[freeroleplay] Re: Moutain Dwarves and Licenses
- From: Ricardo Gladwell <president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: FRPGC <freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:12:24 +0100
On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 12:48, Samuel Penn wrote:
> The GPL and FDL both have flaws (as do other popular license),
> but people generally know what those are, and also what they're
> allowed to do with content released under them, without having
> to read and understand another license.
I would agree here: I'm of the opinion that we should use existing
licenses wherever possible for a number of reasons: they are more
legally sound, having had many lawyers and much money spent on them and
they are readily recognisable and trusted. I think it would be a better
use of time and resources to attempt to lobby license publishers to
alter their licenses where possible. However, this is probably not
possible for a small organisation such as ourselves.
> Another issue is whether the name is too similar to the Free
> Documentation License - will people see it and mistake it for
> the latter, without reading the details?
I don't think the similarity in names is a particularly burning issue: I
think they are sufficiently different to be considered distinct. I think
the FCL is probably a good name for the license, and it would be
interesting to see if we could draft a GPL-compatible version of the FDL
under the name FCL.
--
Ricardo Gladwell
President, Free Roleplaying Community
http://www.freeroleplay.org/
president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
