Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [piecepack] Profitable sales of free-culture Piecepack (was: Sad ToyVault news)

Expand Messages
  • Steve
    Well, we were able to poll some of the folks who know a good piecepack game when they see one, and that s how we put together the Gamer s Dozen book that we
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 2, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, we were able to poll some of the folks who know a good
      piecepack game when they see one, and that's how we put together the
      "Gamer's Dozen" book that we distribute with every retail copy of our
      piecepacks. But we did have to spend time wading through the
      licensing differences and tracking down the copyright holders to
      secure their permission Considering that board games are a challenge,
      we view any effort to grow the piecepack world as a good one - since
      more exposure brings new people, ideas and game designs into the
      community.
      Blue Panther LLC - Games, Accessories, Prototypes & Short Run Mfg
      Board Games Now LLC - the best indy board games
      On Tue 02/08/11 11:36 PM , Ben Finney
      ben+yahoogroups@... sent:
      Emily Page writes:
      > I am constantly in a state of disgusted surprise that this whole
      > system hasn't been properly profited from. :) So... the latest
      failure
      > is just par for the rolling my eyes course.
      One thing which is needed is freely-licensed game rules. Currently
      there
      are many game rules published, but very few of them under free
      licenses.
      Free licenses entail that there are no restrictions on commercial
      redistribution http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC [2]>. The
      Creative
      Commons Non-Commercial clause makes a work non-free.
      Free licenses entail that any modification is allowed in any
      redistribution of the work. The FDL (despite its name) places
      non-free
      restrictions on modification, and the No-Derivatives clause of the
      Creative Commons licenses also makes a work non-free.
      It's unfortunate that “Creative Commons” includes options for
      making a
      work free, and also options for making a work non-free. The brand
      isn't
      helpful for distinguishing the freedom of a work.

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/09352711499/creative-commons-branding-confusion.shtml
      [3]>
      I recommend the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license as being a free-culture license
      that still provides the necessary protections for the work and the
      copyright holder.
      http://questioncopyright.org/cc-pro [4]>
      http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ [5]>
      > I am still waiting for a fast food chain to make it a collectible
      > thing with their logo on the back.
      If there were a body of Piecepack game rules under free-culture
      licenses, that might be more possible: anyone could reformat them
      and
      translate them and modify them and mass-produce them and profit from
      them, without needing further license negotiation.
      What I'd really love is for a large number of the popular existing
      Piecepack games to be released under a free-culture license like
      CC-BY-SA-3.0.
      What I hope for is that we encourage all future Piecepack games to
      be
      released under free-culture licenses, without restriction on format
      nor
      modification nor commercial redistribution.
      > But I think I'm a bit on the unusual side on the list here... :)
      I hope not.
      --
      “I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that
      any |
      ` view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal
      and |
      _o__) opposite view.” —Douglas
      Adams |
      Ben Finney


      Links:
      ------
      [1] mailto:emily.page@...
      [2] http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
      [3]
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/09352711499/creative-commons-branding-confusion.shtml
      [4] http://questioncopyright.org/cc-pro
      [5] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
      [6]
      mailto:ben+yahoogroups@...?subject=Re:%20Profitable%20sales%20of%20free-culture%20Piecepack%20%28was:%20Sad%20ToyVault%20news%29
      [7]
      mailto:piecepack@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re:%20Profitable%20sales%20of%20free-culture%20Piecepack%20%28was:%20Sad%20ToyVault%20news%29
      [8]
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piecepack/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwdXJqdG8xBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1MTEzODgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDUyODk2BG1zZ0lkAzM3MzYEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMzEyMzQ2MTg2?act=reply&messageNum=3736
      [9]
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piecepack/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbmc4OWY3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1MTEzODgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDUyODk2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTMxMjM0NjE4Ng--
      [10]
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piecepack/message/3736;_ylc=X3oDMTM0c3ZncGdlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1MTEzODgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDUyODk2BG1zZ0lkAzM3MzYEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMzEyMzQ2MTg2BHRwY0lkAzM3MzY-
      [11]
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piecepack/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmb3M0OW5lBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1MTEzODgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDUyODk2BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzMTIzNDYxODY-?o=6
      [12]
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piecepack;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZmdhYWV0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1MTEzODgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDUyODk2BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTMxMjM0NjE4Ng--
      [13]
      http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcmg1a25lBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1MTEzODgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDUyODk2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzEyMzQ2MTg2
      [14] mailto:piecepack-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change
      Delivery Format: Traditional
      [15] mailto:piecepack-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery:
      Digest
      [16] mailto:piecepack-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe
      [17] http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ron Hale-Evans
      You beat me to replying, Mar. Most of our early games are GFDLed, and most of our later games, such as the as-yet-unreleased Relativity, are under some form of
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 2, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        You beat me to replying, Mar.

