Well, we were able to poll some of the folks who know a good
piecepack game when they see one, and that's how we put together the
"Gamer's Dozen" book that we distribute with every retail copy of our
piecepacks.   But we did have to spend time wading through the
licensing differences and tracking down the copyright holders to
secure their permission  Considering that board games are a challenge,
we view any effort to grow the piecepack world as a good one - since
more exposure brings new people, ideas and game designs into the
community.
  Blue Panther LLC - Games, Accessories, Prototypes & Short Run Mfg
  Board Games Now LLC - the best indy board games
  On Tue 02/08/11 11:36 PM , Ben Finney
ben+yahoogroups@... sent:
	 Emily Page  writes:
  > I am constantly in a state of disgusted surprise that this whole
  > system hasn't been properly profited from. :) So... the latest
failure
  > is just par for the rolling my eyes course.
  One thing which is needed is freely-licensed game rules. Currently
there
  are many game rules published, but very few of them under free
licenses.
  Free licenses entail that there are no restrictions on commercial
  redistribution http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC [2]>. The
Creative
  Commons Non-Commercial clause makes a work non-free.
  Free licenses entail that any modification is allowed in any
  redistribution of the work. The FDL (despite its name) places
non-free
  restrictions on modification, and the No-Derivatives clause of the
  Creative Commons licenses also makes a work non-free.
  It's unfortunate that “Creative Commons” includes options for
making a
  work free, and also options for making a work non-free. The brand
isn't
  helpful for distinguishing the freedom of a work.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/09352711499/creative-commons-branding-\
confusion.shtml
[3]>
  I recommend the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license as being a free-culture license
  that still provides the necessary protections for the work and the
  copyright holder.
  http://questioncopyright.org/cc-pro [4]>
      http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ [5]>
  > I am still waiting for a fast food chain to make it a collectible
  > thing with their logo on the back.
  If there were a body of Piecepack game rules under free-culture
  licenses, that might be more possible: anyone could reformat them
and
  translate them and modify them and mass-produce them and profit from
  them, without needing further license negotiation.
  What I'd really love is for a large number of the popular existing
  Piecepack games to be released under a free-culture license like
  CC-BY-SA-3.0.
  What I hope for is that we encourage all future Piecepack games to
be
  released under free-culture licenses, without restriction on format
nor
  modification nor commercial redistribution.
  > But I think I'm a bit on the unusual side on the list here... :)
  I hope not.
  --
           “I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that
any |
    `       view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal
and |
  _o__)                                   opposite view.” —Douglas
Adams |
  Ben Finney


Links:
------
[1] mailto:emily.page@...
[2] http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
[3]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/09352711499/creative-commons-branding-\
confusion.shtml
[4] http://questioncopyright.org/cc-pro
[5] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
[6]
mailto:ben+yahoogroups@...?subject=Re:%20Profitable%20sales%20of%20f\
ree-culture%20Piecepack%20%28was:%20Sad%20ToyVault%20news%29
[7]
mailto:piecepack@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re:%20Profitable%20sales%20of%20free-cu\
lture%20Piecepack%20%28was:%20Sad%20ToyVault%20news%29
[8]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piecepack/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwdXJqdG8xBF9TAzk3MzU5Nz\
E0BGdycElkAzI1MTEzODgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDUyODk2BG1zZ0lkAzM3MzYEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcn\
BseQRzdGltZQMxMzEyMzQ2MTg2?act=reply&messageNum=3736
[9]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piecepack/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbmc4OWY3BF9TAzk3MzU5Nz\
E0BGdycElkAzI1MTEzODgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDUyODk2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMT\
MxMjM0NjE4Ng--
[10]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piecepack/message/3736;_ylc=X3oDMTM0c3ZncGdlBF9TAz\
k3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1MTEzODgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDUyODk2BG1zZ0lkAzM3MzYEc2VjA2Z0cg\
RzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMzEyMzQ2MTg2BHRwY0lkAzM3MzY-
[11]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piecepack/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmb3M0OW5lBF9TAzk3MzU\
5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1MTEzODgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDUyODk2BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1\
lAzEzMTIzNDYxODY-?o=6
[12]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piecepack;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZmdhYWV0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGd\
ycElkAzI1MTEzODgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDUyODk2BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTMxMjM\
0NjE4Ng--
[13]
http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkcmg1a25lBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzI1MTEzOD\
gEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDUyODk2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzEyMzQ2MTg2
[14] mailto:piecepack-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change
Delivery Format: Traditional
[15] mailto:piecepack-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email Delivery:
Digest
[16] mailto:piecepack-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe
[17] http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You beat me to replying, Mar.

