Content Licensing

[Christian Walther]

I also thought it was a good idea to start with a concrete use case (and I’m sorry for not having stated that earlier).

As long as it is made clear that this isn’t the whole thing yet (in contrast to the situation with the code license), I think it would be a good idea to approach Cyan with a bite-sized proposal such as this and get some feedback. Not a solution, just feedback. That would at least get us some guidance for the next phases of identifying and collecting other needs, then devising possible solutions for them. Otherwise we’re just groping in the dark.

[Deledrius]

First off, thank you. I really do appreciate the feedback and I'm feeling a bit less directly frustrated at present.

@Deledrius: Your frustration is shared. Widely. Yes, I've read your post, several times in fact, and I do appreciate the fact that you separated out the technical detail into a distinct block. I think you've done generally all the right things there, but (and this is just my opinion) I get the feeling that the "problem statement", which is how I'd categorize the whole of the first section of the post, just seems too "wordy". I'm not trying to sound like a schoolteacher marking an essay, but I've seen how things can end up getting shoved into the "I'll look at that later" pile if it can't be absorbed on the spot. On the other hand I think the single bullet point is just too lean.

Don't worry about being corrective on the length; that's definitely useful. I tried very hard to choose my wording very carefully and keep only what was needed in the first half. I wanted to be thorough, but I agree that it's necessary to be as straight to the point as possible. I think that it's as well-formed as it is within my ability to do, but I will take another look at it and see if I can't tighten it up even more. If there are any specific suggestions, feel free to offer them. It is certainly imperative to have it be as short as possible. I tried to leave the rambling sentences for the latter half.

Do you think having a small "executive summary" paragraph that encompasses the entire point would be a good solution? Or would adding that only be making it worse by adding to the introductory length of that first half?

And yes, that runs contrary to my suggestion that we need have the bigger picture to present. You may be right that looking at a specific aspect is much more manageable for Cyan; I can't argue with that. What my worry is here is that we end up withat a repeat of the CWE licensing issue where once the code was visible, then the appropriateness of the license came into question and required a re-working that took several months to happen. Maybe there's an option that specific uses can be licensed separately - that's not really something I'd been considering, but I guess it's a possibility. For example we know that right now, shard operators (including the OU Minkata shard) would love to be able to redistribute the MOULa content - it makes for less hassle with client installs and repairs - but we can't really do that although the existing TOS probably isn't far off from being an adequate license to cover that Age creators have in the past been able to get access to assets under FCALs - is that an acceptable way to continue? Probably not if it means Cyan has to spend time issuing those individually, but it's an option.

Definitely. The content licensing itself is a very important issue, as the current length of this thread and many like it can attest. I can't really understand why a license to distribute the full installer's worth of data at the very least isn't a possibility (unless there are unspoken third-party obligations) as Cyan was already distributing for free no doubt as some cost to themselves.

As prompted by JW, who asked for an intro, I thought perhaps a simpler proposal on something concrete and finite would be a great way to get the ball rolling on the formation of whatever process is necessary to present the proposal, get their feedback, and then finalize something. I really had wanted to make an offer of specific licenses, too, so that it could all be a packaged and ready deal for presentation, but that's simply not realistic as you say; we'll need feedback to know what they want and need from us. The best we can do is have the code ready, which I felt we've done most of the work towards.

At this point I'm just happy that this is stimulating a bit more discussion of the subject. None of us want this to drop out of sight.

Same here. Thanks again for responding.

Heh! If there was anything I was going to criticize in your post, it's that the technical information makes reference to "(2a)" and "(2b)" which I can't correlate with anywhere else in the post

Good point. I thought about labeling them specifically, but I had assumed it would be obvious that there were two suggestions in my second point, the ideal license and the limited license. I will clarify that.


Edit: I've created a gist, Localization Licensing Proposal for Cyan, so that it will easier for me to make edits (and others can fork and edit it to collaborate as well). I have taken an axe to the superlatives in the introductory paragraphs.

