Shareware License

[ffutures]

This feels horribly verbose - comments would be appreciated.


Shareware License and Distribution of Modified Rules

Some confusion has recently arisen over permitted use of the Forgotten Futures rules, and in particular of edited versions adapted by others for their own purposes. Briefly, Forgotten Futures is covered by all national and international copyright laws. To protect my copyright and avoid unnecessary confusion there must be certain restrictions on its use.

In everything that follows the terms “publish” and “distribute” include putting files onto web sites, posting material to newsgroups, bulletin boards, communities, or publication in print or on disk etc., regardless of whether this is done free of charge or for profit.

The shareware license terms I use are that you may copy the files as they were originally released and distribute them as you like, provided that no charge is made and that all information needed to register the game etc. is included. If possible I would prefer that you link back to my sites, rather than moving this material to your own site.

If for any reason you want edit the files for your own purposes (e.g. to add house rules, change rules mechanisms you dislike, or use them with a completely different game system) you may do so for your own personal use, provided that the changes are not put on line or distributed generally. This means, for example, that you may edit a version of the rules for the purposes of a game you run for your own friends, and give them copies of the revised rules, but may not distribute the modified files more widely. In an on-line context any revised versions of the rules and background material etc. must be distributed by email rather than kept on a web site, or otherwise inaccessible to non-participants. You must make it clear that the files are not as originally published, acknowledge my copyright in the original game, and include links back to the “official” versions.

If you want to publish articles about the rules or settings, or describing variant rules etc. for wider distribution, you may do so; however, such articles should be limited to a description of your own work and the changes you have made. Write up a summary of your modifications only.

The printed versions of the rules and other gaming material formerly published by Heliograph Inc. were not released as shareware, differ in some respects from the versions published on line, and are not covered by these terms; you may not copy them.

Comments

[very-true-thing.livejournal.com]

Compared with the OGL it's short and easy to understand.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Well yes, I omitted all the one-point-type lines where people sell their souls to the powers of darkness, agree to sacrifice their first-born, etc.

[cdybedahl.livejournal.com]

Have you looked at the Creative Commons licenses to see if any of them suit your purposes?

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Not yet - where will I find them?

Sorry - what I meant by that was "where will I find the basic license?" That site isn't as transparent as I'd like.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

OK, found them - it looks like either the Attribution-No Derivative Works license or the Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license is closest to what I want, except that neither quite seems to allow for someone to post a list of rules changes (but not a complete rewrite). Any thoughs on this?

[pengshui-master.livejournal.com]

What I've seen done in the open source communities where no license fits the bill, is to chose a license marginally more restrictive than you'd like then add an exception clause explicitly granting the extra rights.

Eg. (C) Yoyodyne Inc:
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works License, with the exception that you are allowed to distribute changes to a closed group of people for the purpose of playing a game based on these rules.


Note , IANAL and so you could probably drive a truck through my exception - but that is the form the wording I've seen tends to take.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

Do you mean no charge is made or do you want to say no change is made? Both seem to fit, but obviously with different reasons.

The phrasing must be distributed by email rather than kept on a web site, or otherwise inaccessible to non-participants sounds as if "or otherwise inaccessible" was parallel to "kept on a web site"—that is, as if putting them on a Web site were a way to make them inaccessible. That seems to be the reverse of what you mean. A quick fix would be "or must be otherwise inaccessible," making the parallelism explicit, but that seems awkward. You could try "or must be inaccessible to non-participants in some other way."

Do you want to say that it's okay to provide the files to nonparticipants as long as you do so by e-mail? If not, an alternate phrasing could be "must be distributed to participants by e-mail, rather than being linked to a Web site or otherwise made available to nonparticipants."

That whole passage, by the way, is in the passive voice where the rest of the paragraph is in the active voice. But I can't offhand think of a way to redo it in the active voice without getting clunkier. Still, if you can come up with a way to change it to "you may do X, but may not do Y," it would harmonize better with the rest of the passage and would have more punch.

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Thanks - I see what you mean, I'll try to change it.

[robertprior.livejournal.com]

Maybe something like:

You may make these rules available to participants in your campaign, whether by email, members-only web site, or other some means limited to the participants in your game. You may NOT distribute them to the general public.