Most of our early games are GFDLed, and most of our later games, such
as the as-yet-unreleased Relativity, are under some form of CC,
usually CC-BY-SA. I am completely open to relicensing our earlier
games under CC-BY-SA (I'm guessing Marty is too); it's just a slightly
tedious process, and not my highest priority at the moment, nor
Marty's, I think.

Ron

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:09 PM, M. Hale-Evans <marty@...> wrote:
> I believe all of the games written by Ron and me are free-licensed,
> including contest winners like Kidsprout Jumboree and Relativity, plus
> Piecepack Letterbox, Wormholes, Snowman Meltdown, Epic Funhouse, Easy
> Slider, and Castle Croquinole. �I think there are quite a few others, but
> it's hard to easily tell which ones on the main piecepack site listings.
>
>
> Marty
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Ben Finney
> <ben+yahoogroups@...>wrote:
>
>> Emily Page <emily.page@...> writes:
>>
>> > I am constantly in a state of disgusted surprise that this whole
>> > system hasn't been properly profited from. :) So... the latest failure
>> > is just par for the rolling my eyes course.
>>
>> One thing which is needed is freely-licensed game rules. Currently there
>> are many game rules published, but very few of them under free licenses.
>>
>> Free licenses entail that there are no restrictions on commercial
>> redistribution <URL:http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC>. The Creative
>> Commons Non-Commercial clause makes a work non-free.
>>
>> Free licenses entail that any modification is allowed in any
>> redistribution of the work. The FDL (despite its name) places non-free
>> restrictions on modification, and the No-Derivatives clause of the
>> Creative Commons licenses also makes a work non-free.
>>
>> It's unfortunate that �Creative Commons� includes options for making a
>> work free, and also options for making a work non-free. The brand isn't
>> helpful for distinguishing the freedom of a work.
>>
>> � �<URL:
>>
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/09352711499/creative-commons-branding-\
confusion.shtml
>> >
>>
>> I recommend the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license as being a free-culture license
>> that still provides the necessary protections for the work and the
>> copyright holder.
>>
>> � �<URL:http://questioncopyright.org/cc-pro>
>> � �<URL:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>
>>
>> > I am still waiting for a fast food chain to make it a collectible
>> > thing with their logo on the back.
>>
>> If there were a body of Piecepack game rules under free-culture
>> licenses, that might be more possible: anyone could reformat them and
>> translate them and modify them and mass-produce them and profit from
>> them, without needing further license negotiation.
>>
>> What I'd really love is for a large number of the popular existing
>> Piecepack games to be released under a free-culture license like
>> CC-BY-SA-3.0.
>>
>> What I hope for is that we encourage all future Piecepack games to be
>> released under free-culture licenses, without restriction on format nor
>> modification nor commercial redistribution.
>>
>> > But I think I'm a bit on the unusual side on the list here... :)
>>
>> I hope not.
>>
>> --
>> �\ � � � ��I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any |
>> �`\ � � � view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and |
>> _o__) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � opposite view.� �Douglas Adams |
>> Ben Finney
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



--
Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... http://ron.ludism.org ... (206) 201-1768
My new book, Mindhacker: http://ur1.ca/4iaey
My first book, Mind Performance Hacks: http://ur1.ca/4iaf3

By the way, it might be helpful to undertake an inventory of how games
are licensed and add a column to this table of contents on the
Piecepack Wiki:

http://www.ludism.org/ppwiki/Games

This is completely beyond me wrt free time at the moment, but I will
do what I can to support anyone who volunteers.

