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

  • From: Ricardo Gladwell <president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:43:32 +0100

Jamie Jensen wrote: 

Another thing to keep in mind is that the CC is now host of some
blatantly non-free licenses, such as the Sampling License and the
Developing Nations license.  We may want to consider advising against
others recommending CC licenses to keep from accidentally promoting
their non-free licenses.

Indeed, the NonCommercial licenses and such are clearly non-free. Also, I really hate their habit of concatenating names for things to create "new words" like ShareAlike and ByAttribution. Very Orwellian.

We could always write our own.

We have debated this before and it's a very good idea but the main problem always has been incompatibility. The nice thing about working with existing licenses is the vast pre-existing pool of software and content out there already licensed under the GPL and GFDL. Writing a new license also means added legal complications and a lack of support coverage that we can expect with the GPL and GFDL (we can always email the FSF).

I would certainly support someone writing a variant of the GPL with a transparency clause, and such a license would clearly be free as we define it here, but I would prefer to spend our efforts pressurising the FSF and other groups to alter their existing licenses rather than go it alone.

Another vote for freeroleplay.org... should we also consider changing
the Free Roleplaying Community acronym? Or even the name of our
organisation altogether?


Personally, I think "Free Roleplaying Community" says what we want it
to say.  What do you guys think?


Glad we like the name, but should we consider changing the FRPGC acronym?

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