The Fantasygrounds Content License change and how it affects contributors

[ddavison]

I'm an advocate for developers choosing the licensing that makes the most sense to them personally. If a developer wants to give it over to a community and relinquish control, then they should put it under a public license. If a developer wants to be able to choose how their code is used, then a different license makes sense. SmiteWorks chooses to have a direct hand in how all of our code works and who we work with. Ken L did not choose this method. For that reason, we won't be extending or building upon any of Ken L's code. Ken chose to take his stuff down but because he published it under a public license, anyone is free to pick it up and build upon it as long as they keep the same license. I think it is pretty obvious why we would choose not to do this.

I choose not to get upset over what people might do or can do and instead focus on what people actually do or have done. I'm pretty happy with our 10 years of experience and stewardship of Fantasy Grounds and its community. I look forward to seeing it continue to grow for the next decade with a good balance of profitability and support of our community.

With all that has transpired, we would happily welcome Ken L to rejoin the community in whatever way he feels comfortable. If he chooses to move along, then we wish him well.

[Ken L]

If a developer wants to be able to choose how their code is used, then a different license makes sense. SmiteWorks chooses to have a direct hand in how all of our code works and who we work with.

You glossed over the part where you expressly targeted free contributions for automatic removal, and why that decision was made. You’re only defending retaining the clause to ‘revoke at any time’ as that’s easier to defend for you, and sounds more diplomatic to your customers as you brandish the knife to your contributors. As I stated before, had I not brought this up you would have gladly preferred that to be part of your license.

Your reason is that you want the benefits of contributions, and the benefits of the natural monopoly built on your API ecosystem, you just don’t want to say it. Let those crowd sourcers increase your access, and when needed, step in to utilize that access for business expansion at the expense of those whom increased that access should they not bend the knee, or be enticed by whatever prestiges that being the ‘maintainer’ for that ruleset provides them.

… chose to take his stuff down but because he published it under a public license, anyone is free to pick it up and build upon it as long as they keep the same license. I think it is pretty obvious why we would choose not to do this.

I published it under a GPL license, you make it sound like public domain, which it is not. Again, I re-iterate that the issue was not that the permissive license wasn’t open source, it’s that it was altered to expressly target those whom have helped your platform. That is unforgivable. The change after I brought it up was done to save face, but still retains the right to perform the original intention in the unrevised format.

And no, I’m not going to ‘boomerang’ back to this platform. It has shown its age, and I’ve made my displeasures known about it. The reason I stuck around was the ability to modify and ‘fix it’ for others.

That incentive is gone.

[LordEntrails]

Ken, I think you are reading the worst into the situation and assuming the worse case motivations for the license change by SmiteWorks, despite no evidence of motivation and continued actions on many fronts by SmiteWorks that lead many of us to believe that they have no such draconian intentions.

You glossed over the part where you expressly targeted free contributions for automatic removal, and why that decision was made. ...
Your reason is that you want the benefits of contributions...

The change after I brought it up was done to save face,

That's one possibility for the change. Or it may have been Doug considering the input of the community (you), and reconsidering all of the possible numerous inputs and influences and revising the statement to reach a compromise for the myriad needs. Again, assuming motivation is not only unfair, it's just plain inaccurate in such a case.

I published it under a GPL license, you make it sound like public domain, which it is not.

As an example, this here. When Doug said you "published it under a public license" you interpret that to be some sort of "Public Domain" statement. And that's a really poor connotation of his statement. As you know, GPL standards for 'General Public License'; Doug's statement, GPL, and Public Domain all have one thing in common, the word public, and that's it.

You keep putting word into Doug's mouth and telling everyone why he has done certain things. That's just wrong.

[AlphaDecay]

You keep putting word into Doug's mouth and telling everyone why he has done certain things. That's just wrong.

Plus, when you consider the other posts to his original extension thread, where he shows videos of what 2.0 could have been (like a look what you won't get now tone) - and these responses where he puts words/motivations into other's mouths, the whole thing is devolving into a cringe worthy situation. Leave on a positive note Ken (or at this point as positive as it can be).

[Ken L]

you are reading the worst into the situation and assuming the worse case motivations for the license change by SmiteWorks, despite no evidence of motivation and continued actions on many fronts by SmiteWorks that lead many of us to believe that they have no such draconian intentions.

You're an end user, as far as end users are concerned someone pulled content, so they must bad or raging or what have you. They have less things to work with, so it's easy for a company to pull a Sheryl Sandberg and make light of the issue as a disgruntled contributor, and paint it as a malicious actor to the community.

Next, is license agreements, as for those in software development they mean everything as to what a company intends to do, or won’t. Automatic revocation is premeditated, there’s no “whoops we worded it wrong” for them to pull, and Smiteworks skipped over addressing why they did it, they just removed it and defended the more vaguely worded text.

“I have a gun now, and I intend to shoot you if you get in my way”

vs

“I have a gun now.”

Revising the statement doesn’t make it all better, especially given the prior one made. The intent, even if only for part of its use was made clear.

If they wanted to make it ‘all better’ then there would be added text to clarify.

”I have a gun now, as insurance against someone robbing my property and to defend my family, or go hunting or sport, I won’t use it outside that context.”

They didn’t, and as such the use includes all of the above, including the ‘unrevised’ statement which showed intent.

In response to GPL, that was my opinion as to what it sounded like in the way it was worded and used. My only direct ‘word stuffing’ was my take on why they never addressed the unrevised original license change they made; and absent of a rational, it’s all speculation. Not answering the question can still be considered answering it as complicity.

Finally regarding that they removed it in response as “listening to the community”, Think about that for a second there…. Usually the first words out of someone’s mouth are the most honest. The first words in this case was to target free contributions, and get rid of them when it’s profitable to do so.

PS:
As to the videos, I had spent a bunch of time on it, and the video was originally meant for my alpha users since I didn't have a manual. Since it was dead, why not? This is personal preference, but go ahead and demonize, ignore the actors behind the curtain.

[LordEntrails]

You're an end user, as far as end users are concerned someone pulled content, so they must bad or raging or what have you. They have less things to work with, so it's easy for a company to pull a Sheryl Sandberg and make light of the issue as a disgruntled contributor, and paint it as a malicious actor to the community.

So now you are telling me what I think? You really need to step back and think about that. I have a very high regard for you, and in such a sense I will again ask you to step back and consider other views are possible, reasonable, and that you stop making claims about what others intend and think.

[Moon Wizard]

I think that Ken has had his chance to state his position, and that this thread is on its way in the wrong direction of becoming a flame war. Therefore, I am closing this thread.

Regards,
JPG