Talk:Creative Commons Discussion

From The CBG Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Creative Commons License

The system information now requires a confidentiality agreement to view. My fellow developers and I are forming an LLC with plans on publishing the D-Dozen System. So, on that note, I can't find anywhere to fully remove a page. Is it possible? (Jharviss 05:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

Oh, so it's just rules-system stuff you're deleting, not the whole setting? And I can delete those pages for you if you need them deleted. People will still be able to see what has been deleted for a few days (until the deletions flow off the Recent Changes page), but I suppose if you don't want anyone looking at them, people will ignore them out of respect for you. --Ish
Yep, just rules-system items. I'm not too worried, else I would've pressed the issue (I knew the deleted items could still be found, I just didn't want to make it too public). Still, having them removed would be awesome. Thanks Ish. (Jharviss 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC))
Um, it doesn't work like that. It says very clearly on the community portal that we are using a Creative Commons license, and "please be sure you're aware of how our Creative Commons license works before you contribute to this site." Creative Commons licenses are not revocable. Once something is released under a CC license, you can't just pull it back. I'm not trying to be overly difficult, or to tie your hands with your own material, but this raises what is to me an important issue: are we following a CC license or aren't we? Either the material should go back up or we should abandon the premise of following a CC license, and come up with a different one. --sparkletwist 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually that is a good point. Because we are now using the wiki for settings, writing which is very personal, we might be better off with some other license that restricts certain IPs or allows the author to declare a setting not part of the CC. Certainly the license kept me from posting on the wiki for a long time (when I first saw our wiki), and even now I've remain a little leery about using it for Eclipse, and if, as sparkletwist says, it's irrevocable, I never would have posted it (I posted it with the assumption I could remove it when done getting feedback). As an author that eventually hopes to make money of some of these IPs, the idea that anyone can freely distribute and modify them is disturbing, if somewhat better than the WotC boards copyright issues we discussed some months ago.
Whereas the CCs fine for something like my mythology resources compilations, so it has its uses. I just think it might be worth considering other options. --Phoenix 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
These are good points all around - I think it may be a good idea to come up with a different license here on the CBG wiki, because I (or anyone else here) don't want to make the wiki un-usable for people who have intentions of publishing. Let's start some brainstorming here, because though I want things to be collaborative, I don't want to ever make it look as though authors don't have complete rights of their own material. --Ish
I suppose I should have spoken more carefully when talking about "creative commons licenses," too. There are several. The current one allows quite a bit. There are more restrictive CC licenses than the one we use, also. However, there is a problem with that license, and what Ishmayl said: the very nature of the Wiki format means the material is not "their own" any more. Granted, they are the main author, and I think we are respectful of other people's material, but as soon as people start making edits to the page-- insert standard I-am-not-a-lawyer disclaimer here-- I think that means it's automatically a "derivative work." That means that in order to really be a legally sound license, and uphold this principle, we'd need something that said something along the lines of "any and all copyright or other rights to edits you make this page are irrevocably surrendered to the original author," or something else that starts to make us sort of sound like WotC's scary license. (And maybe help understand why they wrote it like they did?) --sparkletwist 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea of "Any and all copyright or other rights to edits you make to this page are irrevocably surrendered to the original author." Perhaps we could have two - one such as that one that is agreed upon when users sign up, and one that could be an optional license that users sign if they want to work creatively together on something, that is more standard CCL, saying that all work on XXX project is now community commons. Therefore, all campaigns (and other works) still retain their work as their own, but any community projects become public domain. --Ish
Having thought about it some more, it's trickier than that, even. What if there is more than one "original author," (as in the case of Tephra itself) actually? You can't just say "original author(s)," because by leaving the plural option there, that could also mean the first people to make edits to the wiki page and we're back into legal limbo. It'd require an even more complicated phrase of legalese like "original creator of the wiki page and any third parties designated by the creator" or something. I don't know the exact words, but you get the idea-- it starts to lose some of the brevity and simplicity of the CC licenses. I also don't know how legally sound it would be, considering you could have the weird but possible scenario of someone who makes a page, deletes it, and then someone else makes a page with the same name later on: who actually owns it? Who is the "original" author?
It seems a little excessive and silly to worry about it in this much detail-- but anyone who is going to want to publish stuff is going to have to deal with a publisher who will be very concerned about legal and license issues!
The bigger problem, to me, though is that such a scary-sounding license drains a little more of the community spirit out of the place. Granted, it's better than WotC saying they own it, as it is the original author (however foggy that definition is, see above) and not some faceless corporation, but it's still effectively saying "I can suck up whatever you write and I don't even have to say thank you." We can't soften the language because that is what the license has to be. I'm not saying it's inherently bad, and I'm not saying authors shouldn't have the right to their work, but I also think we should think long and hard about this, because we don't want to go down a path that drains away the wonderful sense of community we all have around here. --sparkletwist 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think a bigger way of draining the community spirit would be people not posting their campaign settings because they're worried that others may use them in ways not intended... I don't want Tephra, followed by Eclipse, followed by Jade Stage, followed by etc, etc, etc to leave the site because we're not doing everything we can here to protect the original author's interests. --Ish
Beat me to it. Also, a complexly worded license won't really affect most users. Only those that want to be absolutely certain they retain full rights to their IPs. A simple paraphrase to that effect can explain it to the average member (who probably never read the CC anyway), while the detailed whole can ensure we (authors) are sharing only what we mean to.
Part of what we (most of the community posting here) seems to be going for, is a way to replace the old idea we had of websites for each member. The wiki creates a place for detailed campaign settings where we can get help with formating, collect everything together, and need to know less code. I had to learn a lot more code for my old Kishar site than most CBGers will want to learn, and now that system hasn't even been working in over a year. The wiki is more user friendly than websites, and better suited for settings than forums; but anything you post in those formats you automatically own--it'd be a shame if we can't do the same for wikis. But then this seems to tie back in to the author protect issue.
Perhaps the license could specify original author of a specific setting, and any authors the creator specifies in addition to himself? But, then, I'm not a lawyer either.--Phoenix 22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


