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

  • From: Ricardo Gladwell <president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:25:40 +0100

Mark Havenner wrote: 

Thanks for the response.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between 'open' and 'free' and how
CC figures into that distinction. Can you elaborate?

The FRPGC was set-up with the specific idea of applying the free software freedoms to all works and content, and specifically roleplaying games in reaction to the "open" gaming movement. Free content must conform to the following freedoms:

http://www.freeroleplay.org/faq.php#FreeContent

In the content world, however, "open" can mean many things. When I refer to "open content" I generally mean the Creative Commons and the open gaming movement (which is really the same as the d20 movement).

Where it once meant "open source", the "open content" movement has no such similar requirements to "open the source". It should really be called the "copyleft content" movement. In other words, open == weak/strong copyleft but without a source requirement.

But, I could be wrong: when people hear "open content" what do they think of?

From what I gather, the biggest contention with CC is that it doesn't
require the source to be provided, but implies systems should not restrict
the source? Is that the only difference between 'open' and 'free'?

That is the main point of contention but it isn't a problem provided that end-users provide the source regardless of the license... free content is free content. However, there maybe other issues that conflict with freedom as we define it:

http://bad.dynu.ca/~evan/ccsummary.html

I may be missing the real point, but from where I'm sitting, I believe both
concepts support the same end cause, being freedom of intellectual property,
and although some licenses approach it better, wouldn't it be more
beneficial for the already small user-base of the role playing world to
embrace all causes that support that end?

I would agree that we both support the same end cause, but would disagree about the need to embrace all causes. It's true that the Creative Commons and Open Gaming License are more popular than we are but I've never considered popularity to be a meaningful measure of quality or truth. I would prefer the FRPGC cleave to it's core principals than be popular any day of the week (although, being popular and principled is a goal ;)

I completely understand your need not to compromise the root philosophy of
the organization, but if the root philosophy is freedom of intellectual
property, I don't see how any open content license compromises that at all.
I may also be making assumptions about what the root philosophy actually is.

The problem is that some parts of the Creative Common licenses do indeed seem to contradict our root philosophy (the four freedoms) and not just a sub-philosophy thereof (see above).

A clarification: we are not opposed to IP per se. Within reason, copyright, trademark and similar laws do have a degree of utility but their scope has gone wildly out of control in modern society.

Part of intellectual freedom is allowing processes to be customized for any
project as needed. By taking a position to correct existing licenses, rather
then embrace all those supporting intellectual freedom, the cause itself
sort of takes its own ironic proprietary nature.

Any movement must somehow define freedom for itself. However, the process of definition is, by it's nature, exclusive and thus will inevitably contradict someone else's definition of freedom. All human conflict would seem to stem from this quandary. What can one do?

Instead of pointing at what
licenses may not support a specific sub-philosophy of intellectual freedom,
why not provide all available options to a community and explain the pros
and cons of each approach?

I would not wish to endorse non-free content and licenses through the FRPGC web site.

However, perhaps there is some argument for setting up an Open Roleplaying Community (or something similar) as well to do just the above. I would certainly lend support to such a venture. In the meantime, this mailing list will always be here to explain and discuss the pros and cons of all licenses, free or not.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, in my opinion, if an
organization absorbs different philosophies with the same ideals, then it
can adapt and evolve.

True, but adapting and evolving too much means losing one's identity. There is already a Creative Commons and Open Gaming Foundation and I would not much like the idea of the FRPGC turning into either.

However, very eloquently put, might I add.

The main reasons I drifted from OGL was 1) I don't
really want to be associated with WoC and 2) the license didn't take into
account raw content (among other things).

Indeed, the FRPGC was largely set-up due to widespread dissatisfaction with WotC and various problems with the OGL within our membership.

Whoa! Wrote a novel, sorry! Feeling chatty today and want a distract from
work I guess.

That's OK, it all had a very low noise to signal ratio and we're all a bit "wordy" on this mailing list. Intelligent debate is always welcome here. :)

Footnotes:

[1] Although they differ with us in that the FSF do not believe the freedoms that apply to software should similarly apply to other works, like text-based documents.

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