        Most of our early games are GFDLed, and most of our later games, such
        as the as-yet-unreleased Relativity, are under some form of CC,
        usually CC-BY-SA. I am completely open to relicensing our earlier
        games under CC-BY-SA (I'm guessing Marty is too); it's just a slightly
        tedious process, and not my highest priority at the moment, nor
        Marty's, I think.

        Ron

        On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:09 PM, M. Hale-Evans <marty@...> wrote:
        > I believe all of the games written by Ron and me are free-licensed,
        > including contest winners like Kidsprout Jumboree and Relativity, plus
        > Piecepack Letterbox, Wormholes, Snowman Meltdown, Epic Funhouse, Easy
        > Slider, and Castle Croquinole.  I think there are quite a few others, but
        > it's hard to easily tell which ones on the main piecepack site listings.
        >
        >
        > Marty
        >
        > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Ben Finney
        > <ben+yahoogroups@...>wrote:
        >
        >> Emily Page <emily.page@...> writes:
        >>
        >> > I am constantly in a state of disgusted surprise that this whole
        >> > system hasn't been properly profited from. :) So... the latest failure
        >> > is just par for the rolling my eyes course.
        >>
        >> One thing which is needed is freely-licensed game rules. Currently there
        >> are many game rules published, but very few of them under free licenses.
        >>
        >> Free licenses entail that there are no restrictions on commercial
        >> redistribution <URL:http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC>. The Creative
        >> Commons Non-Commercial clause makes a work non-free.
        >>
        >> Free licenses entail that any modification is allowed in any
        >> redistribution of the work. The FDL (despite its name) places non-free
        >> restrictions on modification, and the No-Derivatives clause of the
        >> Creative Commons licenses also makes a work non-free.
        >>
        >> It's unfortunate that “Creative Commons” includes options for making a
        >> work free, and also options for making a work non-free. The brand isn't
        >> helpful for distinguishing the freedom of a work.
        >>
        >>    <URL:
        >> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/09352711499/creative-commons-branding-confusion.shtml
        >> >
        >>
        >> I recommend the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license as being a free-culture license
        >> that still provides the necessary protections for the work and the
        >> copyright holder.
        >>
        >>    <URL:http://questioncopyright.org/cc-pro>
        >>    <URL:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>
        >>
        >> > I am still waiting for a fast food chain to make it a collectible
        >> > thing with their logo on the back.
        >>
        >> If there were a body of Piecepack game rules under free-culture
        >> licenses, that might be more possible: anyone could reformat them and
        >> translate them and modify them and mass-produce them and profit from
        >> them, without needing further license negotiation.
        >>
        >> What I'd really love is for a large number of the popular existing
        >> Piecepack games to be released under a free-culture license like
        >> CC-BY-SA-3.0.
        >>
        >> What I hope for is that we encourage all future Piecepack games to be
        >> released under free-culture licenses, without restriction on format nor
        >> modification nor commercial redistribution.
        >>
        >> > But I think I'm a bit on the unusual side on the list here... :)
        >>
        >> I hope not.
        >>
        >> --
        >>  \        “I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any |
        >>  `\       view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and |
        >> _o__)                                   opposite view.” —Douglas Adams |
        >> Ben Finney
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> ------------------------------------
        >>
        >> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >



        --
        Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... http://ron.ludism.org ... (206) 201-1768
        My new book, Mindhacker: http://ur1.ca/4iaey
        My first book, Mind Performance Hacks: http://ur1.ca/4iaf3
      • Ron Hale-Evans
        By the way, it might be helpful to undertake an inventory of how games are licensed and add a column to this table of contents on the Piecepack Wiki:
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 2, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          By the way, it might be helpful to undertake an inventory of how games
          are licensed and add a column to this table of contents on the
          Piecepack Wiki:

          http://www.ludism.org/ppwiki/Games

          This is completely beyond me wrt free time at the moment, but I will
          do what I can to support anyone who volunteers.