What makes you so sure of their intent? Why does it even matter? As I said before, it says quite clearly, "please be aware of our Creative Commons license." Are you meaning to imply that nobody actually was aware? (What was the point of even posting that, then?) Creative Commons licenses do protect authors' interests-- perhaps not as fully as some wanted, but how do you know what anyone's intent was? You used the phrase "public domain" above, and that's wrong. CC licenses are not the public domain. They are less restrictive than what some people might want, but we can't read minds. We don't know what people want. We put up a license and told people to be aware of it. I guess I thought people actually read the license before they posted. Then again, I read software EULAs, too.
What about the interests of the people who posted here thinking things were one way, and now seem to be changing? Changing licenses is a big deal, especially when changing something more restrictive than what was there before. (And that's not even taking into account the fact that the terms of the license we'd be changing to haven't fully been hammered out yet)
There's one more thorny issue here. The CC license is irrevocable and everything on the wiki currently is licensed under that. Now, we can do some handwaving and pretend like there never was a CC license to begin with, but it'd leave people like me who were actually enthusiastic about it with a very, very queasy feeling indeed. --sparkletwist 22:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the biggest issue is that some people here would like to publish their work (eventually). There are plenty of people (such as myself) who don't mind the collaborative nature of a wiki, and don't mind the fact that work published here could be used elsewhere. However, I imagine there are others who would decide to not post their setting information at all. I have to admit that while setting up the wiki, collaborative content was my first concern, and I didn't think much about Creative Commons. Ever since the shittiness that transpired at WotC, I believe people tend to read things a little more thoroughly now, but since I specifically say in the [The_CBG_Wiki:Copyrights|Copyrights] page, and have stated probably litterally dozens of times over at the CBG main site, that all work submitted here is "owned" by the original author, unless otherwise noted in the specific article, I believe people expect that to be the case, thus superseding the generic licenses that come with mediawiki.
I think Creative Commons are a great recent invention (or maybe not so recent?) that have aided in a lot of things around the internet in regards to free culture and copyright issues, but I'm not entirely sure it is the best idea for a site that focuses on people creating unique ideas for themselves. We have criticisms and collaborations here, but we've never attempted to try to say that what you post here is no longer yours.
I think a rewording could be viewed as not a more restrictive license, but an easement on peoples' minds that their work will still be fully their own. This is definitely worth discussing, and I feel that I should put the wiki on lockdown until these details are hammered out, because I don't want to run the risk of other people putting up information that they can't lay 100% claim to in the future. --Ish 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. Let me throw some things out there. First, editing: Under copyright laws, I am the copyright owner of Tephra (as I am the first person to have a printed copy of the work). Any work done for Tephra by people other than the author automatically comes under the author's copyright protection or is in violation of the copyright. Therefore, according to copyright laws, anybody else's recommendations to a world becomes the belonging of the original author. Due to this, upon deciding to publish, I was able to review Tephra and decide how much others contributed. There were only a couple comments on the world; therefore, there were truly no other contributors to my project. This gives me a clean copyright.
Second, Applicability of the Creative Commons License: The Creative Commons posted in the 'Help' section of this Wiki is a good one and protects the author with a huge variety of loopholes. The biggest one is found in the first sentence of Section 1: "This License applies to any manual or other work, in any medium, that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License." I did not place this agreement on any work in Tephra, nor was it automatically attached for using the Wiki. The Disclaimers and Privacy Policy found at the bottom of the pages do not contain such things, and the "About the CBG Wiki" takes me to a place saying the Code of Conduct of the forums (which, as others have stated, implies in different places [though not explicably in the Code of Conduct] that those who post their settings still have authorship). Furthermore, placing the license in the "Help" section is misleading and could nullify the license entirely. Therefore, none of my work was a part of the Creative Commons License, and I retain full authorship for said work. Thanks for playing, but nothing about what I've done with Tephra cannot be upgraded to a full copyright license (which it's, by default, already under) and then disallow me from forming a confidentiality agreement for the work, which does not actually require everyone who has seen it to not talk about, only the people who sign the confidentiality agreement. For the win. (Jharviss 00:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC))
I don't think anyone, practically speaking, can dictate to you what to do with your own work. They'd have half a leg to stand on and it'd not be worth anyone's effort. So, you can lose the attitude. It's not about "winning," or whatever, it's about clarifying what our policy is really going to be. In my opinion, the statement that we were using a CC license was clearly posted. It obviously wasn't, to you, and you obviously didn't intend to apply a CC license. That's fine. However, according to at least one place on the site, that license was indeed applied. Maybe we can decide that the CC licenses that were supposedly applied actually weren't, and are void. I personally think this is handwaving, and it annoys me, but whatever. If it wasn't clear, it wasn't clear. If we do this then we'd need to come up with a new license, of course, and make it stick this time. If you know a lot about copyright law perhaps you can help.
Basically, I thought that everyone who was contributing here was doing so having read the license and agreeing with it. That's obviously not the case. If it wasn't posted prominently enough, I can understand there might be some confusion. It's confusion that needs to be addressed. --sparkletwist 00:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there was probably some confusion, and that things could be a bit more prominent as far as the license goes. Maybe that's what we should focus on more than anything else, making sure that the license we use is clear and concise. --Ish 01:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Most importantly is presenting it so that people actually know it's there, and read it. (or at least a paraphrased version that gives them the basic idea) If it's something that most people like and can agree with, then most of us will be fine, and the ones that don't will have very clear notice and won't post, and we'll hopefully avoid any issues. --sparkletwist 02:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Good information, Jharviss, can you tell me how you know the information in your first paragraph? I like to know this kind of thing, for myself as well. --Ish 00:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd recommend reading over the Copyright Basics at the U.S. Copyright Office's website, found here: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html. It's rather informative. (Jharviss 00:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC))
It looks like then that the way the wiki is already set up, peoples' settings are pretty much okay? As in, no one has to worry about not having rights to their work? Gods, I need to learn this stuff better.... --Ish 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The creative commons licenses still give you rights to your work. What you created is still yours. You can publish it or do whatever you want with it. What they don't give you the right to do is yoink the setting away when you choose to, as Jharviss chose to. I personally think that this is acceptable-- if you're here benefitting from the community, what's wrong with sharing? But whatever. --sparkletwist 00:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Other than (maybe, I didn't read it in detail) the WotC issue, I can think of almost no standard distribution which deprive an author of his rights to the work. The issue that has some of us concerned is what exactly is meant by saying others have the right to reproduce whatever work they want and modify it. Its a matter of control of IPs; if I want to yank something I've written so that I can rewrite it (or because a publisher tells me to, or whatever), I need to have the right to do so. Now the linked to CC license isn't so bad because it says anyone that alters your work can only distribute it if they attribute it to you and if they use the same license (i.e. they shouldn't be able to publish it for a profit and claim it's theirs).
It's great if people read the fine print. But it's been my experience (both personal and with others) that most people don't. Fine print is by nature hard to read (often physically as well as mentally), overly technical, and in the case of many websites, located so obscurely it almost borders on intentional obfuscation. While I had read the CC before posting, I had been reading stuff on the wiki long before I even knew about it. The thing about sites like this is, people jump in where they feel like. Having that kind of thing somewhere on the site might cover legal asses, but Ishy has always tried to be very member-first oriented--so if we've created a situation where users are getting themselves into more than they think (like what happened to members on the WotC boards, where I'm sure WotC legal guys would claim everything was clearly in the CoC which everyone is supposed to read), we have a problem.
To me, baring finding a new license, one way to deal is to say its CC if its marked CC. Otherwise its not. As I understand CC (assuming we're using the work we link to on the Community Portal) the CC is really only a way of saying you revoke some of the normal rights of copyright (like to not have people create derivatives of your writing). On a side note, anything that important should be on the main page. Your average user may never even see the Community Portal, or will only see it once in their wiki-using career.
My legalese is weak. But the part about it being in perpetuity seems to be here: "Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above."
That seems to mean to me to imply Jharviss should be more than free to delete anything he wants. It just won't revoke the license from one that has already created a derivative work from whatever he had up before he stopped distributing under the CC license. --Phoenix 01:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You're probably right. I'm not the greatest at reading legalese either, and forget about writing it, so if we tried to somehow come up with a new license, I'd have next to nothing to contribute. Truthfully, the exact wording of the license is not even an issue. I mean, in the strictest sense, it might be, but I don't think anyone here is going to try to force people to anything with their own work that they don't want to, or force them to follow the terms of a license they didn't even know was there. What I do want is for us to stick to a license once we've decided on it. --sparkletwist 02:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and I think sparkletwist's point of making sure the license is in a very noticeable site is pretty important too. The more research I'm doing on this, the more I believe the Creative Commons license will work perfectly fine, there are a couple different ones, some I like more than others, but finding one we agree on and that people are willing to post under is the most important, I believe. --Ish 02:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree. I'll look over it more in a bit, but there's some clauses that make the Creative Commons License perfect. The important thing is that the original author should be able to upgrade the copyright on their original work and not worry about others making an excess of profit off of their product (which most CCLs provide for). Also, according to internet copyright law, if there is not a distinct license on each and every page, the work defaults to natural copyright law. That's why the Creative Commons License doesn't apply to anything posted - it's not directly on any other pages. If it were me, I would make it an option down at the bottom; the box to make something under the CCL will be automatically clicked, but somebody can take it off. Then, every page has a direct link to the CCL on it, which puts it under that license. That's my opinion. (Jharviss 02:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC))
I like your solution, and I've already found a mediawiki extension that may allow this, I'm doing more research on it. Thanks everyone for discussing this rationally! --Ish 03:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I mostly agree, and whatever license in use should definitely be automatically included on the page. The one point where I disagree is that I think "natural copyright" is too restrictive to reflect the actual realities of being posted on an Internet wiki. A CC license like Attribution, No Commercial, No Deriviative Works is pretty protective. --sparkletwist 03:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Choosing a License

