Ghyll talk:Chez Smallwood - Revision history

Morbus Iff: That comment was moved inline as a scholar comment.

2005-06-13T20:17:06Z

That comment was moved inline as a scholar comment.

Brother Arfrus: returning my other comment

2005-06-13T19:29:30Z

returning my other comment

Morbus Iff: Resolved and moving scholar comment to main.

2005-06-06T23:40:58Z

Resolved and moving scholar comment to main.

Jcowan: Dual-licensers get hammered both ways, but copyright owners can license things how they please

2005-06-04T02:49:48Z

Dual-licensers get hammered both ways, but copyright owners can license things how they please

Morbus Iff: Okeedoo, then. Dual licensing is fine.

2005-06-04T00:50:06Z

Okeedoo, then. Dual licensing is fine.

Brother Arfrus at 00:30, 4 June 2005

2005-06-04T00:30:38Z

Morbus Iff: I thought dual licensing was shadyish.

2005-06-03T22:18:23Z

I thought dual licensing was shadyish.

Jcowan: Dual licensing is not a problem.

2005-06-03T21:53:57Z

Dual licensing is not a problem.

Morbus Iff: Alright. Non-Commercial it is.

2005-06-03T21:19:56Z

Alright. Non-Commercial it is.

Morbus Iff: All or nothing, bub.

2005-06-03T21:00:52Z

All or nothing, bub.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:17, 13 June 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Prudes (and the faint-of-heart) may be shocked that I should mention [[scuttleway\|scuttleways]] in a scholarly text, but the simple fact is that people use [[scuttleway\|scuttleways]], even if we avoid doing it publicly. They are in our buildings, and we ought not be so ashamed of them. --[[User:Brother Arfrus\|Brother Arfrus]] 15:01, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
−
−	~~----~~
−
	{{ResolvedTalk}}		{{ResolvedTalk}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:29, 13 June 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	Prudes (and the faint-of-heart) may be shocked that I should mention [[scuttleway\|scuttleways]] in a scholarly text, but the simple fact is that people use [[scuttleway\|scuttleways]], even if we avoid doing it publicly. They are in our buildings, and we ought not be so ashamed of them. --[[User:Brother Arfrus\|Brother Arfrus]] 15:01, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
		+
		+	----
		+
	{{ResolvedTalk}}		{{ResolvedTalk}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:40, 6 June 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Prudes (and the faint-of-heart) may be shocked that I should mention [[scuttleway\|scuttleways]] in a scholarly text, but the simple fact is that people use [[scuttleway\|scuttleways]], even if we avoid doing it publicly. They are in our buildings, and we ought not be so ashamed of them. --[[User:Brother Arfrus\|Brother Arfrus]] 15:01, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)	+	{{ResolvedTalk}}
−	~~----~~
−	There is also a smaller image sm-smallwood.png that can be used either as a placeholder to link to the full size image or used after the article has been up for a while. Unfortunately, it gets hard to read if it gets resized too small. --[[User:Brother Arfrus\|Brother Arfrus]] 15:18, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
−
−	~~:[http://img239.echo.cx/img239/9089/smallwood21bp.png We've been working on a smaller version.] --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 15:48, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)~~
−
−	~~:Oh, what's the licensing on this picture? Without further information, it'll be considered CC SA 2.0. --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 15:55, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)~~
−
−	::There was nothing in the Gamegrene:Copyrights link so I wasn't sure how it would be permissioned. I'd like these to be licensed as Creative Commons 2.0 non-commercial; share-alike. --[[User:Brother Arfrus\|Brother Arfrus]] 16:05, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
−
−	:::By default, everything is classified under [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0] (see the bottom left CC picture, and the "Please note..." paragraph underneath the "Save page" and "Show preview" buttons) which ALLOWS commercial usage. You wanted the non-commercial version? (EDIT: The original goal with licensing stuff under that SA-2.0 was to allow us to make prettier "designed" PDF versions of the encyclopedia, or hardcopy game supplements, for sale. But, that's a pipedream really.) --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 16:17, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
−
−	::::I'll explicitly give you, Morbus, permission to do a PDF version or a hardcopy game supplement that includes those images. My preference for NC was for anyone else who was browsing through the site. --[[User:Brother Arfrus\|Brother Arfrus]] 16:27, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
−
−	:::::Ok, well, we'll have to license it under the non-commercial version then. You can't restrict rights to certain individuals, so there's no way you could give just me perms and deny everyone else. No worries. I'm no lawyer, so I'm not '''exactly''' sure just WHAT is being copyrighted when it comes to a floor plan. Are the original blueprints (in this case, your image) the intellectual work? Could someone recreate your floorplans to look and appear stylistically different? Or is the actual '''design''' of the building copyrighted? I should find out. --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:00, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
−
−	::::::Actually, there's no problem with Brother A giving the world one license and Morbus another. This is just dual licensing, and it's done all the time (by MySQL Inc., for example, which licenses stuff under the GPL and then sells GPL-free copies to those who want/need them).
−
−	~~:::::::I thought that was "shady"? Hasn't MySQL gotten flak for their licensing? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 18:18, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)~~
−
−	::::::::Sure they have: from GPL fanatics who want everything to be GPLed, and from anti-GPL fanatics who want everything to be freely reusable in proprietary programs. As B.A. says below, dual licensing is explicitly allowed for in the CC licenses. --[[User:Jcowan\|John Cowan]] 22:49, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
−
−	Alright, in asking around, the safest thing to do to protect both our rights is to just release it under the Non-Commercial license. Some people have said a new style, renumbering, etc. is new enough to escape "derivative", and some have said that a floorplan is no different than a book: you can put a new cover on it, a different font, different page numbers, and pretty design, but the ''intellectual'' part of the book - the text - is still the same. If a PDF or hardbound ever came out, we'd have the option of saying "Here is everything we know about Chez Smallwood. For a floorplan, visit [this URL]." Then, your image wouldn't be part of the commercial work, but we'd still be able to point people to it, etc. In the real world, this is similar to the d20 license: you can use the logos, you can make new content for the D&D game, but you MAY NOT tell people how to create characters - for that, they'd need to refer to the PHB and DMG. Sound good? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:19, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
−
−	:Generally (and I don't know about MySQL specifically, but I think it's true of them as well) software is licensed under other schemes than Creative Commons. But specific to the Creative Commons, there is no exclusivity in the license. It explicitly states: "''Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.''" [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/] And I've provided that here. (But if this gets to convoluted or troublesome, I'm pretty amenable to changing things further.) I don't want to become a problem case; I'm trying to be collaborative. Furthermore, if you put together a PDF or a dead-tree version, you'll likely want to be a bit more restrictive about further commercial use. --[[User:Brother Arfrus\|Brother Arfrus]] 20:30, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
−
−	~~::Okeedoo, then. Dual licensing is fine. --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 20:50, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:49, 4 June 2005
Line 18:		Line 18:

	:::::::I thought that was "shady"? Hasn't MySQL gotten flak for their licensing? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 18:18, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)		:::::::I thought that was "shady"? Hasn't MySQL gotten flak for their licensing? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 18:18, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
		+
		+	::::::::Sure they have: from GPL fanatics who want everything to be GPLed, and from anti-GPL fanatics who want everything to be freely reusable in proprietary programs. As B.A. says below, dual licensing is explicitly allowed for in the CC licenses. --[[User:Jcowan\|John Cowan]] 22:49, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)

	Alright, in asking around, the safest thing to do to protect both our rights is to just release it under the Non-Commercial license. Some people have said a new style, renumbering, etc. is new enough to escape "derivative", and some have said that a floorplan is no different than a book: you can put a new cover on it, a different font, different page numbers, and pretty design, but the ''intellectual'' part of the book - the text - is still the same. If a PDF or hardbound ever came out, we'd have the option of saying "Here is everything we know about Chez Smallwood. For a floorplan, visit [this URL]." Then, your image wouldn't be part of the commercial work, but we'd still be able to point people to it, etc. In the real world, this is similar to the d20 license: you can use the logos, you can make new content for the D&D game, but you MAY NOT tell people how to create characters - for that, they'd need to refer to the PHB and DMG. Sound good? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:19, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)		Alright, in asking around, the safest thing to do to protect both our rights is to just release it under the Non-Commercial license. Some people have said a new style, renumbering, etc. is new enough to escape "derivative", and some have said that a floorplan is no different than a book: you can put a new cover on it, a different font, different page numbers, and pretty design, but the ''intellectual'' part of the book - the text - is still the same. If a PDF or hardbound ever came out, we'd have the option of saying "Here is everything we know about Chez Smallwood. For a floorplan, visit [this URL]." Then, your image wouldn't be part of the commercial work, but we'd still be able to point people to it, etc. In the real world, this is similar to the d20 license: you can use the logos, you can make new content for the D&D game, but you MAY NOT tell people how to create characters - for that, they'd need to refer to the PHB and DMG. Sound good? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:19, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:50, 4 June 2005
Line 21:		Line 21:
	Alright, in asking around, the safest thing to do to protect both our rights is to just release it under the Non-Commercial license. Some people have said a new style, renumbering, etc. is new enough to escape "derivative", and some have said that a floorplan is no different than a book: you can put a new cover on it, a different font, different page numbers, and pretty design, but the ''intellectual'' part of the book - the text - is still the same. If a PDF or hardbound ever came out, we'd have the option of saying "Here is everything we know about Chez Smallwood. For a floorplan, visit [this URL]." Then, your image wouldn't be part of the commercial work, but we'd still be able to point people to it, etc. In the real world, this is similar to the d20 license: you can use the logos, you can make new content for the D&D game, but you MAY NOT tell people how to create characters - for that, they'd need to refer to the PHB and DMG. Sound good? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:19, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)		Alright, in asking around, the safest thing to do to protect both our rights is to just release it under the Non-Commercial license. Some people have said a new style, renumbering, etc. is new enough to escape "derivative", and some have said that a floorplan is no different than a book: you can put a new cover on it, a different font, different page numbers, and pretty design, but the ''intellectual'' part of the book - the text - is still the same. If a PDF or hardbound ever came out, we'd have the option of saying "Here is everything we know about Chez Smallwood. For a floorplan, visit [this URL]." Then, your image wouldn't be part of the commercial work, but we'd still be able to point people to it, etc. In the real world, this is similar to the d20 license: you can use the logos, you can make new content for the D&D game, but you MAY NOT tell people how to create characters - for that, they'd need to refer to the PHB and DMG. Sound good? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:19, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)

