You are here

Foundation and empire

5 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rolo Kipp
Foundation and empire

Foundation Alpha is a Vault-sponsored project

(this is cross-posted from the Bioware forums as I think it sums up the mission pretty well. When we get something more official, I'll sticky that over this :-P )

...but I *do* have a couple of thoughts here.

First, we need to define the mission of the organization. Henesua's described it, but not in mission terms. I offer:

 

  • Foundation will create and maintain an integrated system framework and compilation of custom content to be used as a foundation for Persistent World projects.
  • Foundation will remain non-partisan in it's choice of systems and content included and its implementation. 
  • Intellectual properties contributed to Foundation will be included under the GNU General Public License (GPL-2.0) (though I'm willing to use a different license if someone can make a persuasive argument for it). 
  • No material that is offered with other restrictions will be used! 


I think this is a very important part. Too many of the problems in the past have been because of authors who feel their rights are infringed or users who failed to attribute credit. To remain non-partisan and productive, we have to proceed in an Open Source manner from the git-go.

Alright. Enough on that subject by me for now. :-P 
Please chime in and help us shape this initiative.

I see several people willing to help, which really makes me proud of this community. But I've *been* proud of this community for a long time, so that's no surprise.

What does surprise me is the automatic assumption that the Foundation module will not be compatible with [__fill in the blank___]. We are the ones building this sucker. Why would we purposefully make something we wouldn't want to use? 

Or, put another way, we want to make something so well put together and offering so much, that it would be a long serious think before deciding *not* to migrate our established world to Foundation.

We want to take a good look at the state of NwN and pull together all the best, most feature-rich (but efficient!) systems and we want to make them work together. We want to compile a library of the highest quality and most intriguing content and make them easy to add in.

And if we do it in a modular way, then we divorce the framework from the content and we can make "Plug-ins" or "Add-ons" for special purposes (like Star Wars or Warhammer 40k).

We have a blank slate, let's not assume anything just yet.

But if you're interested, step up.

 

(I actually want that whole thread here, as there's some fantastic posts in there...)


Rolo Kipp
 
From Dreamguard on Needlespire, The Gemworld of Amethyst
  • up
    50%
  • down
    50%
Proleric

On the question of licensing, the de facto standards seems to be GNU for software, Creative Commons for artwork and models.

NWN content arguably has elements of both, but I'd lean towards Creative Commons for general use, reserving GNU for pure software (e.g. utilities).

As this example shows, Creative Commons provides a plain English summary that anyone can understand at a glance.

It also allows to author to choose terms (attribution, non-commercial and sharealike). Abbreviations (eg. cc-by-nc-sa) are instantly recognisable.

As an SP author, I don't suppose I'll have much to contribute to this particular project; my interest in which license is adopted is more about the standard that might emerge for NWN custom content as a whole.

 

NWN and DAO adventures at http://proleric.com/

  • up
    50%
  • down
    50%
Sir Adril
Sir Adril's picture

Personally, I have a strong preference for the Creative Commons licensing system due to the ease with which it can be understood by someone not fluent in legalese. The quick reference codes are a big help to those who are familiar with Creative Commons licensing, and allow rapid at-a-glance, no reading needed, understanding of just what can and cannot be done with a given intellectual property. I could release my work under a GNU GPL for the purpose of Foundation Alpha (loving the Asimov reference there!) if needed, but I'm of the strong opinion that people are less apt to use the ignorance defense when they can actually understand the terms of a license without having to have a law degree to make sense of it. The plain language explanation of Creative Commons is its greatest strength, and I just can't say that about GNU GPL. I'm pretty gosh-darned intelligent, and if I can only make sense of the legalese of the GNU GPL after a long and painful reading of it, how can I expect the average Joe to understand it?

  • up
    50%
  • down
    50%
Rolo Kipp

I'm being persuaded here, myself.

So, are there *objections* to using Creative Commons for Foundation Alpha?

Which CC license do you recommend?

  • up
    50%
  • down
    50%
Sir Adril
Sir Adril's picture

I've only done a quick read, but to me, it reads like the GNU GPL 2.0 is basically analogous to the CC Attribution Share-alike (by-sa), though Attribution Non-Commercial Share-alike (by-nc-sa) might also be applicable, since we as creators are building on a commercial property we don't have rights to commercialization of.

  • up
    50%
  • down
    50%