So, I went to the Choose a License page of CCL's web site, and selecting "No" to "Allow Commercial Use," and "Yes, as long as others share alike," to the "Allow Modifications to your work" gives me the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United State license to use on the site. Please look over it and tell me what you think. --Ish 02:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally like Atrribution-No Derviative Works myself. Perhaps we should offer a choice?
Earlier, I posted that I thought merely editing a wiki page counts as a "derivative work." However, after further research, I no longer believe that to be the case. That would make this license applicable. --sparkletwist 02:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
So that's basically saying, no one but the original author can edit or make derivations of the original work? If I'm understanding that right, how does that affect those of us who edit other peoples' pages to help them properly set up links, or to fix grammar, etc? I'm sure no one here would push any issues like that, but it's worth knowing for sure. --Ish 02:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work should only apply if you are trying to publish something somebody else has created. As I've said regarding copyright, if you do something for another person who owns the copyright, you have only added to their copyright - they still own the copyright. So if you are helping them edit and format, you are only helping their product, not making it your own. (Jharviss 02:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC))
I'm glad we'll probably stick with a Creative Commons license of some sort. I was a pretty uneasy about getting rid of the whole idea and replacing them with something more restrictive, so this is nice. As for how to actually apply it, people shouldn't be forced to use a license they don't want, so I think we should probably have a "grace period" where people who don't want to be bound by a CC license should be able to pull their materials from the wiki. After that, prominent notice will appear and anything still on as well as any new material will be covered by some sort of (irrevocable, to protect the rights of all involved) CC license. --sparkletwist 03:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The most recent one sparkle posted, [1], I believe is my favorite one so far for keeping original authors safe. --Ish 03:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Unless there have been some very strange developments in copyright law, editing really has no effect on IP. IP starts with the ideas and extends to their expression. However, no one owns copyright to the rules of grammar. (Obviously that statement can be carried into some gray areas and even over the line, style guides are under copyright - they don't own the rules of grammar, but they own their explanations of them. Unlike Microsoft, publishers don't try to exercise control and collect royalties on the implementation of said rules. . .) Most editing as performed here simply doesn't present a potential case. Offering a radical idea to a campaign developer can get odd if not covered - if someone later wants to claim credit and a share of $ for "Hey, I totally came up with everything about the elves in your setting" or whatever - cases of collaboration suits fill volumes. One person performing significant help to presentation *might* have a claim to make *on that presentation*. Honestly, if I were to publish my setting as presented here after someone did a whole lot of work to make my text presentable and comprehensible, that person would have earned some portion of profit for it. If it has to be completely re-edited and laid-out for print format though, that work has less significance to the final product. Writers maintain rights to their original manuscripts. If a deal falls through after extensive editing/revision in house, the writer can't take the later galleys to another publisher, only the original manuscript. In a different fashion, if I write song lyrics and have a falling out with the composer who wrote the music they were set to, if the song was never published/recorded there's nothing to stop me from setting those lyrics to different music. Likewise the composer can set different lyrics to what they wrote. By and large, I think a lot of the detail concerns are covered by applicable law. --Snargash Moonclaw 04:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Good info SM.