Ron

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> wrote:
> You beat me to replying, Mar.
>
> Most of our early games are GFDLed, and most of our later games, such
> as the as-yet-unreleased Relativity, are under some form of CC,
> usually CC-BY-SA. I am completely open to relicensing our earlier
> games under CC-BY-SA (I'm guessing Marty is too); it's just a slightly
> tedious process, and not my highest priority at the moment, nor
> Marty's, I think.
>
> Ron
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:09 PM, M. Hale-Evans <marty@...> wrote:
>> I believe all of the games written by Ron and me are free-licensed,
>> including contest winners like Kidsprout Jumboree and Relativity, plus
>> Piecepack Letterbox, Wormholes, Snowman Meltdown, Epic Funhouse, Easy
>> Slider, and Castle Croquinole. �I think there are quite a few others, but
>> it's hard to easily tell which ones on the main piecepack site listings.
>>
>>
>> Marty
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Ben Finney
>> <ben+yahoogroups@...>wrote:
>>
>>> Emily Page <emily.page@...> writes:
>>>
>>> > I am constantly in a state of disgusted surprise that this whole
>>> > system hasn't been properly profited from. :) So... the latest failure
>>> > is just par for the rolling my eyes course.
>>>
>>> One thing which is needed is freely-licensed game rules. Currently there
>>> are many game rules published, but very few of them under free licenses.
>>>
>>> Free licenses entail that there are no restrictions on commercial
>>> redistribution <URL:http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC>. The Creative
>>> Commons Non-Commercial clause makes a work non-free.
>>>
>>> Free licenses entail that any modification is allowed in any
>>> redistribution of the work. The FDL (despite its name) places non-free
>>> restrictions on modification, and the No-Derivatives clause of the
>>> Creative Commons licenses also makes a work non-free.
>>>
>>> It's unfortunate that �Creative Commons� includes options for making a
>>> work free, and also options for making a work non-free. The brand isn't
>>> helpful for distinguishing the freedom of a work.
>>>
>>> � �<URL:
>>>
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/09352711499/creative-commons-branding-\
confusion.shtml
>>> >
>>>
>>> I recommend the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license as being a free-culture license
>>> that still provides the necessary protections for the work and the
>>> copyright holder.
>>>
>>> � �<URL:http://questioncopyright.org/cc-pro>
>>> � �<URL:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>
>>>
>>> > I am still waiting for a fast food chain to make it a collectible
>>> > thing with their logo on the back.
>>>
>>> If there were a body of Piecepack game rules under free-culture
>>> licenses, that might be more possible: anyone could reformat them and
>>> translate them and modify them and mass-produce them and profit from
>>> them, without needing further license negotiation.
>>>
>>> What I'd really love is for a large number of the popular existing
>>> Piecepack games to be released under a free-culture license like
>>> CC-BY-SA-3.0.
>>>
>>> What I hope for is that we encourage all future Piecepack games to be
>>> released under free-culture licenses, without restriction on format nor
>>> modification nor commercial redistribution.
>>>
>>> > But I think I'm a bit on the unusual side on the list here... :)
>>>
>>> I hope not.
>>>
>>> --
>>> �\ � � � ��I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any |
>>> �`\ � � � view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and |
>>> _o__) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � opposite view.� �Douglas Adams |
>>> Ben Finney
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... http://ron.ludism.org ... (206)
201-1768
> My new book, Mindhacker: http://ur1.ca/4iaey
> My first book, Mind Performance Hacks: http://ur1.ca/4iaf3
>



--
Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... http://ron.ludism.org ... (206) 201-1768
My new book, Mindhacker: http://ur1.ca/4iaey
My first book, Mind Performance Hacks: http://ur1.ca/4iaf3

Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> writes:

> By the way, it might be helpful to undertake an inventory of how games
> are licensed and add a column to this table of contents on the
> Piecepack Wiki:
>
> http://www.ludism.org/ppwiki/Games

I have added a column asking whether the game's license terms are free,
and set all currently-listed games to “(unknown)”. As time permits
(anyone should feel free to help if you can!), we can replace those with
information.

for example, “Free (CC-BY-3.0)” or “Non-free (FDL)”.

--
  \         “If you can do no good, at least do no harm.” —_Slapstick_, |
   `\                                                     Kurt Vonnegut |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

I understand the points about the non-commercial clause not being free
and all that, but I can see why people might not want others to profit
on their creations by default... I've used it some times, and some
others I've used more free licenses... But I don't think it is too
important in this particular case, as all the games are freely
available to anyone anyway. I don't think having actual rules in the
box is essential... And even if you want to have rules in your
commercially released piecepack it is not that hard anyway (My edition
had a few games and Blue Panther's does too).

To me, the biggest issue is when designers use licenses that don't
allow for derivative works such as translation or computer adaptations
(even free ones). For example, I've got a One Man Thrag computer game
sitting on my computer since last Summer because its author didn't
reply when I asked him if it was ok. I guess I could just release it
under another name because it doesn't use any copyrighted material,
but I don't know... I'd rather do it right... so no one can play it...

