[Forge-main] Re: [freeroleplay] Licensing

[Ricardo Gladwell]

Samuel Penn wrote:
> On Sunday 23 November 2003 20:43, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> > 1. Stick with FDL
> > 2. License under the GPL
> > 3. Dual-License under the FDL and GPL
> > 4. Modify the GPL or FDL
>
> I am going to be sticking with the FDL for the forseeable future.
> To me, the 'transparent format' clause is important.

Hi Sam,

Does this mean that you would rather the FRPGC persisted with using the 
FDL? Would you disapprove of re-licensing under the GPL under any 
circumstances?

The problem with a FDL-only licensing approach is the Invariant 
Sections. This cannot be ignored: Invariant Sections contradict the 
FRPGC's freedoms:

> 1. The freedom to use the content, for any purpose.
> 2. The freedom to study the content, and adapt it to your needs.
> Access to an editable copy of the content is a precondition for this.
> 3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbours.
> 4. The freedom to modify the content, and release your own
> modifications or supplementary material to the public, so that the
> whole community benefits. Access to a transparent, or editable, copy
> of the material is a precondition for this.

Invariant Sections prevent content being used for 'any purpose' or 
allowing users to adapt it to their needs. What is more, allowing 
closed-content to site alongside free-content is something the FRPGC 
criticises the OGF and the OGL for.

It also has the potential for serious abuse: one example being the 
addition of advertisements as Invariant Sections. Similarly, whilst 
reasonable political statements could be fixed to a modified FDL 
document, more unpleasant, extreme political statements could be fixed 
as Invariant Sections. The examples are still posible without Invariant 
Sections, but at least downstream editors could remove them.

Another problem with a FDL-only licensing approach is the 
GPL-incompatabilty issue. It would be nice if we could also publish 
under the GPL so software developers could create programs using free 
content roleplaying systems. Dual licensing then, naturally, brings us 
to the idea - if we need to license under the GPL, why do we need the FDL?

So, if we're to respect your desire for Transparent copies we're left 
with several options: It might be possible to release the GPL with the 
additional condition that 'modifiable version' (the term used to 
describe source code) is more clearly described to fall in line with the 
FDL definition of Transparent copy. Since most open-source programs fall 
under this definition, this may not be so much of a problem (this will 
need verification from the FSF).

Another option is that we continue to support the FDL but clearly state 
that we do not approve of Invariant Sections and refuse to link to any 
documents that use this clause of the FDL. It might also be an idea to 
start some sort of petition against Invariant Sections, requesting their 
removal from future versions of the FDL. This does not eliminate the 
problem that it would be nice to dual-license under the GPL for the 
purposes of RPG software development.

Thoughts?

Regards...

--
Ricardo Gladwell
President, Free Roleplaying Community
http://www.freeroleplay.org/
address@hidden