User talk:Mike O'Brien/Archive/2009d

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


New feedback licensing

Hiya guys,

Since Mike's bogged down in stuff all week, I'm going to go ahead and post the information about the new feedback licensing language on his behalf. This will bring us a step closer to getting the feedback solution in place (yay)!


Follow these links to see the new licensing language that allows us all to implement a Feedback Namespace. There are three parts: (1) the user submission language for all contributions outside of the Feedback Namespace (minor changes to the existing submission language), (2) the new user submission language for all contributions within the Feedback Namespace (we revised the prior language we gave you to address the community’s concerns and fit the Feedback Namespace model), and (3) the revised wiki Terms of Use (also revised to address concerns and fit the new model), which replace the present sections of the wiki titled “Guild Wars Wiki: General disclaimer” and “Guild Wars Wiki: Copyrights”.

With this new licensing model, all of your contributions to the wiki outside of the Feedback Namespace will be licensed under the GFDL just like in the past. If you decide to contribute to the Feedback Namespace, you’ll be assigning your contribution to ArenaNet and we’ll license it back to you under the GFDL. It’s as simple as that. We hope this creates a solid atmosphere for feedback and suggestions on the wiki.

Please look everything over. We at ArenaNet plan to implement this language next week unless we read some significant concerns.


I'll continue to work with you guys on the specific details and timing of implementing the Feedback Namespace and new licensing terms. If you haven't been involved in this discussion and would like to check it out, head over to the restructuring talk page to catch up.

Thanks for all of your patience and hard work on helping us with this project. We're looking forward to seeing everything in place and running smoothly. As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask! --UserEmilyDiehlStar.gif Emily Diehl (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What should I say.. I like it :) And the double licensing is solved in a nice way too. Now let's see what we can make out of it for the feedback namespace. poke | talk 19:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. - Tanetris 19:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. It isn't nearly as urgent, but I would like to remind Arena Net to change the license of the Guild Wars 2 wiki (hopefully in a way that avoids the need for a feedback area). Erasculio 23:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
or anet could finaly have a forum when they come out with guildwars2.... i just loled at how thats not going to happen.--User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 00:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't troll on Mike's page. Vili 点 User talk:Vili 00:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Forums are good for conversation (or trolling) and rounding out an idea with other players, but they're too damned random for actually getting complex ideas submitted. The noise to signal ratio blows --ilr 05:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
and a wiki was better at this? i seem to remember deletion of the wiki suggestion pages because they were out of control and random. there are a lot of things you can do and are do able on a forum that are not do able on a wiki. --User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 06:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
IMO that was mainly due to regulatory problems which we are trying. I honestly believe that, if we had not decided to wipe sugestions and did not run into the legal problems, the old suggestion pages could have been salvaged, however I also believe that it would have required more effort to salvage them than it would to start over from scratch. -- User Gordon Ecker sig.png Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems perfectly fine to me. Does give the impression that Anet thinks it can copyright material in the public domain, but that's probably just an effect of trying to be as inclusive as possible, as to not let there be any doubt in contested cases. Backsword 07:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I get Right and Title, but what is "Interest" referring to in this context? It almost reads too much like -Intent- which I don't think would be good to apply to non-feedback namespaces(might even limit our Opinions/Speech?). As Backsword mentioned, Public Domain is pretty important too. Everything I do, I send to Public Domain, I don't even copyright my own artwork... --ilr 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's interest disambiguation page, interest can refer to "the entitlement or right that someone has in or to property", I believe this is what is being referred to. -- User Gordon Ecker sig.png Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, well it just sounded a little reaching, like declaring control over anything that would be in their best interest to claim... such as harsh criticisms or damning evidence too. --ilrUser ilr deprav.png 03:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It can get pretty confusing, legal jargon tends to retain archaic terminology in order to be precise and unambiguous. -- User Gordon Ecker sig.png Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
And to sound more important and complicated so that people feel that lawyers' high saleries are justified. :-) 86.26.56.226 14:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason this wasn't also applied to the ArenaNet and User namespaces? --71.240.44.21 15:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Because a new license cannot be applied retroactively. If we wanted new licensing terms for those namepsaces we would have to delete everything in those namespaces first. Misery 15:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thank you. --71.240.44.21 16:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for the legal team

