Portal talk:Role-playing games
Separated previous contribution into a separate section, instead of being italicised.
Also there seems to be scope to add further hyperlinks to other sections of freedomdefined.org and/or external sites, I haven't pursued this as yet.
--Mercury Merlin 00:30, 10 November 2006 (CET)
This is NC and so is not free by the site's definition. I've deleted the link. If the game moves to a Free licence it should be reinstated -
- Icosahedral RPG the license should be valid for Free Cultural Works but discuss modifications first or make your own copy to modify however you want to, don't edit it directly on the wiki without permission.
- The default license for that wiki is NC, but Icosahedral doesn't use the default license. The Icosahedral RPG license is available at: Talk:Icosahedral. It is semi-copyleft, in that copyleft only applies to parts having to do with game rules, other parts (such as "fluff", for example a description of what elves like to do in their spare time, but nothing to do with game rules) are non-copyleft, although if it is included in the standard Icosahedral document it is still free. It is even explicitly compatible with the GNU GPL v3 (allows you to convert to GNU GPL v3), in order to ensure that it is a free license. However, please make your own copy of the Icosahedral rules if you want to make drastic changes to the Icosahedral rules. --184.108.40.206 00:43, 6 January 2009 (EST)
- Now at the bottom of every page it says "This page is protected by the following license: Icosahedral RPG License" which overrides the default license for the wiki. Tell me if you think this is a free license. If it is, reinstate the link --220.127.116.11 20:55, 7 January 2009 (EST)
I assume that the Open Gaming License is not free under the Freedom Defined definition because of the "Product Identity" clauses that allow arbitrary words, phrases, images and sections of the work to be declared non-free.
Would it be possible to come up with a policy for ensuring that games under the OGL are free similar to Wikipedia and Debian's policy on the FDL? FDL immutable sections are similar to product identity. Or does this concede too much?
Either way it would be good to discuss the OGL here as it predates the CC licences as an example of effective alternative licensing for non-software works. It is also a very interesting case study in how a Free(-ish) license can not only balance social and corporate objectives but make them mutually beneficial. --Rob Myers 14:20, 10 August 2007 (CEST)
- I think "Product Identity" doesn't make it non-free if the "Product Identity" parts are limited to only trademarked phrases and stuff like that. But if sections are "Product Identity" then it really is non-free and shouldn't be listed here. --18.104.22.168 19:59, 20 December 2008 (EST)
- It's a difficult one because trademarked phrases would be covered by trademark law anyway. --Rob Myers
Безупречный сайт у вас ребята! Нечего и сказать просмотрел от корки до корки.