−	:Generally (and I don't know about MySQL specifically, but I think it's true of them as well) software is licensed under other schemes than Creative Commons. But specific to the Creative Commons, there is no exclusivity in the license. It explicitly states: "''Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.''" [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/] And I've provided that here. (But if this gets to convoluted or troublesome, I'm pretty amenable to changing things further.) I don't want to become a problem case; I'm trying to be collaborative. Furthermore, if you put together a PDF or a dead-tree version, you'll likely want to be a bit more restrictive about further commercial use. --[[User:Brother Arfrus\|Brother Arfrus]] 20:30, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)	+	:Generally (and I don't know about MySQL specifically, but I think it's true of them as well) software is licensed under other schemes than Creative Commons. But specific to the Creative Commons, there is no exclusivity in the license. It explicitly states: "''Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.''" [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/] And I've provided that here. (But if this gets to convoluted or troublesome, I'm pretty amenable to changing things further.) I don't want to become a problem case; I'm trying to be collaborative. Furthermore, if you put together a PDF or a dead-tree version, you'll likely want to be a bit more restrictive about further commercial use. --[[User:Brother Arfrus\|Brother Arfrus]] 20:30, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
		+
		+	::Okeedoo, then. Dual licensing is fine. --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 20:50, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:30, 4 June 2005
Line 20:		Line 20:

	Alright, in asking around, the safest thing to do to protect both our rights is to just release it under the Non-Commercial license. Some people have said a new style, renumbering, etc. is new enough to escape "derivative", and some have said that a floorplan is no different than a book: you can put a new cover on it, a different font, different page numbers, and pretty design, but the ''intellectual'' part of the book - the text - is still the same. If a PDF or hardbound ever came out, we'd have the option of saying "Here is everything we know about Chez Smallwood. For a floorplan, visit [this URL]." Then, your image wouldn't be part of the commercial work, but we'd still be able to point people to it, etc. In the real world, this is similar to the d20 license: you can use the logos, you can make new content for the D&D game, but you MAY NOT tell people how to create characters - for that, they'd need to refer to the PHB and DMG. Sound good? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:19, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)		Alright, in asking around, the safest thing to do to protect both our rights is to just release it under the Non-Commercial license. Some people have said a new style, renumbering, etc. is new enough to escape "derivative", and some have said that a floorplan is no different than a book: you can put a new cover on it, a different font, different page numbers, and pretty design, but the ''intellectual'' part of the book - the text - is still the same. If a PDF or hardbound ever came out, we'd have the option of saying "Here is everything we know about Chez Smallwood. For a floorplan, visit [this URL]." Then, your image wouldn't be part of the commercial work, but we'd still be able to point people to it, etc. In the real world, this is similar to the d20 license: you can use the logos, you can make new content for the D&D game, but you MAY NOT tell people how to create characters - for that, they'd need to refer to the PHB and DMG. Sound good? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:19, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
		+
		+	:Generally (and I don't know about MySQL specifically, but I think it's true of them as well) software is licensed under other schemes than Creative Commons. But specific to the Creative Commons, there is no exclusivity in the license. It explicitly states: "''Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.''" [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/] And I've provided that here. (But if this gets to convoluted or troublesome, I'm pretty amenable to changing things further.) I don't want to become a problem case; I'm trying to be collaborative. Furthermore, if you put together a PDF or a dead-tree version, you'll likely want to be a bit more restrictive about further commercial use. --[[User:Brother Arfrus\|Brother Arfrus]] 20:30, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:18, 3 June 2005
Line 16:		Line 16:

	::::::Actually, there's no problem with Brother A giving the world one license and Morbus another. This is just dual licensing, and it's done all the time (by MySQL Inc., for example, which licenses stuff under the GPL and then sells GPL-free copies to those who want/need them).		::::::Actually, there's no problem with Brother A giving the world one license and Morbus another. This is just dual licensing, and it's done all the time (by MySQL Inc., for example, which licenses stuff under the GPL and then sells GPL-free copies to those who want/need them).
		+
		+	:::::::I thought that was "shady"? Hasn't MySQL gotten flak for their licensing? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 18:18, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)

	Alright, in asking around, the safest thing to do to protect both our rights is to just release it under the Non-Commercial license. Some people have said a new style, renumbering, etc. is new enough to escape "derivative", and some have said that a floorplan is no different than a book: you can put a new cover on it, a different font, different page numbers, and pretty design, but the ''intellectual'' part of the book - the text - is still the same. If a PDF or hardbound ever came out, we'd have the option of saying "Here is everything we know about Chez Smallwood. For a floorplan, visit [this URL]." Then, your image wouldn't be part of the commercial work, but we'd still be able to point people to it, etc. In the real world, this is similar to the d20 license: you can use the logos, you can make new content for the D&D game, but you MAY NOT tell people how to create characters - for that, they'd need to refer to the PHB and DMG. Sound good? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:19, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)		Alright, in asking around, the safest thing to do to protect both our rights is to just release it under the Non-Commercial license. Some people have said a new style, renumbering, etc. is new enough to escape "derivative", and some have said that a floorplan is no different than a book: you can put a new cover on it, a different font, different page numbers, and pretty design, but the ''intellectual'' part of the book - the text - is still the same. If a PDF or hardbound ever came out, we'd have the option of saying "Here is everything we know about Chez Smallwood. For a floorplan, visit [this URL]." Then, your image wouldn't be part of the commercial work, but we'd still be able to point people to it, etc. In the real world, this is similar to the d20 license: you can use the logos, you can make new content for the D&D game, but you MAY NOT tell people how to create characters - for that, they'd need to refer to the PHB and DMG. Sound good? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:19, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:53, 3 June 2005
Line 14:		Line 14:

	:::::Ok, well, we'll have to license it under the non-commercial version then. You can't restrict rights to certain individuals, so there's no way you could give just me perms and deny everyone else. No worries. I'm no lawyer, so I'm not '''exactly''' sure just WHAT is being copyrighted when it comes to a floor plan. Are the original blueprints (in this case, your image) the intellectual work? Could someone recreate your floorplans to look and appear stylistically different? Or is the actual '''design''' of the building copyrighted? I should find out. --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:00, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)		:::::Ok, well, we'll have to license it under the non-commercial version then. You can't restrict rights to certain individuals, so there's no way you could give just me perms and deny everyone else. No worries. I'm no lawyer, so I'm not '''exactly''' sure just WHAT is being copyrighted when it comes to a floor plan. Are the original blueprints (in this case, your image) the intellectual work? Could someone recreate your floorplans to look and appear stylistically different? Or is the actual '''design''' of the building copyrighted? I should find out. --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:00, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
		+
		+	::::::Actually, there's no problem with Brother A giving the world one license and Morbus another. This is just dual licensing, and it's done all the time (by MySQL Inc., for example, which licenses stuff under the GPL and then sells GPL-free copies to those who want/need them).