-Jorge


On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:23 AM, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> wrote:
> By the way, it might be helpful to undertake an inventory of how games
> are licensed and add a column to this table of contents on the
> Piecepack Wiki:
>
> http://www.ludism.org/ppwiki/Games
>
> This is completely beyond me wrt free time at the moment, but I will
> do what I can to support anyone who volunteers.
>
> Ron
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> wrote:
>> You beat me to replying, Mar.
>>
>> Most of our early games are GFDLed, and most of our later games, such
>> as the as-yet-unreleased Relativity, are under some form of CC,
>> usually CC-BY-SA. I am completely open to relicensing our earlier
>> games under CC-BY-SA (I'm guessing Marty is too); it's just a slightly
>> tedious process, and not my highest priority at the moment, nor
>> Marty's, I think.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:09 PM, M. Hale-Evans <marty@...> wrote:
>>> I believe all of the games written by Ron and me are free-licensed,
>>> including contest winners like Kidsprout Jumboree and Relativity, plus
>>> Piecepack Letterbox, Wormholes, Snowman Meltdown, Epic Funhouse, Easy
>>> Slider, and Castle Croquinole. �I think there are quite a few others, but
>>> it's hard to easily tell which ones on the main piecepack site listings.
>>>
>>>
>>> Marty
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Ben Finney
>>> <ben+yahoogroups@...>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Emily Page <emily.page@...> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > I am constantly in a state of disgusted surprise that this whole
>>>> > system hasn't been properly profited from. :) So... the latest failure
>>>> > is just par for the rolling my eyes course.
>>>>
>>>> One thing which is needed is freely-licensed game rules. Currently there
>>>> are many game rules published, but very few of them under free licenses.
>>>>
>>>> Free licenses entail that there are no restrictions on commercial
>>>> redistribution <URL:http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC>. The Creative
>>>> Commons Non-Commercial clause makes a work non-free.
>>>>
>>>> Free licenses entail that any modification is allowed in any
>>>> redistribution of the work. The FDL (despite its name) places non-free
>>>> restrictions on modification, and the No-Derivatives clause of the
>>>> Creative Commons licenses also makes a work non-free.
>>>>
>>>> It's unfortunate that �Creative Commons� includes options for making a
>>>> work free, and also options for making a work non-free. The brand isn't
>>>> helpful for distinguishing the freedom of a work.
>>>>
>>>> � �<URL:
>>>>
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101020/09352711499/creative-commons-branding-\
confusion.shtml
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> I recommend the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license as being a free-culture license
>>>> that still provides the necessary protections for the work and the
>>>> copyright holder.
>>>>
>>>> � �<URL:http://questioncopyright.org/cc-pro>
>>>> � �<URL:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>
>>>>
>>>> > I am still waiting for a fast food chain to make it a collectible
>>>> > thing with their logo on the back.
>>>>
>>>> If there were a body of Piecepack game rules under free-culture
>>>> licenses, that might be more possible: anyone could reformat them and
>>>> translate them and modify them and mass-produce them and profit from
>>>> them, without needing further license negotiation.
>>>>
>>>> What I'd really love is for a large number of the popular existing
>>>> Piecepack games to be released under a free-culture license like
>>>> CC-BY-SA-3.0.
>>>>
>>>> What I hope for is that we encourage all future Piecepack games to be
>>>> released under free-culture licenses, without restriction on format nor
>>>> modification nor commercial redistribution.
>>>>
>>>> > But I think I'm a bit on the unusual side on the list here... :)
>>>>
>>>> I hope not.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> �\ � � � ��I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any |
>>>> �`\ � � � view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and |
>>>> _o__) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � opposite view.� �Douglas Adams |
>>>> Ben Finney
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... http://ron.ludism.org ... (206)
201-1768
>> My new book, Mindhacker: http://ur1.ca/4iaey
>> My first book, Mind Performance Hacks: http://ur1.ca/4iaf3
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ron Hale-Evans ... rwhe@... ... http://ron.ludism.org ... (206)
201-1768
> My new book, Mindhacker: http://ur1.ca/4iaey
> My first book, Mind Performance Hacks: http://ur1.ca/4iaf3
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Hmmm... what makes a license Free or non-free? I always thought the
FDL was free (I might be wrong)... Anyway, is there a definition of
what Free means exactly in this context? Because I don't think this is
going to be something where everyone is going to agree 100%... Why not
just state the license and let the reader decide how free they think
it is?

