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

  • From: "Mark Havenner" <laveaux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:18:51 -0600

Regarding dual licensing. The GPL states that although I can't release
'software' under more than one license, I can release different versions of
the software in parallel?

Let's see if I get this:

Progressive RPG v. 2.0 was released under CC as a downloadable text file. I
can't make that version GPL -and- CC, but I can make an identical version,
say Progressive RPG v 2.0b as GPL.

I'm not sure I understand what the difference is. Can you elaborate on that
concept a bit?

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Havenner [mailto:laveaux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 01:19 PM
To: 'freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [freeroleplay] Re: Descriptive vs. Proscriptive, frpgc.org vs.
freeroleplay.org


I'm kind of getting it. I still think you may be a little too strict on the
CC license, but at the same time I can see your point. Reading the debate
yesterday on whether or not the CC license disallows 'hiding' the source was
a bit over my head so I'm not sure I follow it all.

I suppose the only real solution for Progressive RPG is to do a dual license
like Jacinto is going to do until I publish a third version. But even if we
do things as a dual license, doesn't leaving the opportunity to use CC for
end-users still conflict with the core values of this organization? I'm not
sure if that is a solution, or if it just complicates the problem. Of
course, I tend to overthink things.

As for Basilicus, all existing content will likely need to be maintained as
CC (since that's how it was published), but all future content can be
published under a different license. Since Basilicus is an ongoing project
without a necessary end result, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. I
still need to give this more thought, because I don't want users or
potential users to get confused.

I very much want to support free content, but I don't want to break my
projects doing it...

-----Original Message-----
From: freeroleplay-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:freeroleplay-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ricardo Gladwell
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 10:26 AM
To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [freeroleplay] Re: Descriptive vs. Proscriptive, frpgc.org vs.
freeroleplay.org


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