[JWPlatt]

Mac and I were talking about your post just yesterday, Deledrius. Good timing for Adam's kick. You didn't get to hear our conversation, unfortunately, but it's been on our minds. The reason I called for this is because we just can't do it ourselves, nor would I expect a few of us to be able to think of everything. I was hoping for more community involvement than just the core team here and have been waiting as anxiously as you to see something happen on this. A few quick things:

• I don't recall saying Cyan is having trouble grasping the larger picture, but if you can point it out to me, maybe I can remember what I was thinking.
• I think I'd rather not call this a proposal. It's not, really, because it's about stating the problem and what we want; not the solution. Folks might incorrectly think that they have to come up with solutions if it is a "proposal." As discussed, we don't know everything Cyan needs to consider, so a dialog is necessary first. This is an entry summary toward that.
• In our discussion yesterday, I asked Mac if the textual collaboration on our letter would go better on our wiki. I see you've set up something on git, but I'd rather see it on a wiki because far more people will be familiar with how to work with it.
• If there's going to be a use case, I'd rather see it be MOULa content distribution. That might cover the unlicensed content released so far and serving MOULa content to drop the operational and support barriers for shard owners and players even further. I'd concentrate on the things we already have but are shackled.
• I did suggest "concise." Not as concise as possible, but truly and absolutely concise for all the reasons Mac says. Your one-line summary is terrific on those terms.

[Hoikas]

Mac and I were talking about your post just yesterday, Deledrius. (...) You didn't get to hear our conversation, unfortunately, but it's been on our minds.

I was going to write a big, long post here, but, instead, I think I'll let you figure out why this statement would annoy people. I'll think I'll go back to doing useful things now.

[Mac_Fife]

Don't read too much into it, Hoikas ... In amongst a social chat about taxes, phishing emails and chocolate biscuits I happened to mention that I'd been thinking about how to reply to Deledrius, that it needed a reply: Everything said ended up in my earlier post.

[JWPlatt]

Yes, I can see now how that could be annoying, implying exclusion and missing out on the secret handshake. I'm sorry for fumbling the right way to reassure Deledrius that his contribution was valued and not ignored, though I hope our replies say that for themselves. I'd go further than Mac in saying everything said and lots more ended up here. Everything said was a couple of sentences in between taxes, phishing emails and chocolate biscuits, and I think the broken oven heating element was in there somewhere.

[Deledrius]

As I said, it happens, and I understand myself how easy it is to put off responding to something when you know you want to respond at length to it, even when it would be better to drop a short note saying a longer response is pending some days away. No worries.

So, more importantly: what's the next step?

[Mac_Fife]

So, more importantly: what's the next step?

At the moment, I don't really know... I'm a bit tied up today/tomorrow and I haven't managed to look at the gist you prepared earlier . I think I'd like to take a quiet sounding from Chogon on what Cyan might have time to consider, but at the same time I don't want to push harder than is necessary (I'm hopeful that some of the Cyan folks will make time to drop in to some of the MOULa 2nd anniversary events, and I don't want to force them into "saying well either I make time for that or I make time to look at content licensing").

[JWPlatt]

I'd like to see a working document on the wiki instead, as I mentioned, but in any case the next step is to collaborate on a document and complete it to satisfaction. That will certainly take longer than the anniversary events. If folks who want to work on it prefer gist, that's great too. But folks will need to want to work on it before it happens.

[Nadnerb]

I'd like to take a moment to thank Mac for providing a reasonable and honest answer. I can take from this that we will have to wait on Cyan now, probably until after the end of the week's events, (Though I guess I question why that's necessary, surely it can be provided with the caveat that "it's not higher priority than coming down for the anniversary"?) but we can be reasonably confident that this proposal will be in their hands in some form by then.

I'd also like to take a moment to berate JW for not saying anything particularly substantial and trying to bluff his way out of doing anything.

next step is to collaborate on a document and complete it to satisfaction.

To the satisfaction of whom? Everyone who cares seems to be satisfied with it already.

But folks will need to want to work on it before it happens.

What folks? Someone is presenting what amounts to a finished product of a proposal to you, and you're just kinda saying "It needs work". (without saying what is wrong with it) For people to want to work on it, they're going to have to have some indication that working on it will have an effect.