-Jorge

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Ben Finney
<ben+yahoogroups@...> wrote:
> Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@...> writes:
>
>> By the way, it might be helpful to undertake an inventory of how games
>> are licensed and add a column to this table of contents on the
>> Piecepack Wiki:
>>
>> http://www.ludism.org/ppwiki/Games
>
> I have added a column asking whether the game's license terms are free,
> and set all currently-listed games to �(unknown)�. As time permits
> (anyone should feel free to help if you can!), we can replace those with
> information.
>
> for example, �Free (CC-BY-3.0)� or �Non-free (FDL)�.
>
> --
> �\ � � � � �If you can do no good, at least do no harm.� �_Slapstick_, |
> �`\ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Kurt Vonnegut |
> _o__) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �|
> Ben Finney
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Jorge Arroyo:
> Hmmm... what makes a license Free or non-free? I always thought the
> FDL was free (I might be wrong)... Anyway, is there a definition of
> what Free means exactly in this context? Because I don't think this is
> going to be something where everyone is going to agree 100%... Why not
> just state the license and let the reader decide how free they think
> it is?

Trying to avoid debate here, but the GFDL is a license that was written
as part of the goals of the Free Software Foundation and the GNU
project.  The goals of these organizations is to promote the freedom of
software users, and they had traditionally used the "copyleft" GPL
license to cover both the functional works (programs, data, etc) and the
manuals.

The GFDL has a concept of "invariant sections", which I believe (though
I haven't verified this extensively) were intended for non-technical
text such as the philosophical statements of the FSF.  They did not want
to permit or encourage, say, a modified copy of the GNU Manifesto
calling for the replacement of all elementary school teachers with
unrefrigerated jars of mayonnaise.  They also wanted the philosophical
documentation to be included with all manuals in which it featured.

Five years ago the Debian project (which was the first to have a formal
set of criteria for a free license that went beyond the FSF's more
qualitative approach) voted on a resolution that declared the GFDL
insufficiently free to be valid in its main body of software:

http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001
> The GFDL conflicts with traditional requirements for free software in
> a variety of ways, some of which are expanded upon below. As a
> copyleft license, one of the consequences of this is that it is not
> possible to include content from a document directly into free
> software under the GFDL.

I continue to use either the GPL or CC-BY-SA (2.0 or later, typically US
or UK) for most of my non-functional text works.

What's also important to note in this frustration about the CC licenses
including non-free variants is the relative goals of the FSF/GNU project
and the CC project.  The FSF hopes to promote intellectual freedom for
software users.  The Creative Commons people are working to restore a
commons of cultural works.  They overlap, to be sure, but each thus far
has done an admirable job of achieving what they set out to do.

--
"Some of us figured out in the 1950s
that blacklists were a bad idea.
Some of us have that lesson still ahead of us."
            -- John Gilmore, on RBLs.

Jorge Arroyo <trozo@...> writes:

> Hmmm... what makes a license Free or non-free? I always thought the
> FDL was free (I might be wrong)...

The FSF's position is inconsistent on this matter. It defines general
freedoms that recipients deserve, but then claims that recipients don't
deserve those freedoms in documentation.

    
<URL:http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110704/15235514961/shouldnt-free-mean-sa\
me-thing-whether-followed-culture-software.shtml?cid=41>

(Some in the FSF attempt to get around this by claiming that the
copyright holder gets to declare that the work will never be used by
anyone as anything but documentation – in other words, that if the
copyright holder doesn't think a freedom would be useful to recipients,
then recipients don't deserve that freedom. This is, again, quite
inconsistent with the FSF's position on software freedom generally.)

This leads to imposing restrictions in the FDL that make it non-free
<URL:https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_Licen\
se#Criticism>.

The FDL's requirement to reproduce the entire FDL text in every derived
work makes it non-free, and quite problematic for distributing a small
booklet derived from the work, for example.

> Anyway, is there a definition of what Free means exactly in this
> context? Because I don't think this is going to be something where
> everyone is going to agree 100%...

You're right, of course. That's why I've linked the heading “Free” to
the Free Culture definition site, and am using that to evaluate the
freedom of these works.

> Why not just state the license and let the reader decide how free they
> think it is?

That information is already available, so there's no “why not” about it
:-)

I am providing additional information: an evaluation of the license
against the Free Culture definition to determine whether the work is
free.

--
  \       “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are |
   `\    not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer |
_o__)                              to reality.” —Albert Einstein, 1983 |
Ben Finney

Ben Finney:
> The FSF's position is inconsistent on this matter. It defines general
> freedoms that recipients deserve, but then claims that recipients
> don't deserve those freedoms in documentation.

I should point out that while the FSF's position is always debatable, it
may not be as inconsistent as you think.  One of the core points the FSF
has always made is that because software is both a functional work (like
a blueprint) and a universal description of process (like a mathematical
formula), it ought to be treated differently from anything else.

