Re: [piecepack] Profitable sales of free-culture Piecepack (was: Sad ToyVault news)

[Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...>]

You beat me to replying, Mar.

Most of our early games are GFDLed, and most of our later games, such
as the as-yet-unreleased Relativity, are under some form of CC,
usually CC-BY-SA. I am completely open to relicensing our earlier
games under CC-BY-SA (I'm guessing Marty is too); it's just a slightly
tedious process, and not my highest priority at the moment, nor
Marty's, I think.

Ron

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:09 PM, M. Hale-Evans <marty@martynet.org> wrote:
> I believe all of the games written by Ron and me are free-licensed,
> including contest winners like Kidsprout Jumboree and Relativity, plus
> Piecepack Letterbox, Wormholes, Snowman Meltdown, Epic Funhouse, Easy
> Slider, and Castle Croquinole.  I think there are quite a few others, but
> it's hard to easily tell which ones on the main piecepack site listings.
>
>
> Marty
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Ben Finney
> <ben+yahoogroups@...>wrote:
>
>> Emily Page <emily.page@...> writes:
>>
>> > I am constantly in a state of disgusted surprise that this whole
>> > system hasn't been properly profited from. :) So... the latest failure
>> > is just par for the rolling my eyes course.
>>
>> One thing which is needed is freely-licensed game rules. Currently there
>> are many game rules published, but very few of them under free licenses.
>>
>> Free licenses entail that there are no restrictions on commercial
>> redistribution <URL:http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC>. The Creative
>> Commons Non-Commercial clause makes a work non-free.
>>
>> Free licenses entail that any modification is allowed in any
>> redistribution of the work. The FDL (despite its name) places non-free
>> restrictions on modification, and the No-Derivatives clause of the
>> Creative Commons licenses also makes a work non-free.
>>
>> It's unfortunate that “Creative Commons” includes options for making a
>> work free, and also options for making a work non-free. The brand isn't
>> helpful for distinguishing the freedom of a work.
>>
>>    <URL:
>> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/09352711499/creative-commons-branding-confusion.shtml
>> >
>>
>> I recommend the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license as being a free-culture license
>> that still provides the necessary protections for the work and the
>> copyright holder.
>>
>>    <URL:http://questioncopyright.org/cc-pro>
>>    <URL:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>
>>
>> > I am still waiting for a fast food chain to make it a collectible
>> > thing with their logo on the back.
>>
>> If there were a body of Piecepack game rules under free-culture
>> licenses, that might be more possible: anyone could reformat them and
>> translate them and modify them and mass-produce them and profit from
>> them, without needing further license negotiation.
>>
>> What I'd really love is for a large number of the popular existing
>> Piecepack games to be released under a free-culture license like
>> CC-BY-SA-3.0.
>>
>> What I hope for is that we encourage all future Piecepack games to be
>> released under free-culture licenses, without restriction on format nor
>> modification nor commercial redistribution.
>>
>> > But I think I'm a bit on the unusual side on the list here... :)
>>
>> I hope not.
>>
>> --
>>  &#92;        “I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any |
>>  `&#92;       view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and |
>> _o__)                                   opposite view.” —Douglas Adams |
>> Ben Finney
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



--
Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@ludism.org ... http://ron.ludism.org ... (206) 201-1768
My new book, Mindhacker: http://ur1.ca/4iaey
My first book, Mind Performance Hacks: http://ur1.ca/4iaf3