[freeroleplay] Re: Generics
- From: "Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: FRPGC <freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 19:20:42 +0000 (GMT)
On Sun, 9 May 2004, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> > A standard check is one that can be endlessly repeated (at least in
> > theory) without adverse effects. So if you fail the first time, you can
> > just try again and again. So it does not make much sense to roll dice.
>
> Possibly, it might be an idea to abandon the idea of a standard check...
> in most games I've read the GM determines what is a 'risky' action and
> only requests a roll on those occasions. The mere fact that an action
> has a difficulty rating at all, implies there is some risk involved and
> that a roll is required.
It is just name for the game mechanic "you succeed at this if your skill
is higher than" something. I can of course choose to not name it this, and
just spell the above out every time, but I am not sure why this is better.
> > I planned to use the Creative Commons Share-Alike license, with some
> > exception for software, but once I read their plans for version 2.0 of
> > their licenses, I became worried... So I don't know anymore. I'm
> > considering just using public domain...
>
> I have to admit, I am unaware of the issue surrounding the 2.0 version
> of their license. What exactly are you concerns with this new version?
In the draft, they have introduced a way to mix different CC licenses. You
can add any license restriction that exists within the CC domain to any
existing CC license. So eg any CC SA (share-alike) content can be
relicensed as CC SA+NC (non-commercial), which in my view totally defeats
the entire point of making it CC SA in the first place.
> On the subject of creative commons licenses, the FRPGC only considers
> the ShareAlike (without the NonCommercial option) to be even close to a
> free license.
Surely you consider the attribution license also free?
> However, none of the CC licenses require a modifiable copy
> of the content and therefore cannot be considered free.
Well, then we disagree here on the interpretation of the CC SA, as we
discussed earlier. I think the CC SA forbids distribution in such formats.
> Otherwise, the public domain is equally satisfactory place, as long as
> you do not mind the possibility of your work being used commercially for
> profit. Would you consider releasing your system under the GPL or the
> FDL?
The GPL is not an option, as I am working on a software library for
Generics which is LGPL, and I do not want questions raised on that point.
Licensing a text under LGPL strikes me as rather odd (dynamically linking
text to other texts? ehhhm).
Open content licensing is such a troubled place these days. I think those
who release works meant for contributions from other people nowadays
should add an additional license along the lines of "The original author
is given the right to license the work under a new license at any time",
to be able to relicense the works to any new content licenses that might
become popular. Since it is an additional license (a dual license), it can
be removed by others at any time, if they decide they don't trust the
original author.
- Per
Other related posts:
