[freeroleplay] Re: Moutain Dwarves and Licenses
- From: Ricardo Gladwell <ax0n@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 11:41:38 +0100
James Jensen wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 10:08, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> I see point your point, but I still think it would be better to have a
> vague "reasonable quality or above is still verbatim" clause than
> allowing only 100% lossless quality to be verbatim.
I think the best solution to the above is simply to say that copy the raw
files to a new format at all is considered to be a "modification" and
therefore subject to the rules for modifications.
> However, I also have an exception for "purely superficial"
> modifications, which I intended to mean things like the "dressing" of
> text-centered works.
Again, we hit upon the ambiguity problem: how do we define "purely
superficial". A down-stream user might edit a document, shortening
sentences and "tidying" up the copy, which he might consider "superficial"
but an up-stream author might object to. Similarly, I think it would very
tricky and complicated to clearly state what consitutes supercial and
non-superficial modifications in your license.
I think the simplest solution is simply to state than any alterations to
the document consitute a modified version for simplicities sake.
>>That aside, your concerns with credit are valid. My only concern is that
>>the methods to ensure credit can create restrictions that infringe upon
>>the fundamental freedoms of free content. Unfortunately, due to the
>>nature of derivative works the only place for lengthy credits is in a
>>sub-title page.
>
> Maybe a clause ensuring credit and disclaimers are "conspicuous" would
> do the trick.
You are probably getting sick of me saying this :) but again "conspicuous"
seems ambiguous.
Looking at the FDL we have the following:
"B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version,
together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all
of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release
you from this requirement.
C. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the Modified
Version, as the publisher.
D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
...
I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add
to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher
of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section
Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year,
authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add
an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence."
- http://www.fsf.org/licenses/fdl.html - Section 4
Obviously, the above is quite complicated. Perhaps we could take something
from the above?
>>Again, a lawyer would be better to answer these questions and the
>>fact we don't know the answers perhaps demonstrates that we're not
>>really qualified to draft such licenses.
>
> Unfortunately, this is too true.
I think the question we have to ask ourselves here is: is it worth drafting
a new, free-content license? And, if so, is it worth drafting a completely
new free-content license or modifying an existing license (i.e. FDL)?
Both questions can be answered by considering what we want from a
free-content license. I think we can summarise the main issues as follows:
1. A license that satisfies our fundamental, free content freedoms (i.e.
copyleft, etc).
2. That ensures that at least a modifiable copy of the content be made
available, preferably a "Transparent" copy.
3. A widely trusted license.
4. A legally-sound license.
5. GPL compatible.
Again, none of the options we have seem to satisfy all of the above (ever
so the case). The existing free-content licenses (the FDL and GPL) do not
satisfy either 1 and 5 or 2, respectively. Drafting our own license or
modifying the FDL to be GPL-compatible probably breaks 3, and possibly 4
unless we find the funds to hire a lawyer to help draft it. In which case,
I can probably think of a hundred better uses for the money, such as
purchasing our own hosted server :)
I would suppose that modifying the FDL to be GPL-compatible and remove
those restrictions that we dislike (i.e. Invariant Sections) is possibly
the best alternative to the current situation. By restricting ourselves to
only removing sections from the FDL we could keep the legal-soundness for
minimum cost (although having a lawyer look over the final draft might be
an idea).
However, in final consideration, the Internet is litered with forgotten or
unused licenses (e.g. OOGL). Chances are ours would end up on the same
scrap heap.
> I don't think that this restriction is un-free or especially
> problematic. There is no ethical need for publishers of derivative to
> be able to use the original authors' names to promote their version, as
> I see it;
I agree that there is no ethical need to allow publishers to use up-streem
author's in advertising and other marketing material. Similarly, I cannot
see an ethical requirement to make add restriction to a license. After all,
there is nothing in the license that allows this abuse for downstream
users. In cases like these I think the law itself should be responsible and
we should no police these issues ourselves.
Kind regards...
--
Ricardo Gladwell
President, Free Roleplaying Community
http://www.freeroleplay.org/
president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
