[freeroleplay] Re: [Fwd: Free-Content Licensing of FUDGE]
- From: Ricardo Gladwell <president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:07:27 +0000
Samuel Penn wrote:
> The thing which attracts me to the CC licenses is their very simple
> summeries for mortals, with a link to the legalese. I know they
> don't enforce transparency, but the FDL is the only license which
> does, and they do at least enforce no-DRM.
I think the FDL is probably one of the most complicated licenses out
there to apply to a work. That said, it is one of the few content
licences to require both that the source of a document be provided.
Neither the CCPL or the OGL offer this.
I'm not actually convinced that the CC licences are simpler than, say,
the GPL. Sure, they have those handy summary pages that explain the
license in non-legalese but, if you actually look at the actual legal
text it, is as complex, if not more so, than the GPL.
> Though it would be a PITA if someone stuck Yags into MS Word and
> did lots of cool additions to it, would I be better off with an
> MS Word version of cool additions, or no cool additions?
See my response to Per's email on why I think source requirements are
important.
> At least
> with MS Word, it's possible to export as plain text. And MS Word
> isn't actually that much harder for me to transform into Yagsbook
> XML than HTML is, and yet a badly designed website with lots of
> Javascript and malformed only-works-on-ie HTML is allowed by the
> FDL whilst MS Word isn't.
I don't actually think difficult to read HTML is considered Transparent
by the FDL: I believe the FDL does not allow you to distribute, for
example, the obfuscated HTML exported from MS word. I think clarity is a
requirement for a Transparent copy.
> Do I gain anything with a transparency clause which I wouldn't
> with a no-DRM clause? Do I really want to have to tell someone to
> stop using Yags just because their favourite editor is MS Word?
Well, I don't think its about you gaining anything but about benefiting
your downstream users. By publishing a transparent format they don't
have to worry about, for example, purchasing expensive software to open
and edit your content.
> Hmm, there seems to have been subject drift there :-) Anyway, is
> the GPL/FDL simpler than the OGL? It appears so to me, but then
> I've been using the former in software for years, so that helps
> my understanding. Complexity and mis-understanding may be one
> argument against the OGL.
Certainly, the OGL is more ambiguous than the GPL.
> And yes, you can add my 'signature' to the email.
Will do :)
--
Ricardo Gladwell
President, Free Roleplaying Community
http://www.freeroleplay.org/
president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
