Re: NetEpic licensing

From: Nick <nicdp_at_...>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:55:42 -0000

Thanks Gavin, you're points are much appreciated and well sold!

I've always liked open-source. I take your point about copyright.
Open-source would make anyone instantly able to modify and host their
own version if they want and ensures the game can always be hosted
somewhere even if the present copyright holders disbands/disappeared
(unlikely as that is in the short-term).

Questions for Peter on this: Do you think GW might be more bothered
about the use of trademarked terms if this were open-source?

Gavin: Can an open-source project have any trademarks mentioned in it,
even with a disclaimer?

A wiki would make all the little changes that much easier and quicker,
and lets potential contributors/proof-readers easily see what has
already been changed. Even if the number of editors were limited to a
few, it's still better then laying it all on 1 person.

I think you'd have to limit access as some people can be highly
opinionated about game rules, it would also mean fewer roll-backs to
earlier versions- less maintenance and oversight required.

Of course someone(s) will have to set it up, host it, add the content,
and maintain it. My only reservation is if this is worth it? I had in
mind a comment from Peter mentioning that he didn't expect any further
major updates to the rules, after Netepic Gold. On the other hand
there's bound to be many small correction needed, and arguments (sorry-
discussions) on-going.

And thanks to Peter for his usual enthusiasm, our very own 'benevolent
dictator'.

Nick.

--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, "gavin_brown_2005" <netepic_at_...> wrote:
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> > I've been considering altering the rules but hadn't really thought
> > about the license. I assumed it was fairly open.
>
> Unfortunately, because of the way copyright works, unless the
> copyright owners explicitly give you permission, then the default is
> very strict - other than for personal use, you can't do anything with
> the work in question.
>
> > 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).
>
> Based on my experience of open source software projects, in order for
> a copyright license change to be above board, you need to get approval
> from anyone who's ever contributed more than a trivial amount of
> content. That means those people who wrote the actual words, rather
> than contributed ideas (ideas can't be copyrighted, only expressions
> of them).
>
> > 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.
>
> Again, my experience comes from the open source software world.
> Usually, a project will have a "benevolent dictator" (Linus Torvalds
> in the case of Linux, or Jimmy Wales for Wikipedia) and a team of
> maintainers who s/he trusts to make changes. So a wikified NetEpic
> might only be editable by people who have been vouched for by the
> "anointed". Or you can make the wiki editable by all, and have a
> review process, whereby edits have to be approved before they become
> visible to the general public (most open source wiki software lets you
> do all this).
>
> Then, when you want to do a "release", you export the data from the
> wiki, and generate a PDF.
>
> The advantage of this process is that you get "version control" - you
> can easily see how the content has changed, who changed it, and you
> can also easily roll back to an earlier version. And a wiki program
> like Mediawiki (which is what Wikipedia uses) gives each article a
> "talk" page, where changes to a specific section can be discussed.
>
> Gavin.
>
Received on Tue Mar 11 2008 - 11:55:42 UTC