          Ron

          On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> wrote:
          > You beat me to replying, Mar.
          >
          > Most of our early games are GFDLed, and most of our later games, such
          > as the as-yet-unreleased Relativity, are under some form of CC,
          > usually CC-BY-SA. I am completely open to relicensing our earlier
          > games under CC-BY-SA (I'm guessing Marty is too); it's just a slightly
          > tedious process, and not my highest priority at the moment, nor
          > Marty's, I think.
          >
          > Ron
          >
          > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:09 PM, M. Hale-Evans <marty@...> wrote:
          >> I believe all of the games written by Ron and me are free-licensed,
          >> including contest winners like Kidsprout Jumboree and Relativity, plus
          >> Piecepack Letterbox, Wormholes, Snowman Meltdown, Epic Funhouse, Easy
          >> Slider, and Castle Croquinole.  I think there are quite a few others, but
          >> it's hard to easily tell which ones on the main piecepack site listings.
          >>
          >>
          >> Marty
          >>
          >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Ben Finney
          >> <ben+yahoogroups@...>wrote:
          >>
          >>> Emily Page <emily.page@...> writes:
          >>>
          >>> > I am constantly in a state of disgusted surprise that this whole
          >>> > system hasn't been properly profited from. :) So... the latest failure
          >>> > is just par for the rolling my eyes course.
          >>>
          >>> One thing which is needed is freely-licensed game rules. Currently there
          >>> are many game rules published, but very few of them under free licenses.
          >>>
          >>> Free licenses entail that there are no restrictions on commercial
          >>> redistribution <URL:http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC>. The Creative
          >>> Commons Non-Commercial clause makes a work non-free.
          >>>
          >>> Free licenses entail that any modification is allowed in any
          >>> redistribution of the work. The FDL (despite its name) places non-free
          >>> restrictions on modification, and the No-Derivatives clause of the
          >>> Creative Commons licenses also makes a work non-free.
          >>>
          >>> It's unfortunate that “Creative Commons” includes options for making a
          >>> work free, and also options for making a work non-free. The brand isn't
          >>> helpful for distinguishing the freedom of a work.
          >>>
          >>>    <URL:
          >>> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/09352711499/creative-commons-branding-confusion.shtml
          >>> >
          >>>
          >>> I recommend the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license as being a free-culture license
          >>> that still provides the necessary protections for the work and the
          >>> copyright holder.
          >>>
          >>>    <URL:http://questioncopyright.org/cc-pro>
          >>>    <URL:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>
          >>>
          >>> > I am still waiting for a fast food chain to make it a collectible
          >>> > thing with their logo on the back.
          >>>
          >>> If there were a body of Piecepack game rules under free-culture
          >>> licenses, that might be more possible: anyone could reformat them and
          >>> translate them and modify them and mass-produce them and profit from
          >>> them, without needing further license negotiation.
          >>>
          >>> What I'd really love is for a large number of the popular existing
          >>> Piecepack games to be released under a free-culture license like
          >>> CC-BY-SA-3.0.
          >>>
          >>> What I hope for is that we encourage all future Piecepack games to be
          >>> released under free-culture licenses, without restriction on format nor
          >>> modification nor commercial redistribution.
          >>>
          >>> > But I think I'm a bit on the unusual side on the list here... :)
          >>>
          >>> I hope not.
          >>>
          >>> --
          >>>  \        “I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any |
          >>>  `\       view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and |
          >>> _o__)                                   opposite view.” —Douglas Adams |
          >>> Ben Finney
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>> ------------------------------------
          >>>
          >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>
          >>
          >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> ------------------------------------
          >>
          >> Yahoo! Groups Links
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          > --
          > Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... http://ron.ludism.org ... (206) 201-1768
          > My new book, Mindhacker: http://ur1.ca/4iaey
          > My first book, Mind Performance Hacks: http://ur1.ca/4iaf3
          >



          --
          Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... http://ron.ludism.org ... (206) 201-1768
          My new book, Mindhacker: http://ur1.ca/4iaey
          My first book, Mind Performance Hacks: http://ur1.ca/4iaf3
        • Jorge Arroyo
          I understand the points about the non-commercial clause not being free and all that, but I can see why people might not want others to profit on their
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 2, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I understand the points about the non-commercial clause not being free
            and all that, but I can see why people might not want others to profit
            on their creations by default... I've used it some times, and some
            others I've used more free licenses... But I don't think it is too
            important in this particular case, as all the games are freely
            available to anyone anyway. I don't think having actual rules in the
            box is essential... And even if you want to have rules in your
            commercially released piecepack it is not that hard anyway (My edition
            had a few games and Blue Panther's does too).

            To me, the biggest issue is when designers use licenses that don't
            allow for derivative works such as translation or computer adaptations
            (even free ones). For example, I've got a One Man Thrag computer game
            sitting on my computer since last Summer because its author didn't
            reply when I asked him if it was ok. I guess I could just release it
            under another name because it doesn't use any copyrighted material,
            but I don't know... I'd rather do it right... so no one can play it...