Hi Mike and Emily, one question that just came up on our discussions about the new feedback namespace is: Are you guys able to keep (and use) any of the current feedback already posted under the current GFDL? I mean, if not, then we should probably stop people from posting bug reports, localization and other such feedback until we can get this new wording and namespace up and running. A quick answer on this would be greatly appreciated since a lot of that stuff is still ongoing... Thanks, - Satanael 19:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No they can't. That's the reason why the licensing changes. Though bug reports could be not seen as direct suggestions and might be fine.. poke | talk 19:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Wyn and I were talking more about this, I guess this is more of an issue for ANet than it really is for us... (Satanael 19:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC))
moved to User talk:Ilr
Let's try to stay on topic, that topic being what we're doing about pre-licensing-change stuff on the bug and localization pages. - Tanetris 23:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Heya Satanael! From what I understand, we aren't able to keep any suggestions. Bug reports are fine, though, since they fix existing issues. Anything that suggests something new to add to the game will need to be in the new space. Basically, we're not going to look at any suggestion outside of the Feedback space because we're not supposed to. --UserEmilyDiehlStar.gif Emily Diehl (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Awesome, That means a lot of other feedback is Safe too. Thank you! --ilrUser ilr deprav.png 08:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
What other feedback is there? Skill feedback has to start fresh, as most of it is more suggestions for changes, than identifying bugs. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 08:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I would guess that means localization is safe, too, but that's about it. In any case, thanks Emily! (Satanael 15:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC))
I would have thought though that saying "I didn't like this skill because of this" would be allowed since it's just feedback, akin to a bug report, whereas "This skill should do this" is actually a suggestion. Of course, drawing the line is kinda tricky (e.g. "I dislike Smiter's Boon (PvP) because it doesn't cost 10 energy recharge in 20 last 20 and increase Smiting Prayers by 0-2 but only for spells - *cough* hint hint"). 86.26.56.226 14:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Transfer of Intellectual Property

Hello,
I have two questions :

  1. Isn't Transfer of Intellectual Property a "too much" solution to the inadequacy of GFDL ? Why not something like LGPL ?
  2. If the new Feedback system is kept (transfer of IP) : why not give back to original contributors something more permissive than GFDL ?

Imagine someone might would like to submit (really good) suggestions that would be benifical to GW but once the transfer of IP is done... well, all he got is GFDL on it, that would prevent him from using them in same manner ANet would use them. And that means too, he would rather not be likely to submit them.
Elephant 10:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No matter how you release your original ideas, they always stay in your property. So even after releasing them to ArenaNet (for free use), you could go somewhere else and release that same idea again - even with a completely different licensing. Releasing something under a license doesn't make it impossible to use that yourself in any other way.
And in that way, it is easier for ArenaNet to rerelease it simply as GFDL, and not more, because in that way, attribution to the original contributor is required for others that want to reuse it, and it is simply compatible with the rest of the wiki without introducing another name for another license that people won't understand :) poke | talk 10:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
He's talking about transfer, not release. Backsword 11:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Just place it in the public domain if you're worried about not being able to use it elsewhere. Backsword 11:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, but the transfer is directly releated on that you release it in the feedback namespace to ArenaNet. poke | talk 11:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't change the fact that once IP transfer is done you can't make any new licence releases. That is the meaning of the current New Wiki Submission Language for Contributions to the Feedback Namespace. If GFDL is not enough for ANet use of contributions, intellectual property transfer is certainly too much. Elephant 12:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
But wouldn't Anet want to just totally avoid using any ideas that were Public Domain at this point? (especially anything that's generally tied in with standard MMO ideas ever since those Crazies with the Al-Gore'esque "WE INVENTED MMO'S!" lawsuit showed up with them fake patents to try and shake down NcSoft...ughh, talk about frivalous lawsuits...) --ilrUser ilr deprav.png 21:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I apologize if this comes across as rude, it's not intended to be, but we (both Anet and the wiki community) have been going around with this for 2 months. Do you really expect us to go back to square one at the 11th hour? Have you looked at Mike's 2009a, 2009b, and 2009c archives?
If someone does not wish to transfer the IP rights of their suggestion to Anet because they think it might interfere with them creating something in the future, they can refrain from posting (the same as anyone who doesn't want their great walkthrough or image or such licensed under GFDL refrains from posting), or they can study up on IP law on how much and in what ways they can still use it. Remember that a suggestion licensed under GFDL does not prevent people from using it outside of GFDL licensing completely; the reason Anet wants this posterior-covering licensing is that the devs do not have the time nor inclination to become experts on IP law, and Anet's legal department does not have the time nor inclination to read over the devs' shoulders when they're going through suggestions.
Transfer of IP rights means Anet is comfortable being able to use any suggestions given. Licensing back under GFDL means the wiki isn't crippled by incompatibilities. I call it a win. - Tanetris 23:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I apologize if this comes across as rude, it's not intended to be, but how one can know all details of what have been discussed for 2 months ? read all archives ?
Conclusions that have been made from discussions aren't in the announcement of the new feedback licensing, thank you for bringing them to me/us.
Trying to point at weakness is not asking someone to go back to square one.
Being realist and seeing weakness is part constructive reasoning.
I'm aware that this first step as IP transfer for the new feedback licensing is very good for now as a safe start. Elephant 14:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
In answer to your question Elephant, yes, you read archives. That's why the links are prominently available at the top of the page. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 15:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking from someone who works in the legal business for big multi-national companies, and in light of NCSofts current law suit, I think it is safe to assume that NCSoft has hired some of the best IP lawyers in the business. It is also pretty likely that those same lawyers were the ones that looked at this issue. I am willing to trust that those lawyers are well aware of any "weaknesses" the current wording has, and has good reasons to go with what they are telling us they have to do. In other words, if ANet's lawyers say that this is the best way to go for ANet, I believe them.
Some may say that what is best for ANet is not necessarily best for the GWW community, and that could be true, but at the end of the day it is not our choice. ANet is telling us, not asking us, that if we want the devs to be able to use our suggestions, then we have to go with the new wording they have given us. (Satanael 15:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

