[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Perceptive souls will notice a Creative Commons license in the bottom of the left hand column. Or, if you're reading the bare bones Population: One, it's at the bottom of the page. I wound up choosing the very liberal Attribution license. This means that anyone can copy, distribute, or display these pages or works derived from these pages, as long as they give me credit. I doubt anyone will, mind you. This is pretty much just a philosophical statement.

I have noted that the entire site is under that license except where specifically noted otherwise. That's because of this entry, which is licensed under the Open Game License. I think the Creative Commons licenses are generally superior to the OGL; the OGL includes several restrictions on material covered by the license, and also adds a complex and confusing Product Identity clause. I don't expect to license anything further under the OGL, unless I have to because I'm deriving from something else licensed under the OGL.

I haven't bothered adding the license to each individual archive page, because I don't want to be cluttered. I may change my mind; if anyone happens to have thoughts on this, feel free to sing out.

Comments

[gconnor.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I guess this may or may not apply to me since I am reading the syndicated feed version? :)

At least, the license and/or copyright doesn't appear in the article itself as viewed through LJ.

[bryant]

Nah. Just cause there's not a license notice on it doesn't mean it isn't licensed -- same as not having a notice on the individual pages.

Sort of like how you still have copyright on your journal even though there's no copyright notice. It's automatically propagated. ;)

Dual licensing

[dtm]

I haven't seen the post you're refering to, but if it's all your material you could always make it available under both the open gaming license and the one that applies to the rest of your site. Then it's very simple: your entire site is under one license; where noted, certain portions may also be used under a different license. However, if anyone writes something that programatically does something with the entire site, they need only pay attention to the strictures of the creative commons license.

Re: Dual licensing

[bryant]

I agree in theory, but note clause 2 of the OGL:

2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.

I think the last sentence probably doesn't preclude also licensing under a different license, but I am not a lawyer and am uninclined to risk it.