Traditionally the FSF defended the particular freedoms surrounding
documentation that you seem to personally find important, largely
because the GNU project chose to use the GPL for its documentation early
on.  Now they're trying to include writings that they don't want
misrepresented (political and philosophical writings, as well as fiction
such as The Right To Read), and are kind of surprised that people are
holding these works to the same standard as software.

I'm not a fan of the GFDL or its effects, but the FSF's position can be
reasoned about from their goals and actions.  A lot of confusion comes
from people making assumptions about the FSF's thoughts on a topic based
on third-party reports, so please don't take _my_ word for it!

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-gfdl.html

--
Hey, how come nobody here in the future
has a time machine except me?

Jorge Arroyo <trozo@...> writes:

> I understand the points about the non-commercial clause not being free
> and all that, but I can see why people might not want others to profit
> on their creations by default...

There are many reasons for people to want to impose that restriction,
and I'm not making any judgement about the people who choose to do so.

But that choice brings consequences: Imposing a restriction on
commercial redistribution makes the work non-free, and I'd like that
fact made prominent on the Piecepack site. Hence my work in that
direction.

> I've used it some times, and some others I've used more free
> licenses... But I don't think it is too important in this particular
> case, as all the games are freely available to anyone anyway. I don't
> think having actual rules in the box is essential...

Whether it's essential is a separate issue. (We are talking about a game
system, after all.)

The issue at hand is whether having the freedom to get the rules for a
game, derive a new work from it (by translations, or streamlining, or
prose rewrites, or whatever), and then sell it with a Piecepack, is
something that is desirable for free culture and for the Piecepack
system in particular.

I maintain that it is very desirable. Piecepack game writers who want
the free-culture Piecepack system to flourish have every incentive to
release their work under a free-culture copyright license (by the
definition at <URL:http://freedomdefined.org/>) by not restricting
commercial redistribution nor modification.

Piecepack game writers who don't want free culture to flourish are under
no constraint to release their work as free culture, of course. But we
can advocate for it to happen, and argue for why it's a sound move.

--
  \     “Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a |
   `\                                   man of value.” —Albert Einstein |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

I just get on these kicks every now and then.  I hope Kelloggs contacts some
of you.

They put a cut-outable tangram set on the back of their Cocoa Krispies
recently.  I went to the website and filled out their special Big Idea form
for piecePack.

It can be printed on the back of the boxes (two sided printing... so one
side will be ugly cardboardish, but totally functional).  Color in or
pre-colored (so you have to collect them).  I am thinking that each box
could have a "suit" of some sort.  It just takes four suits... so... Tony
the Tiger,  Snap, Crackle, Pop, Toucan Sam, that Frog from Honey Smacks,
Cornflakes rooster, Sunny Sun for Raisin Bran...

I am not smart enough to make games... but this is just such a great thing.
I am a piecePack evangelist.  :)  I have been asked to speak at a few PTO
meetings this year and after Khan Academy, I will be hitting piecePack as an
Internet Wonder. :)

It just makes me giddy at how many amazing things are available to people on
the Internet these days.  And it makes me crazy how few parents are aware of
the resources at their fingertips.

I don't homeschool.... but the Vice-Principal at our Public elementary
School has mentioned it to me.  You know, as an idea. In case I get tired of
bombarding the school with ideas. :)  They mostly don't hide when I show up.
  I'm making a note here:  "Huge Success." :)

Emily Page


-------->
follow me on twitter!  @emilypage
<-------


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Emily Page <emily.page@...> writes:

> I just get on these kicks every now and then. I hope Kelloggs contacts
> some of you.
>
> They put a cut-outable tangram set on the back of their Cocoa Krispies
> recently. I went to the website and filled out their special Big Idea
> form for piecePack.

Thanks very much for that.

(That's “Piecepack”, by the way.)

> I'm making a note here: "Huge Success." :)

Yes, the Piecepack cake is delicious and moist.

--
  \           “Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to |
   `\                                               think.” —Niels Bohr |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Hello:

Wanted to let the community know about an event that Blue Panther is
co-sponsoring - we'll have plenty of piecepacks on hand for the event, including
some as giveaways and some as a game design exercise - the new Blue Panther Sets
1,2,3, Elemantal and War & Piecepack.

Protospiel West will be at the Sheraton LAX Airport in Los Angeles on Labor Day
weekend - Friday evening, Sat and Sun. So if anyone is in the area, drop by.
Format is similar toProtospiel.

Protospiel West is a "con within a con", running concurrently with Gateway, a
con of about 1500 people hosted by Strategicon every Labor Day weekend.

