Talk:Meadowlands (Stormforge Supplement)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

I don't understand what you mean by use Wiki-markup for Demographics?

Can you give me a good example? -- Kildairem 04:12, 7 September 2009 (MDT)

Can anyone explain a wiki-markup for demographics? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2018 (MDT)

Please stop adding templates to a page you don’t own; User agreement was updated after content was initially posted without notification to Licensed IP Owner; Director of Raven King Press. - Kildairem 16:08, 28 September 2018 (PST)

P-please stop removing templates from pages you don’t own? Users don’t own these pages unless it’s moved to their user page. This template could be totally unnecessary at this point though. I don’t know. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2018 (MDT)

These pages were made prior to GreenDragon editing and adding the D&D Wiki:Copyrights page. The Stormforge Campaign Setting is the Intellectual Property of Raven King Press. Which part of please stop adding templates to a page you don’t own; User agreement was updated after content was initially posted without notification to Licensed IP Owner; Director of Raven King Press. If necessary remove all of the associated pages from the D&D Wiki I please send me the information for your legal department as I will gladly address the IP violation through our legal department. - Kildairem 17:47, 28 September 2018 (PST)

To make this process easier on you, I have marked the pages for deletion: - Kildairem 18:13, 28 September 2018 (PST)

yup, I saw that.
Help:FAQ & Help:Mission Statement might help. To clarify, no one tried to change this pages contents; a {{wikify}} template was added. Usually they’re used for linking to definitions or rules. Tried seeking clarification about the template that was added. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2018 (MDT)

As the Help:FAQ & Help:Mission Statement policies were revised after this information was placed on the Wiki and the Campaign Setting is the Intellectual Property of Raven King Press; To simplify this is a formal request for immediate deletion. - Kildairem 18:28, 28 September 2018 (PST)

I can't find any information about this "Raven King Press" company; a google search turns up nothing, though it might be that I'm just bad at searching for stuff. We need more information to delete this on copyright grounds, though if there is another reason this setting should be deleted, it can be run through the normal process. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 19:40, 28 September 2018 (MDT)
Kildairem is (almost) the sole contributor to this entire campaign setting. Even if it isn't copyright infringement, I don't see any reason to prevent deletion if the primary and (almost) sole author requests deletion in good faith. - Guy 19:48, 28 September 2018 (MDT)
Yea, I brought that up in Discord and just finished looking through the history of every single page this user nominated for deletion, and every single page nominated qualifies for speedy deletion under Wikipedia's criterion G7. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 19:51, 28 September 2018 (MDT)
Geodude671 & Admin; I am the founder of Raven King Press; I am a small company and like many authors publish most of my work under a pen name and almost exclusively for Paizo. Two unknown users have used information directly verbatim from D&D Wiki with no acknowledgements and I am now going through the legal battle over my own Intellectual Property. As I have stated it is a formal request. I understand that the Admins must do their due diligence in this matter. - Kildairem 18:56, 28 September 2018 (PST)
All, Thank you for your assistance. - Kildairem 19:09, 28 September 2018 (PST)
This talk page might as well remain for the remainder of the normal 14 day period, but it too will eventually be deleted if there is no opposition to that. - Guy 20:10, 28 September 2018 (MDT)
This page should probably remain as some kind of record of why we allowed this setting to be deleted (and fairly so). --SgtLion (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
Fair enough. I've comment-marked the deletion template on this page so it won't appear in Candidates for Deletion. - Guy 07:11, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
Looking over the history, it looks like you were the one who uploaded this content to D&D Wiki. As such, it was released under the GNUFDL v1.3. I'm sorry if you later decided to sell this content and no longer want it available for free, but you admitted that you own this intellectual property and therefore had to right to release it under the aforementioned license, which you did do. As such, and in accordance with our policy on not deleting articles by user request, the campaign setting will be restored. Thank you :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2018 (MDT)
It is worth noting in this case, as the creator notes, that the setting was posted in 2009. In 2009, our copyright notices were not as prominent, nor our policies at all clearly written. On this basis, the creator likely has a good legal case to withdraw their content, as they may not have been wittingly and knowingly posting it as GFDL. --SgtLion (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2018 (MDT)
Edit - Removed request for information from GamerAim and will await further information from admins as the discussion progresses. - Kildairem 20:53, 1 October 2018 (PST)
It's probably also worth pointing out that the site has had a GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 page since 2006, and I know for a fact that there were at least some notices that all work posted here is released under GFDL 1.3 since back then, but I couldn't say how prominent they were. Because of the possible legal ambiguity of the situation, it makes the most sense to wait some days for Green Dragon to have time to get involved, as none of us are actually legal representatives, and he will ultimately have final say. --SgtLion (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2018 (MDT)
Actually, according to that page's history as well as the wayback machine, the wiki used the GFDL 1.2 at the time this page was posted. IANAL but that version of the license seems pretty much the same as 1.3, which is what we use currently. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 18:53, 8 October 2018 (MDT)

What was the decision on this setting? Should it or shouldn't it be deleted? — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:01, 20 October 2018 (MDT)

Kildairem removed the deletion template from it, so for now it stays. If Kildairem decide he still wants it deleted (and not any of the alternatives), I guess he should add the template back, wait 2 weeks, then it can be deleted? But for now, it should stay.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2018 (MDT)
Since D&D Wiki was setup we have always had the disclaimer on the bottom of a page being edited with a link to our license, along with important text like "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."
"You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!" There is no legal ground to disregard our publications under the GNU FDL becuase of not notifying users or because of changing help pages.
That said, this campaign setting is published under the GNU FDL (as I cannot find evidence of copying a source). Even if we delete it under the primary contributor's request, it's still licensed under the GNU FDL. Our legal adherence would be wrong to allow this campaign setting to be deleted because you want to remove its license. If you read our license, it explicitly details this problem. "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License"
We can delete this campaign setting under your request as the primary contributor, but this does not allow you to publish this work under a different license than the GNU FDL license. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2018 (MDT)
Aye, you're (mostly) right. As I told Kildairem from the start, he did release this under the GNU FDL, whether he liked it or not. We'd be deleting it as per your decision for primary contributor requests, not for any legal reasons (hence waiting 2 weeks as per normal).
Technically, he could release it under another license since he still owns the copyright to his own work, but what we have here would still be released under the GNU FDL and could be redistributed by anyone without explicit permission (provided they follow the GNU FDL terms). He could even add more content to his campaign setting and release that solely under a different (or no) license. But anything he adds here is also under the GNU FDL for so long as governing bodies uphold the legality of the GNU FDL.
tl;dr licensing your copyrighted works isn't the same thing as transferring your copyright--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2018 (MDT)
Actually, no you can't do that. "You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law." Its like when you submit a document to a university, you are not allowed to publish the work anymore. Your university can publish it, but that's another legal hurdle they take.
"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
"An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008." --Green Dragon (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2018 (MDT)
"you" in that context refers to the licensees; Kildairem is the licensor. At most, Kildairem is restricted from using anything in the preload. The GNU FDL allows us (and others) to use/modify/distribute/etc his work because the license gives us that permission. However, his own original content is still his copyright, because he is the licensor and only licensed this instance of his work; he did not transfer any rights to his work. We can only use it as the GNU FDL permits, but Kildairem is legally entitled to take his original work (again, he might not be able to use elements of the preload, but most of it is probably too generic to stop him from reproducing) and share it under whatever (or no) license he wants to. He can expand on it off of D&D Wiki with impunity and not let us reproduce it. The restriction on relicensing, et al only applies to the licensees, i.e. D&D Wiki and those who copy off it.
However, as we both said, what is currently on D&D Wiki is under the GNU FDL. If he expands it on here, it's under the GNU FDL. Even if we delete the campaign setting, anyone who copied it beforehand could reproduce and/or modify it.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2018 (MDT)
Sorry for the earlier comment deletion. Trying to edit via a phone is difficult and I probably should avoid it. I have spoken to my lawyers and Paizo about the matter and the only concern was with about Copywright Attribution; which is required under the GNU FDL. It was also the resolution used in mediation with two users (Non-Admins) authors who published works from here verbatim. They agree with GamerAim’s conclusion. All they are doing is adding my name to their work as a contributor in their published works.
As for adding more to the DnDwiki I do not mind if it is used as long as attribution is given to anyone who works on the Campaign Setting. I have confirmed that my works on here can be published as long as Copyright Attribution is applied. Is there a possibility to move the campaign setting pages to my user page and make it edition non-specific as I am working on OD&D and 1st Ed thru 5th Ed. -- Kildairem 16:24, 22 October 2108 (PST)