I've looked over the new CC, and as I understand, it seems better. I do have a question, though, and that's why we tried to apply a blanket license to all wiki works to begin with? (that's a real question, I'm not being factitious, I assume there really is a good reason).

Also, I like Jharviss's thought that a user working on a non-community project (i.e. using the wiki for a personal setting as a means towards smoother presentation and getting feedback) can elect not to include the CC as part of their material.

Assuming online documents are like print ones (and I believe they are), having an editor in no way gives the editor any kind of rights to claim joint authorship or anything like that. So I don't think it's any problem for us to allow others to edit formatting, grammar, and the like on non CC pages. People that choose to do so are doing so merely to help their friends/community.--Phoenix 12:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For simplicity's sake. It doesn't have to be "a blanket" license, it can be one of several (there are a few different CC licenses), but we should make sure we've read every license we're offering as an option carefully and that each license available on here is something that is compatible with the realities of being posted on an Internet wiki, and something that won't get Ishmayl sued.
Traditional "all rights reserved" copyright doesn't really apply. Wikis are very good at disseminating and archiving information. They keep extensive history files of edits, can be "cloned", and so on. Essentially, once something has been put on a wiki, it's very difficult to eradicate all trace of it. By allowing "all rights reserved", though, it exposes a liability. It's difficult and annoying to remove all traces of something from a wiki, but that's what an author (or more likely their publisher) may demand with "all rights reserved." It's a liability I don't think we, and especially Ishmayl, should potentially be exposed to.
The most restrictive CC license demands authors be credited, that derivative works cannot be created, and that no commercial use is possible. That's a pretty good protection of rights.
In addition, from a somewhat more ideological standpoint, I like the idea of everyone who benefits from this community being bound by a license that ensures the fruits of that involvement will remain available. Their rights are still protected, and there's nothing saying they can't expand upon the work, publish, or whatnot. It's just that original version that was posted will still remain available to the community, which also fits with the realities of a wiki. --sparkletwist 16:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that the annoyance shouldn't be forced upon Ish, I don't think removing all traces of something is as difficult as you seem to imply. Wikis-- at very least MediaWiki-- exist in mySQL databases, which can be manually edited with some degree of ease. This includes not only deleting a page, but also any given history entry to a page. It's still a hassle with heavily edited pages, or content spanning many pages, but that's more tedious than difficult. I don't think a blanket CC license is the most ideal situation for the wiki as a whole, but I do think that quite a bit of the content-- especially community projects-- could benefit greatly from CC. Sdragon1984 18:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been over for a year. --sparkletwist 20:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Implementation

I went to mediawiki.org's forums, as well as a few other media wiki forums, and did some research and asked around. It looks like there's a setting for mediawiki that sets up our version of a CC in all its glory, and when activated, will provide appropriate links to, icons for, and descriptions of the CC we have chosen for the site. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, it will put information about the CC on every page. What I'm looking for currently is a way for people to disable that if they want a page not covered under CC. However, there don't seem to be many options like that. Feel free to help me look. --Ish 12:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I remain of the opinion that if even the most restrictiveBY-NC-ND CC license is still too permissive, a wiki is probably not the best place for your work to begin with. --sparkletwist 16:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sparkletwist brings up some good points above (in the earlier section). As to the wiki format, it seems to me an almost ideal format for developed campaigns settings, but I'm beginning to see it comes with a lot of baggage many users might not want. I'm not sure I understand how the wiki exposes Ishy to legal liabilities any more than the forums or now-defunct web-hosting would have, but then that's not my area.

Basically, if the author is allowed to say "100% all rights reserved," that means that at some point material freely posted on the wiki could be considered copyright infringing. WotC's obnoxious terms of use are essentially a legal "cover your ass" to keep them safe-- they can't be liable for what's on their forums because they've declared they own everything that's on their forums. Nobody can sue them for stuff they own. It's easy, but it's not very nice.
What I've proposed is our own "cover your ass," but more friendly to contributors: Everything made freely available on the wiki has to have a license that says it will always be freely available, again, to avoid liability. You still own what you wrote, it's just that nobody can ever turn around and sue Ishmayl for having what is now "infringing" matrial posted. --sparkletwist 20:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Forums are good for linear discussions, but not real ideal for settings beyond the early developmental stages. We're all used to dealing with the limitations of forum-based formats: the question of where commentary goes and whether it will interrupt the flow or require a separate thread (neither is very elegant), and the issues of updates (should they go at the beginning for new readers, or at the end where returning readers will actually see it).

A website is much nicer because it allows lots of disparate areas to collected and linked together. Updates can be made more clear, though comments probably have to go on a separate forum.

A wiki almost seems the best of both worlds. Its less customizable than a website (especially visually), but it's easier to use and to get someone to help with. Also, it comes with a built-in search feature that not many people can/do implement in a website. It includes discussion areas for every topic. Finally, it collects things not only into categories (great for browsing), but on a single site, rather than off many webpages, meaning members can more casually browse through it (also the recent changes page ensures people know when you've got new stuff without having to do daily scans of every setting they read).

