RE: [ImmoderateHeroQuest] Re: Why...

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_v-wiDXvJLjbu5Eh3tu69G_Z6j9QkXNbdBtyM2-q5f4oWwn3IzAxAiLFdEK1PX>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 02:43:36 +0100


> Let me try an anlogy: The words are like a "metes and
> bounds" description of a fence line. The fence runs from the
> creek edge at the watrerfall to the old tree stump, with the
> dirt mound outside and the bluff on the inside, etc. There
> are always going to be more words spent on the stuff that is
> near the fence-line than the stuff that is well within it.

OK, that makes sense. Also very few words on the stuff well outside it.

> > But it looks far more as if they're got far more material
> than they've
> > got the resources to publish? Just look at the amount of stuff
> > currently "in the queue" - and almost all of it delayed, late....
>
> Speaking from personal experience, the delay is not due to
> Greg or Stephen. :-(

Do you happen to know what it is due to? And why their estimates of dates are still so badly out?

> > And, if the logic were as you describe, and we ended up with the UW
> > producing books and Issaries not - why should the end consumer be
> > worried? All it means is that the people who produce the
> best products
> > "win". Fine. Not that I'm convinced there's a conpetition - what we
> > actually do is buy both, and wish there was more coming out to buy.
>
> It would never end that way. The scenario to worry about is
> that Issaries publishes a dribble, UW publishes a dribble,
> Rick publishes a dribble, etc.

But why's that a problem? It's what we've got now, and it works.

> I think we are better off
> having a thriving Issaries putting out official Glorantha
> stuff -- nothing against our good friends at UW.

I'd say we're better off with *someone* putting out thriving Glorantha stuff. I have no preference as to who, nor any idea why I should have.

> He has a lot of irons in the fire. He is not a businessman.
> He is hare-brained on occasion. I just ask that you not
> judge too harshly. I think he is well-intentioned, just
> administratively incompetent sometimes.

That "never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence" thing? I do try to. But some levels of incompetence, in someone we know to be intelligent, are quite hard to believe.

> I agree it is. But you seem to be conflating what the
> document must say to respond to ptential legal problems with
> what he will do in response to real situtions. The best
> evidence of what he will do in practice is not what the legal
> document permits, but what he has actually done in the past.

Where my own experiences have been generally OK, but stories from others more closely involved have often been anything but.

> > in aggressive tones (yes, by the standards of normal humans reading
> > normal English, it is),
>
> It is not normal English. It is a legal document.

But it's being addressed to people who read in English. Which is why it so badly needs to come with a warning!

> How many people say "shall" that often in a day?

If I'm writing a programming spec, you'd be surprised! "Shall", "should", and "will", with very important graduations of meaning :) Important, that is, if the person I'm addressing is someone I'm trying to nail to the wall in terms of what they get and don't get. If it's being addressed to someone I'm trying to help, I write so they can understand it.

> > whose only APPARENT target is the fan base who've been supporting
> > Glorantha (and to some extent Issaries) for decades.
>
> Fiddle-de-dee. What possible motive would he have to target
> the fans?

There's been plenty suggested, I'm not going to bother repeating them again. Control-freakism being the most obvious.

> Now compare that to what possible motive he might
> have to prevent future legal problems?

When in PUBLIC knowledge there have never been any legal problems, or even the hint of possible legal problems?

> Fair enough. Just don't forget that they are trying to make
> this a business.

Which I still think is a fundamental mistake in itself :(

> > > The fundamental transaction between you and Issaries is that
> > > Issaries spends its resources to write materials that it
> hopes you
> > > like and you get the option to buy them.
> >
> > No, that isn't the relationship between me/us and Issaries under
> > discussion here.
>
> It was certainly the one I was writing about, among the
> several that John raised.

Ah, that wasn't clear. The FPP and licences being about authors, not passive buyers, I rather assumed that was the topic of discussion.

> > But if that document could have been produced, for free or even for
> > cheap, by a superbly helpful and friendly Jeff (see what I
> mean about
> > Issaries being dependent on Relationships?) why didn't they
> realise it
> > was needed back when they started all this, and ask him nicely back
> > then? Was the need not blindingly obvious enough?
>
> People have been militating for the policy to be published
> for months. The policy does handle a lot of grey area very
> sensitively. I do not think it was blindingly obvious which
> parts would need to be explained.

You've said yourself that it wasn't written in English - obviously therefore a translation into English would be needed, since it's addressed to people (us) who don't speak Legalese. And since it appears on first glance to be English, a note to say that it wasn't would also have been a good idea.

> In particular, I am very
> surprised at the level of distrust expressed towards Issaries
> in areas concernign things like the rule that you have to
> submit materials that may be formally published to Issaries
> and give Issaries first bite at the apple.

It's a legalistic and aggressive document. The obvious response to something like that is distrust.

> It does not. I was drawing an anlogy to open source
> licenses. (Apparently not very well.) The Fan Policy
> treatment of IDEAS is like an open source license treatment
> of WORKS. Did I clarify?

Considerably, yes.

> > As far as I can see this does appear to be the case.
> > Mainly. The tricky bit is this phrase, from the
> > License:
> >
> > "Issaries owns all right, title, and interest in and to the
> > Proprietary Material, and to any material derived from or
> > incorporating the Proprietary Material."
>
> Hm. I don't see this in the fan policy.

That's because, like I said, it's in the Licence.            

Powered by hypermail