|
Thank you for your help, I really appreciate it.
I think you are right in the fact that creating derivitive works would not be a good idea. I had the term confused. I do want the copyright holder to grant permission for editorial revisions and modifications to the area. Every area that I have read has needed at least one stat fixed for balance reasons. Generally the newer the builder, the more stats need fixed. Then there are other matters: altering the area so bring it closer to the muds theme, fixing typos and grammatical errors.
The portion about the copyright holder being able to request removal of their name is in case the revisions turn the area into something that they are not proud of. Stating that they can have it re-added is a good idea. I took that for granted, but someone trying to bend the rules would not.
Who the license is given to is indeed a sticky problem. Any long running mud has undergone administration changes. I don't think there is any way to do this without creating some loopholes. It might have to fall to creating the least loopholes. I am beginning to get the feeling that freeing something of loopholes may be as easy as securing any box that is hooked up to the internet. Try as you might, someone who is very determined, deliberate, and persistant would get through.
Too bad we do not have some form of third party arbitration available in the mudding community for disputes before taking it to court.
Thanks again for your help. I am going to mull over what you said for a couple of days and have another go at this.
Neranz Laverani, Seeker of Knowledge
|