I was waiting until everything was resolved. Having discussed this with people on my side of the IP issue I removed the delete tag as it is unnecessary. If possible I would like to know if there are alternatives to deletion that allow me to update and improve the Campaign Setting without concern for someone making major edits. -- Kildairem 13:12, 22 October 2108 (PST)
GA, your interpretation is wrong. Your not quoting anything, just saying how you feel its right. That is not what this license allows, or D&D Wiki, since it leads us into legal situations. One of these is exactly what Kildairem is trying to push through, based off your false claims GA.
"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. Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein."
Send me information about what Paizo has said, since when we have previously been in contact their legal department agreed with me. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2018 (MDT)
"Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as 'you'. You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law." As the person posting his work under the GNU FDL, Kildairem is by definition the licensor, not the licensee. This is reinforced by the second bold section, because Kildairem does not require permission under copyright law to copy, modify or distribute his own work. Therefore, provided he only copies, modifies or distributes his own original work (i.e. does not include edits from other users or any work in the preloads), he is not required to accept the license.
He still owns his original IP. No portion of the GNU FDL has Kildairem transfer the copyrights to his intellectual property. There are no clauses restricting him from what he can do with his own IP. The GNU FDL only applies to what Kildairem can do with his work if he uses contributions from someone else. Yes, anything he licenses under it is licensed under the GNU FDL in perpetuity. No, he cannot revoke the license. But, he can still reproduce his own original work — again, he cannot include contributions from others without permission — however he wants. He could put it under two licenses, or three or four, or put it in a book without licensing that work. The GNU FDL only applies to you if you use other peoples' contributions.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2018 (MDT)
Here is a more detailed explanation of how this license works.
"The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License. If a section does not fit the above definition of Secondary then it is not allowed to be designated as Invariant. The Document may contain zero Invariant Sections. If the Document does not identify any Invariant Sections then there are none."
"An MMC is "eligible for relicensing" if it is licensed under this License, and if all works that were first published under this License somewhere other than this MMC, and subsequently incorporated in whole or in part into the MMC, (1) had no cover texts or invariant sections, and (2) were thus incorporated prior to November 1, 2008."
So, D&D Wiki is eligible for relicensing since the documents are licensed under the GNU FDL, and subsequently incorporated works have no invariant sections.
Now, who is licensing their work under this license?
"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. Such a notice grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use that work under the conditions stated herein."
"Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you". You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work in a way requiring permission under copyright law.
So, any member of the public has now distributed their work, under copyright law, under this license to the MMC site. Not only that, but they have accepted the license.
Now, the person wants to make a modified copy? Recall, they have accepted this license so an accepted modification would work under copyright law.
"You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:"
"D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document."
And here is the jump from licensor and licensee again, under copyright law and under their acceptance for this license: "F. Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice giving the public permission to use the Modified Version under the terms of this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below."
"H. Include an unaltered copy of this License."
So, this is a more detailed explanation of what I am referring to, and why what you are writing appears like an attempt to shoehorn Intellectual Property law onto D&D Wiki and the GNU FDL. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2018 (MDT)
Green Dragon is correct in that the license granted to DandWiki is irrevocable: past the GNU FDL agreed to, IP law has no relevance to us - But I don't think anyone is disputing this; Whatever rights there are for the IP holder to distribute further is just an academic discussion and has no impact on the site whatsoever.
So, on that academic basis -
