Diffs for New versions of CoreRPG/5E

[Moon Wizard]

Ok, here is what we have come up with as a general content license for content included in FG downloads. This is a first take, and you can send suggestions to [email protected].

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/filel...ntlicense.html

@celestian,
Please include the link in the front info page for the GitHub repositories.

Thanks,
JPG

[celestian]

Ok, here is what we have come up with as a general content license for content included in FG downloads. This is a first take, and you can send suggestions to [email protected].

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/filel...ntlicense.html

@celestian,
Please include the link in the front info page for the GitHub repositories.

Thanks,
JPG

Added "Fantasy Grounds is a trademark of SmiteWorks USA. General Content License https://www.fantasygrounds.com/" to the front of the Releases/, Releases/5E and Releases/CoreRPG pages on the gitlab repos.

Thanks!

[Moon Wizard]

Can you put the link to the specific content license, not just the front page of web site?

Thanks,
JPG

[celestian]

Can you put the link to the specific content license, not just the front page of web site?

Thanks,
JPG

Woops, that was suppose to be the full link. The form I filled in was quietly removing characters (Apparently I hit the max) and it didn't include the entire URL. I truncated the text a bit to get the full URL.

General Content License https://www.fantasygrounds.com/filel...ntlicense.html

[Bidmaron]

So, just to be clear: if someone posts Paizo material covered by their OGL and community use guidelines and then that product becomes available in the store, that user-generated material can no longer be posted anywhere? That makes perfect sense, of course, but I wanted to make sure I am reading it properly.

[Moon Wizard]

We're just saying that if you use our code or systems to build modifications (ruleset, extensions, modules) for a set of products that we don't currently support but is allowed (such as ruleset game mechanics support for GURPS, Warhammer FRP, etc.), but we later are able to get an official license with that publisher and release an official set of products; then, we would ask for the community modifications to be discontinued. Of course, if that scenario did happen, we would most likely be asking the community developer who is already working on it to build out the official material too...

Cheers,
JPG

[celestian]

If you've a need for the diffs on 3.3.6->3.3.7 I've updated the repos.

[celestian]

Updated repo for 3.3.7 if you're interested in the diffs.

As Ken suggested if you want to do this locally, something like "Beyond Compare" is a good tool to compare entire directories to previous revisions.

[Ken L]

I did not notice this before:

This permission can be revoked at any time. Permission is automatically revoked for freely available content, if an official release of that content is made available on the Fantasy Grounds store

That is pretty F'd up. That's like roll20 yanking the community made PF sheet when they released the official one. OFC the official was also free, but Adventure Paths or other such restricted material has always been restricted by Copyright.

So if someone makes a ruleset for say Monty Cook's Cypher system, and FG gets a license, your freely contributed ruleset is forced to either be

A. Yanked and taken down
B. Forced to become 'the community developer' for that ruleset

Honestly I don't see why the /ruleset/ itself is worrisome enough to be put under lock and key. More people playing more systems should be a net benefit without the worry that suddenly it'll be yanked if a license is secured.

The content of the system such as monsters, feats, abilities libraries etc are copyright, and often the ruleset can't be used without such libraries or 'knowledge' of the system for manual input.

I will contribute no further additions unless this facet is removed.

[Moon Wizard]

We have always kept the rights to the code we produce and maintain. The content license document was just an attempt to have a place for it to be visible after a couple people asked about permission for community projects. After talking with Doug, I modified slightly to remove the last sentence. We still prefer to maintain the right to revoke permission as needed, but it will not be automatic.

Regards,
JPG