Comments on RelicensedGames

Last edit

Summary: Trevor is correct that my intention was to dual license my rulesets (GFDL and CC BY-SA).


< -- Anonymous 2019-07-19 20:16 UTC


> -- RonHaleEvans 2019-07-19 20:16 UTC

# 7 Comments. # I don't know the structure of the wiki very well. Can someone please create a link to this page somewhere sensibly? I cannot figure out where it would fit. Thanks!

-- selfthinker 2019-06-23 11:41 UTC

Meanwhile someone has thankfully linked the page from License.

I've just been through all the games by Clark Rodeffer and Ron Hale-Evans and have adjusted the licenses accordingly. I've also added a link to this page so it's clear why the license is different than the one in the rules.

The only game I haven't changed is Chess. As it is/was in the Public Domain, licensing it under CC BY-SA would make it less permissive/free. Technically, according to Ron's comment, we would have to do that. It would be good to get confirmation that the license change only affects games with previously more permissive licenses.

-- selfthinker 2019-07-14 12:01 UTC

Please keep Chess in the public domain. I'll go back and clarify that I really only meant to relicense games licensed with the GNU FDL. I forgot I had any PD rulesets on the wiki.

-- Ron Hale-Evans 2019-07-14 21:13 UTC

Technically Ron can't retroactively take away the public domain (and GFDL) license grants on his old rulesets (although he can release future versions that are CC BY-SA only). The intent in his comment was that he was dual licensing all his old rulesets under a CC BY-SA license (further clarified to refer to the CC BY-SA 4.0 International) - people can still choose to use the old rulesets under their original licenses if they wish.

-- TrevorLDavis 2019-07-15 16:54 UTC

I'm pretty sure you can re-license most things without needing to dual license. I think you are right for anything in the Public Domain (because there is no copyright anymore). But a copyright holder can change a license to anything (unless they are contractually obliged to not do that). The old versions would still be under that old license, no-one can take that away. But everything changed from now on would be under the new license. The current version (as it wasn't changed) is under both. Caveat: I'm not a lawyer.

From the wording it isn't clear to me if Ron meant to dual license or to re-license. I understood it as re-license, but re-reading it, I guess it could mean either.

-- selfthinker 2019-07-15 19:42 UTC

You are correct that going forward any revised versions of his games can be released just under a CC BY-SA license only (even the Public Domain case) if he adds new original "creative" content to the ruleset. I think if Ron releases new versions of his games he'll make the license clear in the text (and he'll probably simply re-license them to just be CC BY-SA) but for now all his old GFDL games are de facto dual licensed. In practice only reason to choose the GFDL over the CC BY-SA is if you wanted to release a piecepack rulebook ebook on a platform that mandates DRM (i.e. Amazon Kindle) which is prohibited in the CC BY-SA case but GFDL seems to have a clause that allows it if you include a link in the book to a drm-free copy of the ruleset (which must stay up at least a year after the last Amazon distribution).

-- TrevorLDavis 2019-07-15 21:25 UTC

Trevor is correct that my intention was to dual license my rulesets (GFDL and CC BY-SA).

-- RonHaleEvans 2019-07-19 20:16 UTC

Creative Commons License This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

To save this page you must answer this question:

What is the brightest thing in the sky?