            -Jorge


            On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> wrote:
            > By the way, it might be helpful to undertake an inventory of how games
            > are licensed and add a column to this table of contents on the
            > Piecepack Wiki:
            >
            > http://www.ludism.org/ppwiki/Games
            >
            > This is completely beyond me wrt free time at the moment, but I will
            > do what I can to support anyone who volunteers.
            >
            > Ron
            >
            > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> wrote:
            >> You beat me to replying, Mar.
            >>
            >> Most of our early games are GFDLed, and most of our later games, such
            >> as the as-yet-unreleased Relativity, are under some form of CC,
            >> usually CC-BY-SA. I am completely open to relicensing our earlier
            >> games under CC-BY-SA (I'm guessing Marty is too); it's just a slightly
            >> tedious process, and not my highest priority at the moment, nor
            >> Marty's, I think.
            >>
            >> Ron
            >>
            >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:09 PM, M. Hale-Evans <marty@...> wrote:
            >>> I believe all of the games written by Ron and me are free-licensed,
            >>> including contest winners like Kidsprout Jumboree and Relativity, plus
            >>> Piecepack Letterbox, Wormholes, Snowman Meltdown, Epic Funhouse, Easy
            >>> Slider, and Castle Croquinole.  I think there are quite a few others, but
            >>> it's hard to easily tell which ones on the main piecepack site listings.
            >>>
            >>>
            >>> Marty
            >>>
            >>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Ben Finney
            >>> <ben+yahoogroups@...>wrote:
            >>>
            >>>> Emily Page <emily.page@...> writes:
            >>>>
            >>>> > I am constantly in a state of disgusted surprise that this whole
            >>>> > system hasn't been properly profited from. :) So... the latest failure
            >>>> > is just par for the rolling my eyes course.
            >>>>
            >>>> One thing which is needed is freely-licensed game rules. Currently there
            >>>> are many game rules published, but very few of them under free licenses.
            >>>>
            >>>> Free licenses entail that there are no restrictions on commercial
            >>>> redistribution <URL:http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC>. The Creative
            >>>> Commons Non-Commercial clause makes a work non-free.
            >>>>
            >>>> Free licenses entail that any modification is allowed in any
            >>>> redistribution of the work. The FDL (despite its name) places non-free
            >>>> restrictions on modification, and the No-Derivatives clause of the
            >>>> Creative Commons licenses also makes a work non-free.
            >>>>
            >>>> It's unfortunate that “Creative Commons” includes options for making a
            >>>> work free, and also options for making a work non-free. The brand isn't
            >>>> helpful for distinguishing the freedom of a work.
            >>>>
            >>>>    <URL:
            >>>> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/09352711499/creative-commons-branding-confusion.shtml
            >>>> >
            >>>>
            >>>> I recommend the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license as being a free-culture license
            >>>> that still provides the necessary protections for the work and the
            >>>> copyright holder.
            >>>>
            >>>>    <URL:http://questioncopyright.org/cc-pro>
            >>>>    <URL:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>
            >>>>
            >>>> > I am still waiting for a fast food chain to make it a collectible
            >>>> > thing with their logo on the back.
            >>>>
            >>>> If there were a body of Piecepack game rules under free-culture
            >>>> licenses, that might be more possible: anyone could reformat them and
            >>>> translate them and modify them and mass-produce them and profit from
            >>>> them, without needing further license negotiation.
            >>>>
            >>>> What I'd really love is for a large number of the popular existing
            >>>> Piecepack games to be released under a free-culture license like
            >>>> CC-BY-SA-3.0.
            >>>>
            >>>> What I hope for is that we encourage all future Piecepack games to be
            >>>> released under free-culture licenses, without restriction on format nor
            >>>> modification nor commercial redistribution.
            >>>>
            >>>> > But I think I'm a bit on the unusual side on the list here... :)
            >>>>
            >>>> I hope not.
            >>>>
            >>>> --
            >>>>  \        “I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any |
            >>>>  `\       view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and |
            >>>> _o__)                                   opposite view.” —Douglas Adams |
            >>>> Ben Finney
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>> ------------------------------------
            >>>>
            >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>> ------------------------------------
            >>>
            >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >> --
            >> Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... http://ron.ludism.org ... (206) 201-1768
            >> My new book, Mindhacker: http://ur1.ca/4iaey
            >> My first book, Mind Performance Hacks: http://ur1.ca/4iaf3
            >>
            >
            >
            >
            > --
            > Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... http://ron.ludism.org ... (206) 201-1768
            > My new book, Mindhacker: http://ur1.ca/4iaey
            > My first book, Mind Performance Hacks: http://ur1.ca/4iaf3
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.