sos@panix.com wrote:
> So rather than continue this pointless debate, if anyone has any
> CONCRETE EXAMPLES OF WORDING they would like to see, I'll listen.
> But I really don't think there's any point in continuing the debate
> as it's been raging.
I'm sure someone else would be able to put a better wording forward, and
probably will, but I thought I'd put something forward in case lawyers
were about to be met. These only make the per-publisher and qualified
irrevocability more obvious and unambiguous.
7. Be sure to send me the two copies of your published work the license
requires!
to
7. Be sure to send me the two copies of each work you publish under the
license, as the license requires!
and
With regards to your request for permission to publish and
distribute, for a fee, materials using the Fudge role-playing
game system, such permission is hereby granted, provided you
agree to the following:
to
With regards to your request for permission to publish and
distribute, for a fee, materials using the Fudge role-playing
game system, such permission is hereby granted in perpetuity,
provided and for as long as you agree and adhere to the
following:
Personally, I don't see "We dislike the license." as signifiantly less
personal than "There are no sales in it.", so disagree with Steffan on
that one. Roll on the day when "the sales in it" is a compelling reason,
though :). Because of this, and because of on-list potential publishers,
and despite the lack of people raising the issue with Steffan directly,
I'm hoping for a clarification.
--
Ian McDonald
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/alternative.html
http://travel.to/startrekcolony - Star Trek: Colony site & .mov
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/who-rpg.html - Dr. Who RPGs
-- -----------------------------------------------
The Fudge List FAQ is at http://fudge.phoenyx.net/
** Please trim your quotes **