I agree. Not a good strategy
----- Original Message -----
From: Pete .
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] Re: NetEpic licensing
Why is Pandora's Box being opened?
gee wiz..
On 13/03/2008, Peter Ramos <pramos10_at_...> wrote:
Hi!
Nick wrote:
>
> 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?
In there lies the real question. Knowing GW, yes, they would be bothered
and it turn make you pay for it too.... :-(
>
> 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 peope 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.
Corrections are never really a problem, we can always do that. But
revisions, thats another matter. The last one took YEARS. I just don't
see that happening again. Of course, minor rules discussions and changes
aren't much of a problem. So I guess I can't really know IF an open
source document is needed. It sounds good, but if the changes are just
corrections or minor rules changes, is it worth it?
I just don't know.
>
> And thanks to Peter for his usual enthusiasm, our very own
'benevolent dictator'.
Why thank you, I try to keep the "benevolent" foremost and the
"dictator" to a minimum..... :-)
Peter
Received on Thu Mar 13 2008 - 10:02:35 UTC