Re: [GZG] Can Haz Full Thrust Game Server?

>Hi Sam,
>
>On Sep 19, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Samuel Penn wrote:
>>>  Or, do you want us to place the source code itself under a non-
>>>  commercial license (CC-NC), so that it isn't legally permissible to
>>>  use in any commercial products?
>>>
>>>  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
>>
>>  No such license would restrict what the copyright holder can
>>  do - they are free to relicense under a commercial license at
>>  a later point if they so wish. If you really want Jon to keep
>>  control over commercial aspects of it, then probably he would
>>  need to own the copyright on it.
>
>I think you're missing the point. I (as copyright owner) am already 
>promising to obey Jon's request to keep it non-commercial (and if I 
>can't be trusted, the whole issue is moot :-).  The goal of the 
>license terms is to keep malicious and dishonorable people using our 
>code inappropriately.
>
>>>  (or perhaps under the GPL, so it is at least difficult to 
>>>  commercialize)?
>>
>>  Not true - this is a common misconception. Linux is under the
>>  GPL, and Red Hat makes lots of money by selling it.
>
>Sigh, OK, let me be more precise. Yes, it *is* possible to make money 
>of GPL software, just more difficult. Red Hat makes money by 
>*packaging* and *supporting* Linux, not selling it per se.  If we made 
>"libfullthrust" GPL, then it would prevent (say) game companies from 
>creating a proprietary product and selling it (without releasing the 
>source -- which undermines most traditional business models).
>
>If you really want to be picky, we should actually release the game 
>server under the Affero GPL, so that people couldn't even host the 
>server without posting back source changes.
>
>Again, it really depends on what Jon's concerns are, and what level of 
>protection he is comfortable with.
>
>
>The route I'm currently leaning towards is:
>
>a) making relatively generic (though FT biased) game engine, with the 
>actual "rules" encoding *declaratively* in XML or equivalent.
>
>b) have the server store the various rulesets declaratively (e.g., 
>XML), as submitted (and modified) by various people.
>
>c) establish server *policy* requiring CC-NC for all submitted data, 
>so that the end result is owned by the community and not usable 
>commercially.
>
>d) Release the generic server itself under a true open source license; 
>since it contains minimal FT knowledge, it shouldn't impact Jon's 
>Intellectual Property that strongly.
>
>Would that work, Jon?
>
>-- Ernie P.

I'm afraid that this is all starting to get way beyond either my 
knowledge (I'm neither a lawyer nor a computer gamer!) and my 
available spare time (effectively nil!) to worry about it......

At the end of the day, we (GZG) survive by selling metal minis. If 
any proposed project will support and promote that, then it's good 
for us.
If it's a stand-alone computer game that allows play WITHOUT minis, 
then at best I'm neutral about it, at worst if it damaged or reduced 
the minis sales then obviously that would be a bad thing. I don't 
necessarily think that would happen, but it needs to be considered.
On the other hand, if such a project raises interest in the game as a 
whole and causes some folks to seek out the minis to play the "real" 
(tabletop) version, then that's got to be positive.

What I can't do, right now, is to spend a lot of time and effort 
working out what effects this may or may not have, and sorting out 
legal and licensing ramifications;  so, if other members of this list 
want to point out any real or hypothetical concerns about which they 
have genuine knowledge, that's going to be useful.

Jon (GZG)

>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
>http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l