Companies that will be at Protospiel West include Blue Panther, Numbskull Games,
Victory Point Games, Guerilla Games, possibly a visit from Fantasy Flight Games
as well. Ted Alspach (GOH) will be giving a session on Publishing / Kickstarter
on Sat at 2 PM. Eric Burgess of Boardgame Babylon podcast will be doing his show
from the event as well. Blue Panther will be giving a session on
Print-On-Demand on Sunday at 2 PM

Complete info on Protospiel West can be found in a PDF download at
www.bluepantherllc.com. Note that there is a typo there - there will be no
separate fee for Protospiel West - your Gateway badge will get you oin.

We've just set up a group for the event - to list your title(s).

Here are the details on protospielwest:
Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/protospielwest
Group email address: protospielwest@yahoogroups.com

Hope some of you can make it.

Steve Jones
Blue Panther LLC

2010/11/3 rag
> The deal sounds really good (free worldwide shipping, yay!) and the
> artwork is interesting - but we seriously need photos of the actual sets.
> Many pictures, in fact. Showing all components from every side :)

2010/11/3 Steve <steve@...>
> Photos are on the way in a few days.

10 months later, I still can't seem to find the pictures of the piecepack
sets on your site. Can we *please* have them now? :)

rag


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Set 1 and Set 2 Pics attached.

The worldwide free shipping offer has expired.

Steve Jones
Blue Panther LLC

--- On Thu, 9/8/11, Adrian Wiechec <justrag@...> wrote:

From: Adrian Wiechec <justrag@...>
Subject: Re: [piecepack] New retail piecepacks: Blue Panther Followup
To: piecepack@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2011, 12:52 PM
















 









       2010/11/3 rag

> The deal sounds really good (free worldwide shipping, yay!) and the

> artwork is interesting - but we seriously need photos of the actual sets.

> Many pictures, in fact. Showing all components from every side :)



2010/11/3 Steve <steve@...>

> Photos are on the way in a few days.



10 months later, I still can't seem to find the pictures of the piecepack

sets on your site. Can we *please* have them now? :)



rag



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Steve Jones <bluepantherllc@...>
writes:

> Set 1 and Set 2 Pics attached.

Can you please put photos of the sets on the website? It's especially
important to be able to see high-resolution photos of the sets (perhaps
by selecting a low-resolution thumbnail) on the website when deciding
which to buy.

--
  \     “For man, as for flower and beast and bird, the supreme triumph |
   `\       is to be most vividly, most perfectly alive” —D.H. Lawrence |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Set 1 and Set 2 pics are on the piecepack page, as is a pic of War & Piecepack
and Elemental Piecepack

SJ

--- On Sat, 9/10/11, Ben Finney <ben+yahoogroups@...> wrote:

From: Ben Finney <ben+yahoogroups@...>
Subject: [piecepack] Re: New retail piecepacks: Blue Panther Followup
To: piecepack@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, September 10, 2011, 10:25 PM
















 









       Steve Jones <bluepantherllc@...>

writes:



> Set 1 and Set 2 Pics attached.



Can you please put photos of the sets on the website? It's especially

important to be able to see high-resolution photos of the sets (perhaps

by selecting a low-resolution thumbnail) on the website when deciding

which to buy.



--

  \     “For man, as for flower and beast and bird, the supreme triumph |

   `\       is to be most vividly, most perfectly alive” —D.H. Lawrence |

_o__)                                                                  |

Ben Finney



























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Steve Jones <bluepantherllc@...>
writes:

> Set 1 and Set 2 pics are on the piecepack page, as is a pic of War &
> Piecepack and Elemental Piecepack

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Let me try again:

Before buying the games, it would help the purchaser to see some
*high-resolution* photos (say, 800px or more) of the *actual* equipment.

A low-resolution shot of War & Piecepack is useful, but not enough to
examine the pieces.

An image of the graphics for the other piecepack sets, without showing
the actual parts of those sets, is not useful for the above purpose.

Can you please get high-resolution photos of *each* set, preferably
multiple for each set showing different parts, and link them from the
product page for that set?

--
  \     “Please do not feed the animals. If you have any suitable food, |
   `\                     give it to the guard on duty.” —zoo, Budapest |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

I had the half baked idea of a game that uses a standard deck of cards and
either the Playing-Cards Piecepack or a set of dominoes. The game would try to
emulate the feeling of playing 7 Wonders.

These are the feature I was imagining:

* There are stages when new cards are dealt from the deck to the players.