And while the latest CC Sparkletwist posted (the most restrictive) seems even better, I'd still be pretty iffy on posting something here that might later interfere with my livelihood. The appeal of the CBG has always been having friends to offer advice on my work; if that advice now comes with permanent strings (other than the expectation that I will offer advice in return), then maybe ST is right and this is not the place for settings at all, other than ones like CeBeGia. I suppose it's a decision I'll make if we adopt a mandatory license. --Phoenix 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think my main concern is that I've yet to see an argument that makes me think that, should we not require a CC, mediawiki wouldn't still be a suitable tool for hosting campaigns. Sure, the original premise and purpose of mediawiki software was to allow collaborative work in a CC work environment, but that's not to say it can't be used for something else. Just because a steak knife was made to cut meat doesn't mean it can't be used to open up a gift as well. I like to use softwares for purposes that I need them for, and not necessarily (and restrictively) for the purposes they were originally created for. So sparkletwist, with the utmost respect (and I hope you know that's true), I must disagree with your statement:
I remain of the opinion that if even the most restrictiveBY-NC-ND CC license is still too permissive, a wiki is probably not the best place for your work to begin with.
I believe that a wiki can be perfect for hosting, formatting, and presenting a campaign setting, I believe the part that is not perfect is the CC that comes with it as extra baggage. My favorite idea so far is to allow the option of presenting your work either as CC, or 100% author control. --Ish 18:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you think "100% author control" means in this medium. Once something has been made freely available on the Internet, it should be assumed said "something" is going to be freely available on the Internet in perpetuity. That's just how the net works. It's viral, it copies itself, things get spread around, archived, etc... if you don't like it, you shouldn't post it on the internet to begin with. The CC licenses simply allow the license to harmonize with this reality. Your rights are still protected. The only rights you're really "giving up" are rights you've already, de facto, given up by posting on the Internet to begin with. --sparkletwist 19:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm kinda with Sparkletwist on this. If nothing else, a highly restrictive creative commons saves us the effort of coming up with the legal text ourselves. I mean currently we say the author "owns" all their work but I'm not exactly sure what that MEANS in the context of copyright. That phrase may not actually offer any protection.--Brainfacetalk 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ishy writes: "So sparkletwist, with the utmost respect (and I hope you know that's true)" Which makes me want to point out I truly hope no one took anything I said as offensive, because I truly respect all the participants. Don't anyone mistake my fear that I may have shot myself in the foot by posting Eclipse as hostility towards any members. Okay /disclaimer. --Phoenix 19:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, someone (me) is going to have to put his/her foot down and make a decision on this. Here are my thoughts, very plainly spelled out, about wikis and information on this site.
  1. MediaWiki is an awesome software that allows for collaborative construction of ideas.
  2. MediaWiki is an awesome software that works very well for allowing people to create nice-looking, well-laid-out campaign settings.
  3. MediaWiki is an awesome software that is a tool, and as such, may sometimes be used for purposes other than what it was originally designed for.
  4. Softwares should always be used for what they're good at, and if they happen to be good at something that wasn't intended in the originally designs, then those uses should never be discounted as legitimate uses.
  5. MediaWiki tends to store information permanently.
  6. The Internet is public.
  7. Anything posted on said "Internet" will become public information.
  8. Anything posted on the CBG Forums is just as public as the CBG Wiki.
  9. Anything publicly posted on the CBG at all is permanently on the internet.
  10. The first time someone posts information on the internet, on paper, or on their own computer, it is copyrighted under their name.
  11. Any information originally created by any person on this site is completely and wholly that person's copyrighted work.
  12. As stated on the footer on the main site, "All content on site is property of its original poster, unless otherwise stated. The administrator of the CBG does not take any responsibility for any copyright issues posted by the members of the site."
  13. The strictest of the CC's allows for "No Derivative Works," "No Commercial Works," and "Mandatory Attributions."
  14. If someone happens to like your work enough to attempt to steal, borrow, plagiarize, or derive from it, you are protected, because you are the original author.
  15. If you plan on publishing anything that is posted on the CBG Wiki or the CBG main site, that information will still Always Be Here On The Site, due to the public nature of the internet, and you must realize that.
  16. Therefore, if you publish your work and due to publishing liabilities, or just your own wants and needs, decide to remove your content from the site, it is still archived in database saves, google/Yahoo caches, other computer caches, etc. It will be almost impossible to remove it completely.
(Books are available to the public, as well. The copyright laws work more-or-less the same way, as far as I understand them.--Phoenix 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

I think MediaWiki is an amazing software that has far more uses than the original designers intended, and I think it is almost the perfect software for campaign hosting. I believe the CBG can use mediawiki software without any CCL at all, because it is not a requirement to follow a certain CCL to download, install, and run mediawiki. However, I believe in the long run, a CCL will protect the site, myself, and authors. At this moment, my vote stands for implementing some sort of CCL on the site that is mandatory. If we do this, we will allow a grace period in which anything that needs to be removed can be, and if necessary, the database can be cleared. However, I do not think that is either the wise or the logical move to make should we decide to go that route - I believe it will hurt the community over all. I'm not a "copyleftist," and in fact, am not the biggest fan in the world of the principles behind copyleft and Creative Commons, but I do think they couldserve our purpose here.

Due to the nature of the site, and the rising memberships and more and more issues coming up, I will probably be contacting a lawyer on this subject, I believe. I certainly don't have the money, but I'm not willing to have my ass sued for something that I didn't understand, and I'm not willing (yet) to just give up the site to someone more capable.