  • I'm not sure if you're aware, GD, that a copyright holder can choose to simultaneously release their work to the public under 100 different, incompatible licenses. The public can then use whatever licence they choose to accept (much we choose to only accept GFDL).
  • GamerAim is correct in saying the copyright holder isn't beholden to the GFDL under which they grant others the right to use their work - They have the freedom to distribute it elsewhere (read: places irrelevant to D&D Wiki) under any license they care to, they just can't alter the rights anyone already has to use the work (e.g. our irrevocable rights in perpetuity as per GFDL).
  • And, if ye accept nothing else as fact, then straight from the horse's mouth: " In most countries only the copyright holders are legally empowered to act against violations [of GFDL]" [1]. As nobody is going to sue themselves, copyright holders can still legally distribute their own work however they please even if it somehow breached GFDL. The key matter is that they simply can't ever revoke the rights everyone has under GFDL already.
And, I'm glad to hear things are cleared up with ye, Kildairem~ --SgtLion (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2018 (MDT)
I'm not even talking about what the license means for an MMC site. I'm talking about the author's submissions under the GNU FDL to an MMC.
I know Intellectual Property, and I know what's not. If you want to keep arguing your unfounded claims, use sources and quotes or get some legal advice and we will have a starting point. I'm not going to repeat myself, since you can just as well read what I have already posted.
Our license has a specific part about violations, so I don't even know how to respond to your claim. This isn't how it works, and until you get sources and quotes or a legal council your claims will not be validated. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2018 (MDT)
I guess we're on different wavelengths here. As I said, I don't personally think the issues in contention have any consequence on what we do or how we act, so it ain't any matter to me. --SgtLion (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2018 (MDT)
No, it probably does not matter. I just don't want users to have a claim present where they can misuse their work under copyright law and distribution under their license as a grounds for wrongdoing. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2018 (MDT)
Green Dragon, to quote both Paizo and Legal Arbitration any material I publish to DnDWiki can still be published by myself as my Intellectual Property; however I must provide acknowledgement to ALL contributors to my work. Anything I published here is also available to be used and reproduced by any user as long as they attribute the work to ALL contributors. -- Kildairem 22:26, 22 October 2108 (PST)
At this time and in the future, I am unconcerned about the publishing issue as it has already been resolved. I am looking at going forward. The GNU FDL requires anyone publishing under its license to acknowledge all contributors. As the Stormforge Setting is not my primary product and if/when I intend to publish it will be published free of cost. I use the setting to playtest with my community other elements of gaming in multiple editions and systems. With that in mind I am seeking an alternative to deletion that might give me a little more control over the setting as it does not meet the criteria of other Homebrew Campaigns as it is not edition specific. -- Kildairem 22:35, 22 October 2108 (PST)
I'm pleased to hear that you find your issues resolved. This is most important, since D&D Wiki is not planning on taking any legal actions with your work. I just want to help you, and clear up the confusion that is arising about our legal concerns.
To sum up our legal basis, our goal is freedom, as in this license. As the publisher of your text, D&D Wiki remains free to publish your work. Through the publishing process our freedom is not compromised, and we do not retroactively leave space open for copyright, DMCA, and other Intellectual Property jargon. D&D Wiki's freedom to publish your work is, based off this license, your acceptance, under copyright law, to not re-license the work, along with the other things in the quotes I used above. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2018 (MDT)
I do not dispute D&D Wiki's freedom to publish any works, based off the license, copyright law, or re-licensing. Publishing not for profit and with acknowledgement of all contributors (Without License) does not violate the GNU. I believe there was some misunderstanding as two users submitted verbatim text from the Stormforge Setting without acknowledgement and it came across my desk for review. In looking at the material, GNU, and my own Copyright License from 7/10/2005 along with the changes to the GNU since 2008 it was suggested that I request deletion of the pages. I see no reason for that as it is not my intent to publish for profit (re-license) the Stormforge Setting and would prefer that it remain on DnDWiki and that I could improve on it for use by my play-testers in an Edition non-specific area. -- Kildairem 23:00, 22 October 2108 (PST)

