User talk:Erik Möller

• Leave me a message

Roleplaying Games

Happily, but what sort of information would you like exactly? --Ricardo Gladwell 14:53, 4 May 2006 (CEST)

That's largely up to you -- it's essentially an opportunity for you to reach out to other friends of role-playing, and to communicate to them the importance of free content. You can add pictures, links to important web sites, philosophy, etc. I'd like you to think about what would appeal to you if, as a role-playing fan who has never heard about free content, you viewed this portal for the first time. The one thing that's important to me is that we always make it clear that this is about free content, and that non-free content, where it is useful, should be made free to the largest extent possible. To create subpages e.g. for philosophy or other purposes, use the [[/subpage title]] syntax.--Erik Möller 15:07, 4 May 2006 (CEST)

I would be happy to do that, I can copy content from my organisation, the Free RPG Community. My only concern is that content here is licensed under the CCPL. I feel the Free Content Definition should remain license-agnostic, but by CC'ing content here it favorus the Creative Commons licenses and, while some of us my share the CC's aims, not all of us would support its licenses. There is also the problem that content I submit here goes under the CC which means that I can't copy content back to my own (non-CC licensed) pages due to license incompatability. --Ricardo Gladwell 13:28, 5 May 2006 (CEST)

Our license, CC-BY, is probably one way compatible with the GPL, since all it requires is attribution, i.e. less than the GPL -- this itself is a right which you cannot even give up under European jurisdictions.--Erik Möller 14:09, 5 May 2006 (CEST)

Are you sure about that? The technological measures clause, for example, isn't in the GPL. The license seems to contain a lot of other stuff (webcasting, mechanical rights, etc) that do not appear in the GPL. --Ricardo Gladwell 19:29, 5 May 2006 (CEST)

Ugh, I didn't realize CC-BY had a technical measures clause. That is rather annoying, especially given that this clause is not mentioned in the summary -- making the license on the surface look like a simple BSD type license. Arguably, the freedom protected here is the same protected by the GPL through the requirement to make available modifiable forms. The other clauses (webcasting, mechanical rights) are there "for the avoidance of doubt", so I think we can pretend that the same rights are covered by the general usage rights granted by the GPL. Besides all this, we're all friends, so I think we can bend the law a little.--Erik Möller 19:54, 5 May 2006 (CEST)

Yes, that's a problem with CC licenses. People are inclined to think it's enough to know about the "human code" and the shiny logos. But, once you read the "legal code", you may have some surprises. I've written a small text which compares BSD and CC-BY for that purpose (but it's in French, sorry ;-)). --Antoine 20:00, 5 May 2006 (CEST)

I agree the CC license summaries can be misleading - ppl should really be directed to the legal code. It might be an idea to petition the FSF to check to see if the CC BY/BY-SA are GPL compatible - I don't know if you guys carry any more weight in these circles than I do? --Ricardo Gladwell 21:35, 6 May 2006 (CEST)

Licenses

Erik, what do you think of the proposed scheme for the Licenses page? Also, should we list some prominent software licenses? For now, I have included the GPL (most used copyleft license) and the MIT license (the simplest non-copyleft license AFAIK). --Antoine 22:33, 24 May 2006 (CEST)