--Ish 21:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ishmayl, I very much agree with you. I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong to post information that could later become private. I've owned my own Website in the past, and I didn't even consider the editing history when posting on the Wiki. I'm quite used to just being able to remove things and them be gone. ^_^ I also definitely understand where Sparkletwist is coming from. For most people to post their information, receive a lot of edits, and then remove it, seems a little unfair. I still support copyright saying that I have full right to withdraw my work if I choose to; however, it could feel awkward to a contributing community. That's why I felt no qualms with removing my system information - I've had zero comments regarding that work. Anything on Tephra that has received contributions has been left up completely and is exempt from the confidentiality agreement I've outlined. cont.
I'd like to talk a little bit about my reasoning here. When I put the system information up, that was a mistake. I feel like I should be able to reconcile my mistake. Furthermore, very little of the information on the wiki only partially falls under the confidentiality agreement (as the vast majority of the system information is kept off-line). Furthermore, within roughly four to five months, that information will be publicly available again. It's awkward removing confidential information from public viewing, which is why it can't be strictly enforced. Anything I put under a confidentiality agreement is between the parties who sign the document; any other leaks don't really matter. cont.
The stricter CCL proposed sounds fine, but I must again reiterate what I earlier said: making it optional feels like a must. I would love to see the CCL down at the bottom and removable. That way, I could post all of my world information under the CCL but post, say, a short story or system information under full copyright. If this was done, I'd be fine with the current CCL. But like I said, for any license to be applicable, it must be visible directly on the page or it doesn't apply, and I must place it on every page - hence the option of not placing it. That puts the choice directly in my hands, rather than indirectly (which makes it debatable). cont.
On the other hand, I do have to wonder if the CCL is even necessary. There's not a lot of reason to have the CCL apply to the entire site. Works could go under completely copyright, which would protect everyone. Then, if somebody wanted to print something off and play it, they could just ask for permission. No harm, no foul. If you included that with the optional CCL at the bottom of the page, default off, a person could turn it on if they didn't mind people messing with their work. Or, a person could turn the CCL on for group projects, like the Cebegia and superheroes project. With the default copyright, everyone would be protected without any worries. Discussion pages would be just that - discussion pages. It'd be pretty easy and not step on anyone's toes. (Jharviss 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC))
The problem with the default full "all rights reserved" copyright is that it doesn't really harmonize with material being posted on a public Internet site, especially a wiki. The only right that the most restrictive CC license doesn't give you that "full copyright" does is the right to completely make something disappear, and once something is on the public Internet, that ability no longer exists in practice anyway. --sparkletwist 23:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
And the user of a CC has the right to reproduce the work of the licensor in its entirety, which is different than if I post something on (anywhere else), where fair use limitations apply. This means if someone posted a story on the wiki to tie it to their setting, someone else could reproduce the entire story. Of course, they could do so off a website, but you can also download pirated music off the internet; neither is legal. The combination of allowing free reproduction and the inability to remove information when necessary are too big blows against a CC/wiki format for those of us seeking a critique group for pro or semi-pro work-related materials. --Phoenix 01:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Free reproduction and inability to remove information are what you get when post something on the Internet. You can adopt a license that acknowledges this reality (but still protects your other rights), you can not post your material on the net, or you can fight a futile battle to get it removed. Ultimately those are the only choices. --sparkletwist 02:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, those are not the only choices. Just off the top of my head, another choice is to post under standard copyright laws. People may break those laws. People may break any laws. And while the article you linked to was very interesting, what it tells me is not that fair use laws do not apply to the internet--clearly they do or the ruling would have said so, indeed there could not have even been a case--but rather that google's archiving software did not violate those laws. People asking to run without the CC are just asking to be allowed to post here, on the forum, or elsewhere, under the same standards of law as they could if posting to their own sites; if we cannot offer those options, those posters have to decide whether the loss of that option is worth the benefit of the site. Clearly you think it is, but some of us are undecided.
Also, in regards to Jharviss's concern, I think the ability to delete material is sufficient, the same as if you delete a webpage from your personal site. Utter eradication of all data is not necessary. Sites that were once free to the public sometimes go private or pay. However, your comment seems to answer my other question--if the dichotomy you suggest is true, clearly we must apply the CC to everything, wiki or not. --Phoenix 04:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if the legal status is questionable as ST and BF indicate, wouldn't the same hold true for forums and websites hosted by CBG (or anyone)? Do we need to consider applying the CC to the entire CBG or all of Fantaseum? --Phoenix 01:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ishmayl's Decision Coming Close

I've been doing a lot of research on this, and have made myself known several contemporary law sites. I have been given some advice on what to offer as an alternative. As a standard procedure on many art, fiction, and music sites, here will be the second alternative for any pages posted, if I decide to use this option:

If you choose not to release your work under the CCL, please read the following and check the box below to signify that you understand the following agreement.
By posting your game content on the Campaign Builders' Guild (the CBG) web site, you expressly represent and warrant to the CBG: (a) that you are the original author and creator of all the materials you post on our site.
By posting your game content on the Campaign Builders' Guild (the CBG) web site, you expressly represent and warrant to the CBG that: (a) you own all of the copyright interests in the materials you post, (b) the materials were not created while you were working as an employee or otherwise under circumstances where your employer has a claim on the copyrights in the work you created, (c) you have not assigned your copyright interests to anyone, and (d) that you have not granted anyone an exclusive or other license under your copyrights in the posted material that would prevent you from granting the following licenses to use the posted material to the CBG.
By posting your materials on the CBG Wiki, you expressly agree that you will defend, indemnify, and hold the Campaign Builders' Guild (the CBG), the Opal Council, its successors, assigns, licensees, and anyone else acquiring copies of the posted materials or their derivatives harmless from, against, and in respect of any claims, damages, expenses, or costs of any kind (including, but not limited to the CBG and the other indemnified parties actual attorney fees) that result from any alleged violation of the representations or warranties you made in either of the previous two paragraphs. You shall have no liability under this indemnity to the extent that a claim is established to have resulted solely from the modification or extension of the materials you posted by the CBG or others without your knowledge or participation where the breach of warranty is not present in the original materials you posted to the website.


Basically, what that's saying is, firstly, that you own and created all the work you're posting, and secondly, if you don't release your work as CCL, then you are indemnifying the CBG from ALL potential lawsuits, etc that may arise due to the work here being redistributed in a way not of your choosing. Then there will be a box to click to submit a page either as CCL or non-CCL. Most likely, I will have two radials, one of which much be checked, at any page creation/editing screen, and with each radial having links to the two agreements. There may also have to be some things added to this before it's finalized, but for legal purposes, once this is implemented, it will be FINAL. I hope you understand that. Should we go this route, I will probably give a 10-day grace period in which anyone may remove any information off the site they do not want under either of the two licenses represented, and then after that, we'll go on as always before. What does everyone think? --Ish