Moving Forward[edit]

First, let me preface that I think that the discussion about the GNU FDL is irrelevant to my request to relocate the Stormforge Campaign Setting to my user page or to a location where myself & the Admins are the only ones who can edit the pages since the Setting is not Edition specific.

Second, let’s put this discussion in context. Copyright and Intellectual Property Rights are not mutually exclusive. If you want to think clearly about Intellectual Property you need to understand copyrights and patents.

There is literally no sensible opinion you can have about “Intellectual Property”. If you want to think clearly, don't lump them together. Think about copyrights and then think about patents. Learn about copyright law and separately learn about patent law.

To give you some of the biggest differences between copyrights and patents: Copyrights cover the details of expression of a work. Copyrights don't cover any ideas. Patents only cover ideas and the use of ideas. Copyrights happen automatically. Patents are issued by a patent office in response to an application.

Patents cost a lot of money. They require lawyers to write the applications to actually apply. It takes typically some years for the application to get considered, even though patent offices do an extremely slow job of considering.

Copyrights last tremendously long; potentially as long as 150 years, where patents last 20 years and must be renewed, which is long enough that you can outlive them, but still quite long by a timescale of a field such as literature.

Copyrights cover copying. If you write a novel that turns out to be word-for-word the same with Gone with the Wind and you can prove you never saw Gone with the Wind, that would be a defense to any accusation of copyright infringement.

A patent is an absolute monopoly on using an idea. Even if you could prove you had the idea on your own, it would be entirely irrelevant if the idea is patented by somebody else.

Let’s be absolutely clear, I am totally unconcerned about conflicts with the GNU FDL and wish to move forward working with the admins to update the Stormforge Campaign Setting so that my Community can use the Setting for Playtesting.

I have no intention of publishing the Stormforge Campaign Setting for profit so the whole GNU FDL issue does not matter to me at all -- Kildairem 00:47, 24 October 2108 (PST)

I'd just like to say I appreciate the effort you've made with this section. You're correct - The GNU FDL issue is an almost purely academic discussion at this point that kinda arose, but it no longer has any relevance to you, as you say.
On that basis - How would you like to move forward with the campaign as it's hosted here? If you feel it's a complete and playable setting, we could consider protecting such that only admins (full protection) or registered users (semi-protection) can edit it; As the wiki is an openly collaborative site, there's no method to allow 'just yourself and admins' to edit it, our policy is to encourage and allow all constructive contributions. We allow full protection where content is basically inarguably complete and would most likely suffer from being open to edits, or we allow semi protection more liberally, as user edits are generally higher quality, and it keeps pages in a more stable state. --SgtLion (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2018 (MDT)
Is is possible to move it or redirect it to my user page? Is there a way to address the issue that the Campaign Setting is not Edition specific? -- Kildairem 15:39, 24 October 2108 (PST)
I don't see an issue with the setting being non-edition specific, aside from the main setting page currently being marked as 4e. Perhaps it could be moved to use the old (DnD _____) identifier? It's not used currently; when it was in use the site only hosted 3.5e content and when 4e came out the DnD identifier was replaced by (3.5e _____). Perhaps that ID could now be used for content that is not edition-specific? I'd wait before moving it though. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 19:00, 24 October 2018 (MDT)
I had been wondering about the thing for non-specific edition items as there are others. DnD _____ seemed like a good idea at those times, and I think still does. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2018 (MDT)
To my knowledge, we've used DnD for edition-neutral before. I think we did finish moving the 3.5e stuff from DnD to 3.5e awhile ago, so edition-neutral campaign settings should be renamed to the DnD ID.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2018 (MDT)
Your talking about Guidelines. I agree that DnD is a reasonable ID. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2018 (MDT)
Sounds like altering the Stormforge Setting to the DnD ID is acceptable. How do I go about requesting that for pages or is there something else I need to do? -- Kildairem 15:14, 30 October 2108 (PST)
It looks like we've all agreed on it, so I'll ask SgtLion to have his bot move all of the pages to the new ID.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2018 (MDT)
Huh? Only the Campaign Setting page has the edition ID. I've moved that, but I'm not sure what needs botting. --SgtLion (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2018 (MDT)
Would it help to make a list of the pages that need the 4e tag removed and the DnD tag applied? -- Kildairem 00:41, 31 October 2108 (PST)
The only page that needs the identifier changed is the main campaign page. All the other pages in this setting marked "4e" use 4e mechanics, and so should stay marked as edition-specific. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:25, 31 October 2018 (MDT)
The deities pages are all labeled as 4e and should be edition Non-Specific; would it make sense to create duplicate pages for each edition? The same with the Aerindor page. -- Kildairem 13:57, 31 October 2108 (PST)
If you do have a range of pages (such as aforementioned deities) that should be edition non-specific, then by all means list them and I can bot-move them. If there are only a few things, you should be able to move them manually. --SgtLion (talk) 08:18, 1 November 2018 (MDT)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!