On Licenses [backlog]

I've been doing a lot of coding lately. During my run this evening, I got to thinking about licenses and IP rights, and exactly what rights I should be worried about retaining on both my recent software and gaming rules projects. These are the conclusions I came to for me personally (so feel free to hold your own view).

Most licenses concern opening up copyright. As explored earlier, copyright doesn't cover ideas themselves, but only the specific instantiation of those ideas in a document or other physical form (including digital media).

You can protect processes with a patent, though that tends to limit the free exchange of ideas. For that reason, I'm personally not really down with patents--especially outside of physical manufactured devices.

You can cover distinctive and identifying names and images with a trademark. I think that's fair. This is product identity--how people recognize certain producers, companies, and products. Protecting your trademarks prevents others from trying to impersonate you in the marketplace or in the sharing community.

But the bulk of intellectual property is covered by copyright. While I'm opposed to restricting the flow of ideas, I do see that it's fair to protect the work that goes into instantiating that idea into a particular form. (I think that the default copyright duration is too long though, but that's another post.) As soon as you create a physical (or digital) work, it's automatically protected by copyright, and others are not allowed to copy, modify, or redistribute it without your permission. However, various licenses have sprung up to allow you the ability to grant others permission to do some of these things, provided they adhere to certain restrictions. The thing I got to thinking about on my run is: which of those restrictions do I want to enforce for my works?

After visiting Creative Commons again, and reading the new GPLv3, here's what I've been thinking:

Attribution. I like this. I would want credit for the time and effort I put into a work, even if others then go on to build on it or change it. Interestingly, all the CC licenses include this option, so apparently this is a common human response to want credit. For game rules, the OGL does a nice job of ensuring this at a basic level by requiring modifiers to retain the copyright notices of all previous contributors.

For software, I find the GPL to be a little vague on this requirement. Presumably, "publish[ing] on each copy an appropriate copyright notice" refers to the original author's notice. Also, though the "work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it", it doesn't explain or give examples of how this might best be done. (They give example for new programs, but not for modified ones.) Perhaps modifiers don't merit their own copyright, since they are producing a derivative work? That doesn't seem entirely fair though. Version 3 of the GPL allows certain other licenses to be enforced along with the GPL, so I would consider using CC's Attribution license with it in order to clarify some of these issues.

Non-derivative. For software, this would mean "non-free", since the user wouldn't be able to change and then publish the modified program. Since game rules are always tweaked based on the particular GM, I think those GMs should be free to then post those changes. This allows for an improving evolution of the system as a whole.

Where I could see restricting derivative works is in regards to what the OGL calls Product Identity: particularly, a campaign setting, world, or characters. The temptation is to prevent others from taking your carefully constructed vision and "messing it up". But, I think most people would be motivated to tweak a setting because they're fans of it, and would try to stay true to the basic spirit. I think opening it up would allow a setting of much greater depth (with many hands contributing to fill it out) and greater adoption in the larger community. And who doesn't want their world adopted by others? When combined with attribution, you'd still have some measure of "canon" control as original author. I can see why many would choose non-derivative for product identity, but I think there's some very good reasons to open it up.

Share Alike. This is what is really meant by copyleft: modifications of your IP must be just as available to others as the original material. For software, the source code for any published modifications must be released back to the community. Under CC licenses, it means the other terms of the license must also apply to modifications as well. I think this is very good idea--again, to encourage the exchange of ideas, to keep things open, and to allow evolution to something better. If my material gives someone a head start, I think they should pay it forward by letting their material boost someone else's efforts.

Non-commercial. This one I thought on the most. My first thought was: "If anyone's going to be making money off my work, it should be me!" But if I was really going to make money off of my IP, I probably wouldn't be giving it away free in the first place. Or I'd be making money off of it in different ways--such as associated product identity or support.

So, if I'm making it available for free, but someone else can think of some way of making money off it, it's probably because they've either added something valuable (derivative work) or are providing some extra service around it. Because of attribution, I'm still getting credit for the original idea. And because of their adoption and advertising of it, it's getting more coverage and support. And thanks to Share Alike, I'd be free to take their valuable additions and reincorporate them into the original and make money the same way they are--if I wanted to put in the effort to do so.

So while my gut response was to not allow commercial uses without a separate agreement (probably one involving royalties), I'm thinking now that--as long as I've got attribution (along with retaining any original trademarks or associated product identity) and share alike (with free access to their changes)--I may as well let others freely make money off it if they can figure out how.

Thus, I think the OGL, the CC BY-SA license, and the GPL (possibly with a supplementary CC BY license) are the best for me.