:15 AM
To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [freeroleplay] Re: Descriptive vs. Proscriptive, frpgc.org vs.
freeroleplay.org


Jacinto Quesnel wrote:
> Both. As simple as that. Diversity in options is actually the best. 
> But there's a point: Maybe if both worked thogeter. As two sides of 
> the same coin and in the same URL, it would be better.
> Mostly like different creative commons licences work diferently from the 
> same site.

Hi Jacinto,

Welcome to the list: it's a real day for new posters :) I forgot to 
mention it to Mark, but it would be great if new user's would be so kind 
as to introduce themselves and why they are interested in the FRPGC.

I'm not sure we can do both here as the two options are contradictory: 
we either explicitly define the criteria of what is a free content 
licenses and exclude everything else or we just define what is free 
content, and leave licensing decisions up to external parties.

What do you have in mind exactly?

Kind regards...

-- 
Ricardo Gladwell
President, Free Roleplaying Community http://www.freeroleplay.org/
president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. freeroleplay
  3. Archive
  4. 07-2005