In message <d74eah+rheh_at_...> "Charles Corrigan" writes:
>wrote:
>> OK, after a reasonable wait from my postings
>> last week, I updated the Wiki as a precusor
>> to obtaining a license. Please let me know
>> if I have messed anything up and, in
>> particular, I know that I have missed many
>> contributors from the WhiteWallWyter page.
>
>OK, it looks like I did mess something up :-(
>
>It looks like our "Author's copyrights" section may breach the
>license that I have to personally sign. The problematic sentence is
>"We encourage the use and republishing of the ideas and concepts
>included in this wiki, with attribution where practical."
>
>The conflicting sentence in the license that I have to sign
>is "Licensee acknowledges that any material derived from or
>incorporating the Proprietary Material cannot be further copied,
>distributed, or otherwise exploited without Issaries' written
>approval."
>
>My worst case interpretation is that, while the bulk of our site is
>probably OK, some parts, particularly the derived map(s) and the
>quotations must not be included under our statement. And yes, I know
>that we state "ideas and concepts" and I know that we further
>qualify it that use outside Glorantha is problematic.
>
>Any suggestions?
Change "ideas and concepts" to "concepts" and refer to or copy the
concept use clause from the FPP. Then it's clear that we are using
the same terms. You might want to include the Issaries definition
of proprietary material as well, making it clear that such rights
are reserved.
Actually there's a bigger potential conflict - the license extract
you quote refers to "copied" not "published". That means that the
whole sentence about allowing people to copy for personal use needs
to go unless we distinguish between Issaries derived work and the
rest. Won't stop people copying and using it but at least you're
not endorsing the practice.
--
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/