Content Licensing

CyanWorlds.com Engine Project Management
User avatar
JWPlatt
Member
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:32 pm
Location: Everywhere, all at once

Re: Content Licensing

Post by JWPlatt » Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:59 am

I get it, Branan. We're in a rather unique position and that's fortunate for you. It's because we're not only fans that this is possible. But according to your own complaint, you wouldn't know whether we're pushing for the community or not. In fact we are representing it rather well, being mindful of community concerns, including the Community Request which is what got Cyan's most recent attention.

Look on the bright side. If we continue to do better at diplomacy with Cyan Worlds on your behalf than you have, you'll have a content license in addition to the open source license we already delivered to you. Twice. Now I'm sure you'll mention the relicensing in terms of getting the content license right, but we did that for you too, according to your (the community) suggestions and concerns and our own due diligence with Cyan and the Free Software Foundation. You'll get your content license review. Once the content is squared away you will have everything you wanted despite yourselves, and I'll be out of your way. That will make both of us very happy.
Perfect speed is being there.

User avatar
Hoikas
Member
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Content Licensing

Post by Hoikas » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:59 am

Never mind that we sent the same damn notification about potential license violations months before and were absolutely ignored. That you are more than fans is the problem because it means that Cyan will not listen to other fans. I can send emails about license problems, distributions issues, etc until I'm blue in the face, and it won't matter because I'm not in the right circle. We are fully capable of holding respectful, constructive dialogue ourselves (and the insinuation that we cannot is not appreciated and is most certainly not helping your case), and we should not be required to jump through hoops that seem outright arbitrary to those who are not "in the know."

A little bit disconnected from the above, but still relevant to the "in the know" statement...
In fact we are representing it rather well
You're refusing to share specifics of your discussion with Cyan for us and being extraordinarily confrontational and condescending to those who request for more information. That seems to run in direct opposition to this statement. The seeming resistance to "play ball" despite continued attempts on our parts to do so is becoming increasingly infuriating.
Image

Tai'lahr
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Content Licensing

Post by Tai'lahr » Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:05 pm

I understand the frustration here; I would be, too. But, I know JW & Mac well enough to trust them when it comes to dealing with Cyan. Yes, they have developed a relationship with Cyan that gives them an advantage - not much of one, really, but a slight one, nonetheless - and instead of resenting them for it, I would try to see how I could use that to my own advantage. They're here and listening to everyone who has an interest in this project and conveying those ideas & requests to Cyan.

Just stop and think about what you're asking for. You know that if they posted what they sent to Cyan, it would soon be quoted and misquoted all across the community forums until it was twisted from being a request to Cyan into a promise from Cyan much in the same way that people said Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet when, in fact, he simply said he had supported the legislation that allowed it to flourish.

Your point about Cyan not listening to the fans is nothing new, so count your blessings that you have the ear of someone they do listen to.

User avatar
Hoikas
Member
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Content Licensing

Post by Hoikas » Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:53 pm

Tai'lahr wrote:it would soon be quoted and misquoted all across the community forums
Proof? Everything that has started here has remained here, with the exception of anything mentioned at the AGM [if you feel that anyone is putting words in Cyan's mouth, then you should probably quote that post and refute the statement so that the poster can realize his/her mistake]. By JW's own reasoning, his refusal to keep us informed means that we cannot trust him--this doesn't even begin to address the near-constant perception of condescension and aggression.
Image

User avatar
semplerfi
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:53 am
Contact:

Re: Content Licensing / Founder's syndrome

Post by semplerfi » Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:15 pm

I speak for no one here but myself. As a community member I can no longer sit by and watch this slow motion train wreck without speaking up.

IMHO

What we are experiencing here is known as: “Founder's syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder's_syndrome

The first couple of paragraphs from the wiki reads:
“Founder's syndrome, sometimes called Founderitis, is a label normally used to refer to a pattern of behavior on the part of the founder(s) of an organization that, over time, becomes maladaptive to the successful accomplishment of the organizational mission. The term is anecdotal/unofficial and does not actually refer to a medical syndrome. It is particularly common where there has been only one person leading the organization or the board of directors since its inception and commonly occurs in both non-profit and for-profit.