(Reset indent) @ Wyn's : You can't expect everyone to read them... unless you really don't realize they won't. Archives are archives, frontpage is for relevant information.
@ Satanael, Thank you for wording in your second paragraph what i was actually implying. I'm sure most users of GWW community want to see their contributions be used as a new resource for dev. But having contributors fully aware is better than fully ignorant of what IP transfer does really imply, and from first answers i got, it doesn't seem it is that clear for everyone. Elephant 16:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to know what has gone into decisions that were made, and participate in conversations that have been going on for literally months, you do read them. I do on a fairly regular basis. Expecting people to summarize months of conversations is unreasonable. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 16:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, you don't need to keep talking to someone like me if you think I am unreasonnable... that's not reasonnable. End of discussion. Elephant 18:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, End of discussion. Let's light this friggin' Candle and get the new licensing in place already, I'm sick of seeing Wyn mark 9 out of 10 comments as Suggestions/Deletions just because their posters are a little overly passionate about those gameplay issues... --ilrUser ilr deprav.png 23:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest an Idea Contest.

Make suggesting ideas into contests, once every year or once every half year. This way, players will really put an effort into coming up with good new ideas, that is within a guideline/rules set by arena net. Filtering out what might be consider "bad" ideas, and making reading lots of un-necessary post/thread on forums which Arena Net can't read in the first place do-able. This ensures that all ideas are being read (assuming they are during judging) and become the rightful property of Arena Net. Last but not least, players whose ideas are chosen gets rewarded. Pumpkin pie User Pumpkin pie sig.jpg 02:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

They have done this with art, the only problem with game content suggestions being part of a contest is that the best ideas would very likely be the most difficult to actually implement. Making it part of a contest would mean ArenaNet would expected to implement the winners. This may prove to be beyond the available resources of the team. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 02:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I am thinking more of making it possible to give the Suggestions to Arena Net first, as it is, they can't even read it. Which ideas to be implemented is all up to Arena Net, with the correct set of rules and regulations, written ideally by Arena Net's lawyer. Pumpkin pie User Pumpkin pie sig.jpg 03:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The licensing issues are almost resolved. The new Feedback namespace will be up and running very very soon, so then all the suggestions you post there are legally usable by ArenaNet. --Wyn's Talk page Wyn 03:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, nice, so I can move all my suggestion on my page there? Will be acceptable (not necessary used) by Arena Net? Pumpkin pie User Pumpkin pie sig.jpg 08:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
If you are the only contributor to those suggestions and you agree with the new Feedback licensing, you are encouraged to move the suggestions to the Feedback namespace when it is opened. poke | talk 08:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)