It sounds like it covers all the bases. I have a questions though: "the Campaign Builders' Guild (the CBG), the Opal Council, its successors, assigns, licensees, and anyone else acquiring copies of the posted materials or their derivatives" (emphasis mine). Doesn't that just bring us back to allowing/sanctioning distribution? Everyone else on the list makes sense, but saying "anyone else" seems to defeat one of the main purposes of not using the CCL. Also, I think you meant "assignees."--Phoenix 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No, because that indirectly covers me, brainface, my brother, and our server from secondary suits that happen when Joe Blow up in Wisconsin finds the public site, likes your public ideas, and decides to take advantage of them for himself. What this really boils down to, in my opinion, is everyone clicking a box that essentially says, "I agree and understand that these are public sites, and I can't really hold anyone other than myself responsible should my work get used in ways I didn't intend." Not trying to be a prude here or anything, but legalities are serious things, and I'm not going to court with Joe Blow, because he says it was my fault for allowing someone else to post their material! :) And yes, assignees is probably correct, I just copied and pasted the advice that was given to me. --Ish 12:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Also relevant to the discussion at hand, it might be worth looking at the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It's summarized a bit on wikipedia. The DMCA automatically exempts online service providers (such as wikipedia) from liability. I don't know if the CBG counts or can be declared an OSP.
Because the unlawful distribution of copyrighted materials is serious business (minimum $2500, possibly millions), you want to protect yourself (I think the DMCA already does if CBG is an OSP--enough acronyms?). But for the very same reason, you do not want to deny an author the right to insist that Joe Blow take copyrighted material off his website. For this reason I think you want to word the disclaimer in such a way as to include protecting the Opal Council (which you do, but you might specify site administrators, moderators, and maintenance crew).
On the other hand, I do get what your saying, though I had to think about it a bit. You're afraid of being sued by Joe Blow after the author demands Joe Blow stop illegally distributing the work? Perhaps there's a way to word that without asking the author to basically surrender his DMCA rights to control distribution (i.e. to post on the CBG, but not, say WotC's site where Joe Blow might choose to re-distribute since by posting on the CBG under the proposed license the author agreed not to hold Joe Blow responsible for his actions).
Anyway, a few more things I think everyone should think over before you make your final decision. --Phoenix 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I've made my opinion on the matter known enough times that it'd just be a waste of everyone's time if I repeated myself again. I'll just add that the complications brought up by this are another point in adoption of a CC-only scheme: the licenses have already been written, gone over by lawyers, and held up in court. --sparkletwist 18:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand, and we've had talks, and I know what the CC represents. However, the majority of the people who will post here don't know and understand what the CC represents, and that one blanket license will either cause them to make a mistake and post something they later regret, or cause them not to post at all. And a site where people stop posting on is a good way to lead to a site that stops being interesting... --Ish 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand that, too, but I think that there are perils in trying to write your own legalese and make it stick. People will regret it a lot more if they're bound by a license that doesn't protect them. I wonder about what you've posted, too. Look at this: (emphasis mine)
You expressly agree that you will defend, indemnify, and hold the Campaign Builders' Guild (the CBG), the Opal Council, its successors, assigns, licensees, and anyone else acquiring copies of the posted materials or their derivatives harmless from, against, and in respect of any claims, damages, expenses, or costs of any kind
It seems like this is a massive loophole that says "anyone can use anyone posted here for anything." In other words, in practice, this license is much weaker than any CC license. --sparkletwist 20:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Truth About CCL

Here are some important statements from the FAQ over at CC.org that may be useful and may apply to us. I recommend everyone here who is concerned in any way go read the entire FAQ, and then do some looking around the site. I'm not scared of a CCL at this point, and believe it could be beneficial to the site as a whole, but I'm not going to implement it until everyone understands that it will not harm you or your wishes to publish work in any way.

  • One final thing you should understand about Creative Commons licenses is that they are all non-exclusive. This means that you can permit the general public to use your work under a Creative Commons license and then enter into a separate and different non-exclusive license with someone else, for example, in exchange for money.
  • What if I change my mind?
Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work. (emphasis mine)
  • Can I still make money from a work I make available under a Creative Commons licenses?
Absolutely. Firstly, because our licenses are non-exclusive which means you are not tied down to only make a piece of your content available under a Creative Commons license; you can also enter into other revenue-generating licenses in relation to your work. One of our central goals is to encourage people to experiment with new ways to promote and market their work.
Secondly, the noncommercial license option is an inventive tool designed to allow people to maximize the distribution of their works while keeping control of the commercial aspects of their copyright. To make one thing clear that is sometimes misunderstood: the "noncommercial use" condition applies only to others who use your work, not to you (the licensor). So if you choose to license your work under a Creative Commons license that includes the “noncommercial use” option, you impose the ”noncommercial” condition on the users (licensees). However, you, the creator of the work and/or licensor, may at any time decide to use it commercially. People who want to copy or adapt your work, "primarily for monetary compensation or financial gain" must get your separate permission first.
One thing to note on the noncommercial provision: under current U.S. law, file-sharing or the trading of works online is considered a commercial use -- even if no money changes hands. Because we believe that file-sharing, used properly, is a powerful tool for distribution and education, all Creative Commons licenses contain a special exception for file-sharing. The trading of works online is not a commercial use, under our documents, provided it is not done for monetary gain.
  • Do I need a copyright notice to protect my work?
You do not need to apply a copyright notice to secure copyright protection. However, a copyright notice can be useful because it clearly signals to people that you believe you own copyright in your work and who to contact.
  • I want to give users of my site the option to choose Creative Commons licensing; how do I do that?
You can directly integrate the Creative Commons license selection engine into your site. This can be useful if you have an application or website that allows people to contribute content and you want to give them the option to apply Creative Commons licenses to their works. Here is a step-by-step guide on how to integrate our license selection engine with a website. We also have a web services API for integration with any application.

Final Decision

While talking to a lawyer today on a completely unrelated subject, I decided to bring up our dilemma here. I spoke with Michael J. Allen, a copyright and patent lawyer at the North Carolina Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts, and gave him the spiel on the site, the wiki, and the problem we are facing. I have been set straight on a few issues that I wasn't sure about, and have been justification on some of my other thoughts. The fact of the matter is, the Creative Commons License I have chosen (CCL) will A - Hold up in any court, and B - protect the author just as well (or better, as certain recent cases have proven) as standard copyright laws. It will give the author full rights to his or her work, and does necessitate full attribution, credits, and disclaimers for any use by someone other than the original author. It also protects me, the administrators, and the site from any sort of suits pressed from misuse, misappropriations, misinterpretations, and unsanctioned use of said works. What it does not do is give anyone the right to take your work and use it as they see fit, and what it does not do is take away your rights to publish your work. All derivatives are yours (since that's the CCL I have chosen), and permission should be asked for any use. No amount of edits from anyone will change the fact that the original author still owns the work.

