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

[Jorge Arroyo <trozo@...>]

I understand the points about the non-commercial clause not being free
and all that, but I can see why people might not want others to profit
on their creations by default... I've used it some times, and some
others I've used more free licenses... But I don't think it is too
important in this particular case, as all the games are freely
available to anyone anyway. I don't think having actual rules in the
box is essential... And even if you want to have rules in your
commercially released piecepack it is not that hard anyway (My edition
had a few games and Blue Panther's does too).

To me, the biggest issue is when designers use licenses that don't
allow for derivative works such as translation or computer adaptations
(even free ones). For example, I've got a One Man Thrag computer game
sitting on my computer since last Summer because its author didn't
reply when I asked him if it was ok. I guess I could just release it
under another name because it doesn't use any copyrighted material,
but I don't know... I'd rather do it right... so no one can play it...

-Jorge


On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> wrote:
> By the way, it might be helpful to undertake an inventory of how games
> are licensed and add a column to this table of contents on the
> Piecepack Wiki:
>
> http://www.ludism.org/ppwiki/Games
>
> This is completely beyond me wrt free time at the moment, but I will
> do what I can to support anyone who volunteers.
>
> Ron
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> wrote:
>> 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@...> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... 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
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>