I'd say that the project might well want to publish an open licence version of cult structure and rules. In fact. I may do so in a day or two.. bear with me..
Here we go:
Originally Posted by Trifletraxor
The GNU General Public License - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
Yes, it's designed for software, but they say you can use it for any work:
Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses
If you look at "The Foundations of the GPL" and for "software" read "setting", it seems right:
A Quick Guide to GPLv3
These guys seem to know what they're doing, and it's a worthy cause. Freedom!
Are there problems with the CC license? Has Gwenthia experienced any limitations to it in practice? It seems well suited.
While I fully acknowledge the need for a good license, I admit researching good licenses is not my primary interest in the project. If CC has worked for a shared project in the past, I'm all for using it.
As much as I'd like to have the setting integrated with the rules, the lack of an open license for BRP kind of prohibits that, so rules free setting material under the CC and rules specific game packs under the OGL seem the way to go.
Having some descent knowledge of licenses and law (law school student) I'd like to throw in my 2c.
If you want to keep the project accessible to as many as possible I would go for GNU GPL. While the Creative Commons licenses have been specifically designed for works other that sourcecode and works very well, the CC licenses lack one feature that (IMHO) would be important in a project such as this and that is access to the "source". Even if you publish PDF-files that are easy to print people that wants to build upon your material will need the raw text in a word-processor format. You will also want to have easy access to the creations of those that spin off from this project and the GPL enables you to request the source and CC licenses don't (nor does the OGL). So I would recommend you to go with GPL.
As for splitting Setting and Rules. That's probably a good idea - design wise. Statblocks aren't really copyrightable nor are rules as such so there's no real reason - legally speaking - to separate the two but it's probably a good idea out of practical reason. When designing computer software the mechanics (the code) is as much as it's possible separated from the user interface so that the UI designers can work without having to bother with the doings of the coders. Having a setting with all the details needed for play would enable people to use the setting with their favourite system. Which would make your material much more useful and allow you to target at wider audience.
This sounds like there may be problems with the CC after all. But what would it mean in practice? Could someone create their own setting based on the SharedWorld(s), and deny the rest of us the ability to use that version? Could they use it for their own profit? Would we be unable to modify anothers work, and be stuck with their exact text?
Originally Posted by peterb
With the CC3 license, people can try to create profit from ShareWorld, but anything they create must also be released with the same license - which means everyone can distribute copy it, distribute it, etc. (so making a profit from it will be very hard).
Originally Posted by frogspawner
The only difference is that with the GPL license (as I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong), if someone created a pdf for ShareWorld, they would also be obligated to hand over the word document it was created from if anyone requested it. Maybe we should take a closer look at that license. :cool:
Last edited by Trifletraxor; February 26th, 2008 at 20:46.
Ef plest master, this mighty fine grub!
116/420. High Priest.