[freeroleplay] Re: Licensing
- From: James Jensen <cheeb2002@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 26 Nov 2003 10:23:23 -0600
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 08:08, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> Jerry Stratton wrote:
> > At 11:55 AM +0000 on 11/25/03, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> >>closed-content to site alongside free-content is something the FRPGC
> >>criticises the OGF and the OGL for.
> >
> > The OGF and the OGL allow *useful* content to
> > be unusable; the OGL as I read it requires that some useful
> > content be unusable, apparently even to the original author. The
> > FDL does none of this. If it is useful content, it is not an
> > Invariant Section, since Invariant Sections cannot be useful.
>
> Actually, I would dispute that Invariant Sections cannot contain useful
> information. They can only contain content that cannot "fall directly
> within that overall subject" of the document and they must deal
> exclusively with "the relationship of the publishers or authors of the
> Document to the Document's overall subject", but it remains to be seen
> if there can or cannot be situations where the contents of a Secondary
> Section might be useful.
>
> Given that, the OGL is worse in many ways: it allows the mixing of open
> and closed content in such a way that it becomes impossible use even the
> content designated as open. At least the FDL cmakes clear the division
> between invariant and free content. And, as you say, there are no limits
> on what type of content may be closed. Yet, the OGL at least allows you
> to remove all the OGC from a document and republish it 100% OGC. You are
> obliged to include nothing more than the Section 15 copyright notices.
>
> The FRPGC is a community-based organisation, but also an ethical
> organisation and the ethical issues surrounding the 'closed' nature of
> Invariant Sections cannot be ignored. Our freedoms state that we must
> allow anyone to "use the content, for any purpose" and Invariant
> Sections most definately do not allow this.
>
Invariant Sections are only a problem in *certain* cases. If one were to
tag, say, "The Right to Read" onto a book, they would need to be able to
use an Invariant Section. "The Right to Read" is not game material, and
it's better if people *don't* change it, since it's a philosophical
work. Now, I think republishers should be able to take it *out*, if they
want to, but for them to change it would not be a good thing.
Republishers of FDL'ed RPGs will *not* be able to add game material in
an Invariant Section, since that would fall under the scope of the
original material. And given the nature of role-playing games, almost
*anything* they could add (aside from trivial and "about-the-authors"
kind of stuff) could be contested as being "game material", from
game-relevant mathematical formulas to the history of ancient Egypt.
-J. Jensen
Other related posts:
