[freeroleplay] Re: [Fwd: Free-Content Licensing of FUDGE]
- From: Ricardo Gladwell <president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:00:03 +0000
Jamie Jensen wrote:
> I have to concur.
>
> But you should be specific and say the CC Attribution-ShareAlike, or
> something like that. Some of the newer licenses, such as the Sampling
> and Developing Nations (not that it wouldn't be obvious that those
> aren't the ones we're talking about) don't even permit everyone to
> distribute verbatim, noncommercial copies, and some of the standard
> ones, such as NoDerivatives and NonCommercial (which will be the
> tempting one), are still not what we are looking for from them.
>
> Remind me again, though: why are Creative Common licenses on the bad list?
The main reason the ShareAlike CCPL (SA-CC) is on the list of non-free
content licenses is because it does not:
a) require a modifiable copy of the content be provided with a work,
such as in the GPL, and
b) they do not require a "Transparent" or "open" format of the be
provided with a work, such as in the FDL.
As such, they cannot be considered to be free content. Judging by the
reaction I got when I suggested the CC could incorporate the above
changes, I don't think we will be seeing a CCPL with the above changes.
This is a pity as the changes, particularly the modifiable copy one, are
not particularly radical or onorous and could've made the CCPL a real
free-content contender for the GPL and the FDL.
Without such "source" requirements, content licenses like the CCPL and
the OGL don't even meet the weaker definition of "open licenses",
nevermind free content or free software.
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 10:16:58 -0800 (PST), Jerry Stratton
> <jerry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>I think we might want to recommend a license that is not GNU, just in
>>case. I know it's on the "bad" list, but is it possible to point them to
>>the Creative Commons Share-alike license? First, it gives them a second
>>website that discusses the creative commons, and second, well, the OGL
>>doesn't require an editable copy either.
>>
>>Or is there a better third-party to link to?
>>
>>http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/
>>
>>("There is also the Creative Commons licenses, although, like the OGL,
>>they do not require an easily editable copy. This means that end users may
>>have to type in any content they wish to re-use.")
I believe Grey Ghost Games are already considering the CCPL as a
possible option. Since it is not a free content license, I thought it
better not to mention it and focus on the problems with the OGL and the
benefits of the GPL/FDL.
Kind regards...
--
Ricardo Gladwell
President, Free Roleplaying Community
http://www.freeroleplay.org/
president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