Having a secondary license of "Standard copyright," would not offer any additional protection, whatsoever, to anyone at all, and could, in fact, weaken the CCL.

So with all that being said, I am going to pass on offering a secondary option, since it is quite frankly, just not needed. I hope this will not cause anyone to want to remove their work, but I will offer a fifteen day grace period (until July 1, 2008) for anyone to remove any work they do not want to be under this completely safe license. And also, with the advice of Mr. Allen, this license goes into effect immediately. I hope everyone can and will be satisfied by this - I feel this is an excellent source of protection, as well as a very suitable license that anyone should feel comfortable placing their work under. Though I will be saddened if anyone decides this license is not good enough, there will be no hard feelings.

Cheers! -Ish

Ish, I think most of us are okay with this version, after all the debate. But I just want to be certain of what I assume you are saying above. In the CC FAQ it says "You can stop offering your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not affect the rights with any copies of your work already in circulation under a Creative Commons license."
That means if I, down the road, asked an admin to delete everything the Eclipse or Eschaton categories, they would do so, right? I understand, of course, that anyone that had already copied the work under the license would still have that copy and right the continue using it, but I could choose to remove my original post and thus "stop offering" the work any further without revoking it from those using it currently or exposing you to legal ramifications?
At this point I'm leaning towards accepting the license, but I want to be certain how it works, in case I later need or wish to remove material from the CBG for any reason. Also, I am still interested in how this will apply to material posted on the forums, or if we ever getting hosting working again. Can you comment on those features?--Phoenix 14:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Phoenix, you are correct on this. If in September, you decide to take all your work down, I will honor said request, and it can be taken down. From then on, you are under no obligation show any of your future works to anyone. However, come December, if someone asks to see all the "Kishar" or "Eschaton" work again, the obligation is to either A - you get in touch with the person and allow them to see whatever former version of the work they saw that was released under CC, or B - I will have to pull up the archives and get them the information. Chances of that happening are slim to none, of course, but that is part of the agreement - anything released under CC will always be CC, even if the original document files are removed. Any edits and derivatives you do after removing will not be under CC.
For the forums, we will not be using a CC. It is used here because of the collaborative nature of a wiki, but in the forums, no one could ever edit your original post (other than myself). I have a copyright policy and terms of use on the CBG that will be used, it is still being revised and edited by myself and a copyright lawyer I've been talking to. --Ish
I don't really understand the point of taking all the work down. Why would someone want to do that? It seems like doing that doesn't really go along with the "community" aspect of the CC license, but I'm not going to argue the point of whether it's a good thing or not to want all the work taken down until I understand why anyone would really want to do that, though. However, I don't really agree with these obligations either: fundamentally, no one is obligated to distribute the work. They're obligated to attribute it, not exploit it commercially, and not make any derivative works, per the terms of the license, but they're not obligated to distribute it. You're not allowed to overtly say "you can't have this any more," but you're also under no obligation to keep handing out copies. Still, this seems like something of a "loophole" and violates a bit of the spirit of the CC, so perhaps a less bizarre (for all involved) compromise could be reached like keeping the material on the wiki but removing all links to it, or something. --sparkletwist 17:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
st, the "obligation" part is something that would only come up if the challenge became a legal issue. Anything that is released as CC will always be CC, there is no revocation of it, and if someone wanted to use the work after it has been taken down off the site, they would have full, legal rights to that work. As far as the "understanding the point of taking all the work down," at this point, I don't think understanding the reason is as important as just understanding that it can be taken down at the author's request. If someone decides they want their work removed, it must be removed, however that work still exists as Creative Commons works, and will always exist as such until and unless the license is brought down in the court of law somewhere. That's all I was saying, and my "A and B" scenarios were just examples of how that would likely have to play out should it become any sort of legal issue, which I do not foresee here. --Ish 18:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Because there has been some confusion I just want to clarify in your previous statement that someone using a CC licensed work under the terms of that CC license has only the rights that the license grants them, not "full, legal rights." That is, if the license says they can't use it commercially, they can't use it commercially, period. (Without special permission from the author of course) I also want to clarify that removing the work from the wiki in no way revokes the rights of anyone who has it to read or distribute it, as long as they themselves follow the terms of the CC license. That is, they still can't make derivative works and the like. That said, we're a pretty reasonable lot, and if someone wants some old junk buried because they've got something bigger and better, well, we're all about the bigger and better, aren't we! :D --sparkletwist 19:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this puts us on the same page. :) You just said it better and more articulately than I! --Ish 20:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And are we still considering web hosting for CBG 2.0?

I guess part of my question stemmed from my thinking (along ST's lines), that the license allowed me to say I no longer want this material freely available, for whatever reason, though of course I can't take it away from someone that already had it. --Phoenix 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There will not be a web hosting for CBG 2.0 that is in any way identical to what we offered before. There are simply too many security concerns to allow people free and unlimited access to do what we were doing before. As was mentioned a long time ago, we will be willing to accept paid accounts to offer hosting, but since we're not there yet, the issue hasn't come up recently. But no, there will be no free and unlimited hosting for CBGers, since it's just asking for various forms of problems that we aren't paid enough to bother with. Someday in the future, if-and-when this site makes money to support itself, it may be an option, but right now, while it's coming out of the pockets of only 2 or 3 people, it just won't work.
With that being said, we will have the wiki at CBG 2.0, and two other options that are remaining hush-hush until they're hammered out a bit more. --Ish 18:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Ooo, now I'm excited about the hush-hush options. The other information I seem to recall in a news post, now that you mention it, but it has been a while. Depending on the price and the degree of options, paying for hosting might work really well, too. --Phoenix 00:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)