[ORX] Creative Commons Release Question
pells:
Quote
I think the truth is I'm caught between the needs of our society (to be a capitalist and cling tightly to anything that might ever be profitable) and the needs of our culture (for greater freedom), and I'm actually rather disturbed, intellectually and morally, that I am not just choosing the latter.
Unlike Eero, I believe there is truly a moral dilemma here ; but unlike Grey, I do see it the other way around ...
Using a NC license is truly going against the capitalism trend and is really about freedom (commercial license is not giving freedom).
You have to keep in mind where the CC (and open source community) comes from : as a way to protect the work of a community and avoid the scavenging from a big company that would come there for the money. Purist "open sourcer" sees the NC as a true form of freedom.
A little note : I've been working for two and a half years in an "open source" environment (read here given the choice between two products, one open source and one commercial, of equal quality, go for the open source). And those guys aren't joking : the NC is important. And they make a point to give back to the community for free.
Now, yeap, I know, you can see it the other way around ...
Quote
I'm waffling on the commercial license because my concern is that the lite version will prove more digestible/usable than the full version, and might thus prove to be a more commercially viable property with outside development, and given I put a lot of time and effort into it, I'd hate to see someone else just "yoink!" the lite version and find success with it that I don't benefit from.
A question, as I'm not familiar with ORX : was is there to salvage from ORX light ? And are you sure this can be protected by IP alone ? Because, if it's in the field of "ideas", those can't be protected. I'm just asking, because, maybe, just maybe, there is no problem after all ...
Quote
A thought experiment: if you were Clinton R. Nixon, would you feel pissed? I took his game and completely revised the text, then started selling it under the same brand name. I'm not paying Clinton for the privilege. Do you think that Clinton's getting an unfair treatment, or a treatment you wouldn't wish on yourself?
In the given situation, I wouldn't be pissed. But ... in a similar situation (still exploiting the product), I could be ; and a lot.
And by the way, yes, you can use the brand because it hasn't be trademarked ; so, anyway, it's legal for you, Clinton can't do anything. If "solar system" was really a brand (trademark), the situation would be quite different.
That said, Eero, to explicit the "current project" : for Avalanche I intend to release some parts into CC (and this for two reasons, one moral, to give back, the other, commercial, because CC is a good brand). My orginal idea was to use a commercial BY-SA license. I went to see a lawyer : this could be catastrophic and I could see all this content being salvage by "the big ones". The roadmap of the project and when to release some parts in CC is very important. You don't want to mess with that.
greyorm:
Those are all good points, Eero, and things I guess I'm trying to convince myself of in terms of non-financial benefit. Though I'm sorry you don't see the ethcial dimension in it because that's a very big part of it for me.
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on March 01, 2010, 12:11:40 AM
Do you think that Clinton's getting an unfair treatment, or a treatment you wouldn't wish on yourself?
I realize why you're asking, but I think that would be up to Clinton to answer.
Sebastien, that's an interesting perspective, and I can see it that way. Also, you like Eero are right about if my concern with the commercial license possibly being over nothing. I'm really leaning towards BY-SA.
Still interested in other people's experiences, though.
greyorm:
Thanks for all your feedback, guys. I decided to just take the plunge and went with a CC 3.0 BY-SA license.
Sebastien, I find a lot to agree with in your statement about the NC license being the most ethical choice, because it forces it to be free, but I decided not to go that route because we're still stuck in a capitalist society. So this is a compromise.
Seth M. Drebitko:
My suggestion (completely personal opinion) would be that if your not going to allow commercial use there is really no point in going CC. When it comes to books and rpgs non commercial adaptations are just fan material, which is often just assumed to be kosher. Another thing to consider is if you don't want people to make commercial use but offer a creative commons on a lite version some people may possibly in confusion think the entire game is CC.
If you do go the commercial route one thing I might suggest, is putting in a clause requiring commercials distributions must have your CC work representing no more than 25% of the total product content. This makes sure that both you and consumers can be confident a third party product is actually adding something to the line.
Just my 2 cents, good luck what ever you choose!
greyorm:
Thanks, Seth. That's something I'll consider.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page