Hi!
Very interesting topic and VERY interesting questions.
Let me try to sort them out.
First, you can distribute netepic in any format, media or method to
ANYONE you'd like.
In other words you can e-mail it, burn it to a CD and send it or give a
print out to your friend. In that sense Netepic is totally community
oriented and open.
The lines in the introduction are meant to convey the following:
1. The rules uses GW trademark names without permission nor is any
challenge meant toward them.
2. The actual rules manifestation of netepic is owned by netepic
members. This means that some third party could not just take the rules
and make profit out of them. Then again, GW would be enough to deter
anyone thinking this since they'd purse their trademark names much more
vigorously.
3. Editable version available. Tricky one and in many cases depends on
the current editor. Some don't care, but some have. Originally the files
used to be in word, then we moved to PDF. Of course anyone is more than
welcome to use a PDF converter to obtain a editable text.
4. I would not consider editable templates to cause "too much
variation", since the "official" version of netepic is always available
at the site, so others made and posted could just "variant" to their
template and confusions avoided.
So in summary, as long as anyone gets the funny idea to print and
produce it for profit, I don't mind its reproduction and dissemination
by any method a person could desire.
Once Netepic Gold is available the desire for an open template may be
lessened due to the availability of a full color and illustrated book.
But in any event, I will look into the possibility of such a template
for general download and modification. I think it is a good idea to let
fans alter things to their liking.
Peter
Nick wrote:
>
> I've been considering altering the rules but hadn't really thought
> about the license. I assumed it was fairly open.
>
> By implication in the rules introduction, the rules are owned by the
> members of this yahoo group. Does that still mean members much ask
> for permission to change them? I'd also like to see a clear message
> in the rules regarding what is permitted, not just what isn't (profit
> making distribution).
>
> The creative commons license sounds interesting, and would allow us to
> make our own changes (especially the more drastic ones that the
> traditionalist won't ever approve of). I'm not sure a Wiki is very
> helpful, unless it's content were easily printable somehow.
>
> I would like to see an easily edited version available. Would people
> consider that a recipe for confusing variations, and potentially leave
> no central focus for testing and improvement of the rules? This may
> not be an much of an issue as I doubt much more can be done to improve
> the rules now, while still keeping it in the Space Marine 2nd Ed style.
>
> Nick.
>
> --- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com <mailto:netepic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "gavin_brown_2005" <netepic_at_...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've been trying to work out what (if any) license the NetEpic rules
> > are released under. Since there seems to be no mention of a specific
> > copyright license, by default it falls under the standard (and most
> > restrictive) Copyright terms. Technically, it would be a breach of
> > copyright for me to email the rules to a friend, or give her a
> print-out!
> >
> > Would it be possible to release the rules under a Creative Commons
> > (http://creativecommons.org/ <http://creativecommons.org/>) license?
> They have a suite of
> > distribution licenses that allow users to modify and redistribute,
> > under specific terms (attribution of the original author, no
> > commerical use, etc) that would give users more freedom, and encourage
> > more active involvement and feedback from the community (for example,
> > the rules could be Wikified so that users can make corrections, fix
> > typos, and add their own contributions), as well as maintain
> > compliance with Games Workshop's own IP policy.
> >
> > There's a simple wizard to select the best license for your work at
> > http://creativecommons.org/license/.
> <http://creativecommons.org/license/.> I recommend it to you.
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Gavin.
> >
>
> _
Received on Sun Mar 09 2008 - 20:34:28 UTC