An organization faces founder's syndrome as the scope of activities widen and number of stakeholders increase. Without an effective and inclusive decision-making structure and process there is potential for conflict between newcomers who seek effective involvement with organizational development and the founder(s) who seek to dominate the decision-making process. This can be very disruptive both to the organization and to the individuals concerned and should be carefully and clearly diagnosed and addressed quickly and decisively.

[edit1 to add]
That came from the heart. No gaming, no trolling, from the heart. I take complete ownership of my post.

cjkelly1
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:08 am

Re: Content Licensing

Post by cjkelly1 » Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:32 am

Wow! Someone tries to do something to help the community by putting in a lot of time and effort (and probably spending some of his political capital as a revenue generating partner of Cyan's) and appears to actually be able to get the results that people want, and gets as thanks a nice pile of nasty comments and complaints. That is just messed up. :(

User avatar
branan
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:35 pm

Re: Content Licensing

Post by branan » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:10 pm

For my thoughts on how much JW has "helped" the community, I invite you to read http://forum.guildofwriters.org/viewtop ... 203#p55203

Or, to borrow your phrasing:

Wow! A bunch of fans spend the better part of a decade trying to keep your game alive and evangelizing for you, and you throw them under a bus in favor of a business partner on an unrelated venture. That is just messed up. :(

Leonardo
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:57 pm

Re: Content Licensing

Post by Leonardo » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:43 pm

cjkelly1 wrote:Wow! Someone tries to do something to help the community by putting in a lot of time and effort (and probably spending some of his political capital as a revenue generating partner of Cyan's) and appears to actually be able to get the results that people want, and gets as thanks a nice pile of nasty comments and complaints. That is just messed up. :(
Very Machiavellian. So "the end justifies the means"?
The fact that we are getting results should make us forget how we get them?
The people here are trying to express the thought that they don't like how this whole matter is being treated, nobody is questioning the results themselves.

The latest words from OpenUru in this thread express a very clear message: "My way or the highway" I don't find it to be a line of thought that is very compatible with the task of representing the Community to Cyan. But it has become very clear that OpenUru is not representing the Community to Cyan, it is representing Cyan to the Community. With the usual secrecy and all the behaviours associated with business that are completely out of context in an open source project managed by a community.
We don't need yet another layer of bureaucracy between us and Cyan.

EDIT: yes, the OpenUru guys are priviledged, they have a special contact with Cyan, that's not a bad thing. But we'd expect their task to be making it easier for the community to contact Cyan in a more open way, using their "faster channel"; instead they just moved the wall of secrecy and bureaucracy from Cyan's borders to OpenUru's borders. We are still hitting the head on the same wall.

User avatar
Hoikas
Member
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Content Licensing

Post by Hoikas » Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:29 pm

cjkelly1 wrote:Wow! Someone tries to do something to help the community by putting in a lot of time and effort (and probably spending some of his political capital as a revenue generating partner of Cyan's) and appears to actually be able to get the results that people want, and gets as thanks a nice pile of nasty comments and complaints. That is just messed up. :(
Here's a hint... These nasty comments won't happen if, instead of condescending remarks, we get open discussion and actual statements about what is important to Cyan and what concerns there are. When taking over a role as a community liaison, it is important to communicate specifics to both sides of the equation, and, from my point of view, that is not happening. I would love to be proved wrong by open statements regarding what is important to Cyan and what their concerns are, as mentioned above.
Image

User avatar
Mac_Fife
Member
Posts: 1227
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:38 am
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Content Licensing

Post by Mac_Fife » Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:22 pm

I'm no longer expecting anyone to belive me but, but what we have from Cyan is what is in my June 3 post and is essentially the same as I presented at the AGM. There is no more than that. What was sent back to Cyan in response are the questions and comments that are in green in that post - OK, re-worded and re-formatted a bit, but essentially the same material. Comment on that if you wish - really, please do. Only keep in mind that we have no idea yet if that response is simply the very quick initial thoughts of Tony alone or if they represent the collective, official view of Cyan: My belief is that Rand has not yet commented on any of this. It's also clearly a long way from a complete statement of their "requirements", and looks like they haven't considered the distribution of the compiled products. So, I don't think it's "fit for purpose" yet.
Mac_Fife
OpenUru.org wiki wrangler

Post Reply

Return to “Management”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests