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

  • From: Ricardo Gladwell <president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:04:20 +0100

Hi Mark,

I understand and appreciate your willingness to get involved, but the Free Roleplaying Community is about advocacy of the four freedoms and free content, not really open content. If we tried to accommodate everyone's point of view we would quickly compromise our own, unique perspective and lose that which makes us, well, us. Rather than seeking to conform to external pressures and making ourselves as accepting as possible to all licenses, we should really be advocating others to modify their licensing terms.

I think the consensus here is to make our definition descriptive but that may still exclude the CCPL. Apologies, but I really feel we can't compromise here even if it means turning off passionate and intelligent contributors such as yourself. All I can say is that the open content movement has the Creative Commons, the open gaming movement has Wizard's of the Coast, but the free content only really seems to have us, the FRPGC.

Nevertheless, we are a community first and we always welcome new members even if their opinions differ from ours and people are always welcome on our mailing list to discuss the pros and cons of any license, whether it be free or open. Even if you disagree with our policy, I hope you will continue to contribute to the debates and discussions here.

To turn the question back onto you, have you considered changing your Progressive RPG licensing from the CCPL to the GPL or GFDL? Or dual-licensing as both CCPL and some other free content license?

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