[crossfire] Re: License for wiki text
Lalo Martins
lalo at exoweb.net
Mon Sep 5 23:02:05 CDT 2005
And so says Brendan Lally on 05/09/05 22:16...
>
On 9/5/05, Lalo Martins
>
<
lalo at exoweb.net
> wrote:
>>
Personally I'd go with the FDL for documentation, and GPL for lore.
>>
>
>
What happens then if something written as documentation is latter
>
used as lore within the game?
Hmm. I was under the impression that the FDL is GPL-compatible
(meaning, you can get something via FDL and redistribute via GPL). From
a quick glance of gnu.org, that doesn't seem to be the case, sorry.
But my point was the other way around - to make lore *more* restrictive
(GPL), so that people can't run wild with it.
So maybe dual-license documentation on FDL and GPL - which in practice
means the documentation distributed on the release tarball turns up
GPLed ;-)
>
I am not convinced the boundaries between these two catergories are
>
always clear.
I don't agree here, though. (Or you misunderstand me.) By
"documentation" I mean technical. Referring specifically to the wiki,
you'll notice there is a "fact" section and a "lore" section. When I
say "documentation" (or "fact"), I'm referring to about-game material,
whereas "lore" is in-game material. The boundaries are pretty clear.
(Ok, you can argue about stuff like formulae. Are these technical, or
in-game? :-P Well, in this case, I'd consider them "lore", because
they *can* make sense in-game.)
best,
Lalo Martins
--
So many of our dreams at first seem impossible,
then they seem improbable, and then, when we
summon the will, they soon become inevitable.
--
http://www.exoweb.net/
mailto:
lalo at exoweb.net
GNU: never give up freedom
http://www.gnu.org/
More information about the crossfire
mailing list