* The players use one of the cards to improve their situation (making them match
with their dominoes or piecepack tiles on the table) and give the other cards to
their neighbor.

* Jack, Queen and King could grant powers:

** like giving me extra points for having many Clubs matches if I have a King of
clubs.
** Or giving me as many points as my neighbor's Heart matches if I have the Jack
of Hearts.


Any other ideas to make this game more interesting and making it a reality?


Daniel

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Fleur-de-lis-fill.svg

Dominic Crapuchettes provides his insights into the evolving world of board
games and technology and a TEDx talk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3oeVg8uRQS0

Some interesting points made. I agree that electronic games are a major
market, but I don't think physical games will go away. Of course things
will change, but we still have printed books, staged plays, radio,
broadcast television, and movie theaters, even though the internet has
changed the availability and access to entertainment. There's a strong
aesthetic to physically handling the pieces of a game, be they pawns, dice,
cards or counters that cannot be substituted for electronically. The sounds
they make as they contact the board don't replicate well. I can recall late
night debates on the subject of the aesthetics of wood vs plastic pieces
among my friends.

   Sure, electronics are convenient, efficient, and sparkly and make beeping
noises. It's nice to click a button and have the game automatically set up,
multiple decks of cards shuffled instantly, pieces sorted. Similarly,
cleanup is a button click away, and you never misplace or damage pieces.
Takes up no more space than the device no matter how many games you own.
And if you can't find anyone to play with, the games often come with
opponents of various "skill". Very strong arguments. Throw in animated
pieces that walk, drive, build and fight, flashy video effects, beepy
sounds or music, and you've got an entirely new aesthetic going on. Just
not the same kind of fun.

   I'm looking forward to the desktop CNC machines and 3D printers. Imagine
the true print-and-play capabilities of sculpted 3D wood or metal pieces,
laser etched, printed wood boards... Heck, as long as I'm dreaming, lets
create game rooms with surround sound and espresso machines. I'm not saying
I won't play electronic board games, since I do almost every day. I'm a
computer programmer and I love games. I just crave getting together with
friends, face to face at a table, unfolding the map, pulling pieces out of
the box, taking a swig from my cola and saying "What color do you want to
be tonight?"

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Daniel Ajoy <da.ajoy@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Dominic Crapuchettes provides his insights into the evolving world of
> board games and technology and a TEDx talk
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3oeVg8uRQS0
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Seems like member ascelinacbg only purpose here is to place links that have
nothing to do with piecepack. I count 3 so far.

Thank you.  Cleaned up the links, and banned the user.

--- In piecepack@yahoogroups.com, "hexchex" <timtjgames@...> wrote:
>
> Seems like member ascelinacbg only purpose here is to place links that have
nothing to do with piecepack. I count 3 so far.
>

To prevent the join-and-spam-with-links behavior, I've set the membership to
moderated.  If you've friends wanting in, please introduce them.  Unintroduced
applicants will have to be vetted by a mod.

this game could be played with the piecepack

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/663018/dcezilla-a-game-with-dice-and-monster\
s/page/1

Either the monsters are pawns and the helicopter is a die, or vice-versa.

The coins would be the dice markers on the board.

The buildings would have to be extra tokens.

Daniel

Which of these have you played the most?
Which would you recommend?

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/15415/games-that-can-be-played-with-or-hav\
e-been-adapted

Daniel

Hello, all.

So, I was browsing the iOS appstore and ran into Galaxy Express.  It looks
remarkably like Galaxy Express for piecePack (which is one of my favorite
games).

I haven't even played... just looked at the screenshots which, again, look
EXACTLY like the G.E. I have already played.

Is the piecePack Galaxy Express creator the same as the iOS game, which is
usually not free?

Emily


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://itunes.apple.com/app/galaxy-express/id413295946?mt=8

This is the link to the appstore version.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I gave it a try. It's a different game... It's a puzzle where you have a limited
number of arrows which you must place on the screen so it reaches a planet...
Not bad, but not amazing either...

-Jorge

On 28/03/2012, at 16:17, Emily Page <emily.page@...> wrote:

> Hello, all.
>
> So, I was browsing the iOS appstore and ran into Galaxy Express.  It looks
> remarkably like Galaxy Express for piecePack (which is one of my favorite
> games).
>
> I haven't even played... just looked at the screenshots which, again, look
> EXACTLY like the G.E. I have already played.
>
> Is the piecePack Galaxy Express creator the same as the iOS game, which is
> usually not free?
>
> Emily
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>