Content Licensing

[Leonardo]

I think real names would be even less meaningfull for Cyan Worlds than our forum/MOULa names, unless you know that Tony knows you better by your real name; but that is not the case for many of us. In this special online environment, forum names take the place that real names have in the offline world.

Definitely something that explains better each name would be a good thing for when the document will arrive in the hands of who hasn't had many contacts with the community (Tony, Rand, ....). Probably the Group/Guild/Association/Project/whatever name would be the best information we could give them along with a web reference, as JWPlatt already suggested.

[JWPlatt]

The real name wouldn't replace the username, but optionally be in addition to the username.

[Mac_Fife]

The real name wouldn't replace the username, but optionally be in addition to the username.

Also, as Ricard suggested, from a privacy perspective, that should be detail manually added by whoever assembles the final letter, so would need to be volunteered by anyone who agrees to do so, e.g. by PM.

[Hoikas]

I would go with including real names and any pertinent information, given what I have inferred about Tony.

[branan]

I also vote for real names, alongside forum names and any other identifying/contact information that might be relevant to Cyan to be able to handle this easily.

Also, if we want any more examples of stuff we could fix with a content license: http://mystonline.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=25431

EDIT: I had a thought*. Maybe we should be collecting these examples in an easy-to-browse format like a wiki page, and we can just add a link to the proposal? That way Cyan can see exactly the sort of stuff we're talking about without cluttering the main document.


*shocking, I know

[JWPlatt]

Yes, that's a good idea. I recommend putting it on the same wiki page as the document we've been writing. I already have a link to the wiki page in my revision. And there's already a technical info section on the wiki page below the actual document. A "More Examples" would be great to add there. It won't matter so much how much information anyone wants to add there after the main document, though we should resist trying to recreate Cyan's database of all issues ever reported.

To add: Adam's stair case (get it? staircase? Heh) would also be a great example to put on the wiki page under "More Examples." It should probably also refer to his forum post to see the pictures.

[OHB]

I'm on board with real names. I'm not sure Tony knows me as OHB anyway lol.

I do think we should all include our most closely held affiliation (OU, GoW, H'uru, GoMe, etc, using the full domain name) to give evidence of our unity on this issue.

I thought we had discussed having entire groups sign? I know Hoikas was going to run it past the council to get approval to sign on behalf of the guild. I put in a request to the GoG for the same but there's zero activity.

[Deledrius]

I thought we had discussed having entire groups sign? I know Hoikas was going to run it past the council to get approval to sign on behalf of the guild. I put in a request to the GoG for the same but there's zero activity.

Since the scope and goal of the document has changed considerably since we last discussed this point, I think this would be for the best where ever possible. It's definitely a multi-discipline proposal at this point.

[JWPlatt]

I thought we had discussed having entire groups sign? I know Hoikas was going to run it past the council to get approval to sign on behalf of the guild. I put in a request to the GoG for the same but there's zero activity.

Ah, okay. No, not entire groups where everyone in a group is solicited to sign individually. I responded to your post about that. Please see this post where I recommended that that kind of thing should not happen:
viewtopic.php?p=5520#p5520

But If you're signing on behalf of a large group, that seems perfectly fine (and encouraged).

It might be good to put Mac's "Open Source Uru Community" heading above the signatures, and put your affiliation beside your name, and if you are representing a group, use "on behalf of..." I think from OpenUru.org specifically, we'll want to leave it as individual signatures because there are just a few and no one of us represents the entirety. Individuals who have followed this discussion, or have contributed to the document, or have a stake in seeing a content license happen should of course continue to be welcome to sign individually.

A full example might be, to name names, "'Hoikas,' Adam Johnson, GuildOfWriters.com[, on behalf of The Guild of Writers[, <address>]].

[Marten]

The Guild of Messengers discussed signing as a group, and concluded that some of us (self included) weren't comfortable with any one Messenger endorsing on behalf of the whole group. I know that sounds a bit GoGish... normally, we have no problem with any one of our members speaking "on behalf" of the guild, but when it's an endorsement issue such as in this case, that's a bit more sensitive, particularly for a group that tries to stay neutral/factual and not often cast opinions.

The discussion was held where all Messengers would at least be informed about the Licensing proposal work, and could make their own independent decision on whether to sign.