• Here, I agree with him, I think it wasn't a good idea to use this term, so I've modified it to "other game data" (in EN only, if somebody can have a look at the FR/DE versions).
  

Even after reading that piece I remain unswayed. Denying that "Intellectual Property" as a descriptive term is valid denies reality. Rather than dividing people on words, better to spend your time directly attacking the idea of "Intellectual Property".

"Game data" doesn't really describe patents, copyrights and trademarks. Although, if you guys feel strongly about removing the term "Intellectual Property", the feel free to substitue "patents, copyrights and trademarks" in its place. To me, listing them out is much more descriptive than, "game data".

the feel free to substitue "patents, copyrights and trademarks" in its place. To me, listing them out is much more descriptive than, "game data".

thats true!

Could you post Richard Stallman's letter? Its hard to discuss something when you don't have the original text.

Your campaign is a good thing, but two words in the home page tends to spread harmful confusion. I'm talking about the words "intellectual property". That term spreads confusion and bias whenever it is used; even experts must struggle to say anything about that term which isn't a mistake.

Because of the term's vagueness, I am not even sure what you mean by that term. The home page says "source code, artwork and intellectual property". If you don't mean the source code, and you don't mean the artwork, what else is it? Perhaps there isn't anything else. That term tends to mask confusion, and perhaps there is nothing real here.

Would you be so kind as to tell me what specific things you intended to refer to by using that term? Then I could suggest a clear way to do it.

In the long run, rejection of the term "intellectual property" is essential to encourage clear thinking about such divergent issues as copyright law and patent law. For more explanation, see www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html.

I look forward to continuing this conversation thru Emacs instead of this horrible web browser interface.

The text on your site states opinions and campaigns, so I recommend you use a verbatim-copying-only license rather than the GFDL. I wrote the GFDL for manuals and other educational and reference materials. Those should permit publication of modified versions. But it's a different matter for opinions.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:34:35 +0100
[email protected] wrote:

> Because of the term's vagueness, I am not even sure
> what you mean by that term. The home page says
> "source code, artwork and intellectual property".

You're right, we didn't liked using this term when we wrote the text.
However, we were then in the early stages of a last-minute
project, and there wasn't a complete and clear definition of how
exactly define "Ryzom", and the goal was to sum up a long list in a
single term (3D models, textures, leveldesign files, user base,
animation data, etc.)

But I admit this isn't optimum.

> In the long run, rejection of the term "intellectual property"
> is essential to encourage clear thinking about such divergent
> issues as copyright law and patent law. For more explanation,
> see www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html.

Thanks for the hint; I remember reading that text, but I progressively
forgot the importance of the issue, and I'm even more willing to change
it now. However, I couldn't find a better way to say the same thing
here. I'll think about it, but if you have a suggestion, I'd gladly
consider it.

> The text on your site states opinions and campaigns, so I recommend
> you use a verbatim-copying-only license rather than the GFDL. I
> wrote the GFDL for manuals and other educational and reference
> materials. Those should permit publication of modified versions.
> But it's a different matter for opinions.

On that part, while I understand your opinion, I like the idea of
letting others modifying a text I wrote, even if it states opinions.
However, since it's a democratically run project, so if you wish so,
I'll bring the subject on the forums and see what other people think.

Thanks for spending time reading the website, and I use this occasion
to tell you all the respect I have for what you have accomplished. We
wouldn't be trying this today without you.

Since "intellectual property" refers to a set of laws, it is
fundamentally misleading to use it as a way of describing a set of
_works_. Especially since, of all the "intellectual property" laws,
only copyright is relevant to these works. (Some of the programs
surely infringe software patents held by others, since nearly all
programs do; but you can't buy those patents from Nevrax!)

> However, I couldn't find a better way to say the same thing
> here. I'll think about it, but if you have a suggestion, I'd gladly
> consider it.

How about "source code, art work, and other game data"?
I think that covers everything, and there is no need to name
each kind of data.

> On that part, while I understand your opinion, I like the idea of
> letting others modifying a text I wrote, even if it states opinions.

Even the list of signatories, for instance?

> However, since it's a democratically run project, so if you wish so,
> I'll bring the subject on the forums and see what other people think.

I think that is a good approach.

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:27:01 -0500
Richard Stallman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Since "intellectual property" refers to a set of laws, it is
> fundamentally misleading to use it as a way of describing a set of
> _works_. Especially since, of all the "intellectual property" laws,
> only copyright is relevant to these works. (Some of the programs
> surely infringe software patents held by others, since nearly all
> programs do; but you can't buy those patents from Nevrax!)

Alright, thanks for the details.

> How about "source code, art work, and other game data"?
> I think that covers everything, and there is no need to name
> each kind of data.

Hum, ok, let's do that. I've made the changes on the EN version, the
FR and DE versions should be done soon.

> Even the list of signatories, for instance?

You're right, this doesn't seem like a good idea for this page. But can
we re-release it under a verbatim-copy-only license now that hundreds of
people have added their own piece of text ? I don't think we can without
contacting each of them individually, but if there is another way I'll
make sure we do it.

And I get your point, generally speaking. In the future, I'll propose
to release these kind of pages in a verbatim-copy-only license.

> However, since it's a democratically run project, so if you wish
> so, I'll bring the subject on the forums and see what other people
> think.
>
> I think that is a good approach.

Alright. :) I've started a thread here :
http://www.ryzom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60

Sorry, it is a web forum... I'm having a hard time convincing players
that mailing lists or newsgroups are better. :)

Thanks again for your comments.

> You're right, this doesn't seem like a good idea for this page. But can
> we re-release it under a verbatim-copy-only license now that hundreds of
> people have added their own piece of text ? I don't think we can without
> contacting each of them individually, but if there is another way I'll
> make sure we do it.

You can start a new page for further signatories, and maybe set up a
web interface for old signatories to move their text to the new page
if they wish.

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:55:57 -0500
Richard Stallman <[email protected]> wrote:

> You can start a new page for further signatories, and maybe set up a
> web interface for old signatories to move their text to the new page
> if they wish.

I think this would confuse people, which we don't need right now. So
we'll probably leave it this way for this page, and be careful about
not doing the same mistake in the future.

Thanks again for all your comments and advices!