	Alright, in asking around, the safest thing to do to protect both our rights is to just release it under the Non-Commercial license. Some people have said a new style, renumbering, etc. is new enough to escape "derivative", and some have said that a floorplan is no different than a book: you can put a new cover on it, a different font, different page numbers, and pretty design, but the ''intellectual'' part of the book - the text - is still the same. If a PDF or hardbound ever came out, we'd have the option of saying "Here is everything we know about Chez Smallwood. For a floorplan, visit [this URL]." Then, your image wouldn't be part of the commercial work, but we'd still be able to point people to it, etc. In the real world, this is similar to the d20 license: you can use the logos, you can make new content for the D&D game, but you MAY NOT tell people how to create characters - for that, they'd need to refer to the PHB and DMG. Sound good? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:19, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)		Alright, in asking around, the safest thing to do to protect both our rights is to just release it under the Non-Commercial license. Some people have said a new style, renumbering, etc. is new enough to escape "derivative", and some have said that a floorplan is no different than a book: you can put a new cover on it, a different font, different page numbers, and pretty design, but the ''intellectual'' part of the book - the text - is still the same. If a PDF or hardbound ever came out, we'd have the option of saying "Here is everything we know about Chez Smallwood. For a floorplan, visit [this URL]." Then, your image wouldn't be part of the commercial work, but we'd still be able to point people to it, etc. In the real world, this is similar to the d20 license: you can use the logos, you can make new content for the D&D game, but you MAY NOT tell people how to create characters - for that, they'd need to refer to the PHB and DMG. Sound good? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:19, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:19, 3 June 2005
Line 14:		Line 14:

	:::::Ok, well, we'll have to license it under the non-commercial version then. You can't restrict rights to certain individuals, so there's no way you could give just me perms and deny everyone else. No worries. I'm no lawyer, so I'm not '''exactly''' sure just WHAT is being copyrighted when it comes to a floor plan. Are the original blueprints (in this case, your image) the intellectual work? Could someone recreate your floorplans to look and appear stylistically different? Or is the actual '''design''' of the building copyrighted? I should find out. --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:00, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)		:::::Ok, well, we'll have to license it under the non-commercial version then. You can't restrict rights to certain individuals, so there's no way you could give just me perms and deny everyone else. No worries. I'm no lawyer, so I'm not '''exactly''' sure just WHAT is being copyrighted when it comes to a floor plan. Are the original blueprints (in this case, your image) the intellectual work? Could someone recreate your floorplans to look and appear stylistically different? Or is the actual '''design''' of the building copyrighted? I should find out. --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:00, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
		+
		+	Alright, in asking around, the safest thing to do to protect both our rights is to just release it under the Non-Commercial license. Some people have said a new style, renumbering, etc. is new enough to escape "derivative", and some have said that a floorplan is no different than a book: you can put a new cover on it, a different font, different page numbers, and pretty design, but the ''intellectual'' part of the book - the text - is still the same. If a PDF or hardbound ever came out, we'd have the option of saying "Here is everything we know about Chez Smallwood. For a floorplan, visit [this URL]." Then, your image wouldn't be part of the commercial work, but we'd still be able to point people to it, etc. In the real world, this is similar to the d20 license: you can use the logos, you can make new content for the D&D game, but you MAY NOT tell people how to create characters - for that, they'd need to refer to the PHB and DMG. Sound good? --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:19, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:00, 3 June 2005
Line 12:		Line 12:

	::::I'll explicitly give you, Morbus, permission to do a PDF version or a hardcopy game supplement that includes those images. My preference for NC was for anyone else who was browsing through the site. --[[User:Brother Arfrus\|Brother Arfrus]] 16:27, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)		::::I'll explicitly give you, Morbus, permission to do a PDF version or a hardcopy game supplement that includes those images. My preference for NC was for anyone else who was browsing through the site. --[[User:Brother Arfrus\|Brother Arfrus]] 16:27, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::::Ok, well, we'll have to license it under the non-commercial version then. You can't restrict rights to certain individuals, so there's no way you could give just me perms and deny everyone else. No worries. I'm no lawyer, so I'm not '''exactly''' sure just WHAT is being copyrighted when it comes to a floor plan. Are the original blueprints (in this case, your image) the intellectual work? Could someone recreate your floorplans to look and appear stylistically different? Or is the actual '''design''' of the building copyrighted? I should find out. --[[User:Morbus Iff\|Morbus Iff]] 17:00, 3 Jun 2005 (EDT)