It has been suggested by some people that it is possible to remain neutral on the matter of who owns the rights to Hârn, HârnMaster and all derived material(s). This is a surprisingly difficult proposition. When you purchase something you are making a statement that you believe that the entity from whom you are purchasing has the right to sell the item.

The thing that seems to confuse the most people is the question of whether or not the contract between Columbia Games and myself is still in force. CGI says it is; I affirm that I terminated it in July 2003. Both parties cannot be telling the truth here. If the contract is terminated, CGI has lost all rights to produce or sell Hârn and/or HârnMaster products or any products derived therefrom. If the contract is not terminated, then I have no right to publish anything whatsoever.

Since the contract cannot be extant and extinct at the same time, it follows that only one of CGI and myself has any rights to publish the material. The other party is producing and selling Hârn HârnMaster products illegally. If you have no opinion either way, that's fine, but if you purchase products from one of the parties, you have a 50% chance of encouraging and condoning that party in its illegal activities. If you purchase products from both parties the chance goes up to 100%.

However, the topic of this particular post is the impossibility of neutrality in a situation like this.

Let us suppose that you write a derivitive work (or piece of fanon) that is derived from Hârn/HârnMaster. It is incumbent under the Berne and international copyright conventions that you do two things:

(1) you must properly acknowledge the the copyright of the owner of the work on which the 'new' work is based and;

(2) You must obtain the permission to the copyright holder of the work from which you are deriving your work.

Once you have done these two things, you are entitled to publish as long as you meet any conditions that have been laid out by the copyright holders. It is important to remember that any kind of public display or distribution of a work constitutes 'publication'; whether or not you gain financially or in any other way has no bearing. (As an aside, if there is more than one copyright holder, you must obtain permission from and properly acknowledge all copyright holders, not just one of them, and it would be wise to obtain that permission in writing). Someone who failed to meet these conditions would be in breach of copyright. It is incumbent upon the copyright holder to police her/his copyright(s); this policing usually consists of 'rude letters'.

Of course it is more complicated than this. There is also the concept of 'fair use' which lets reviewers write and publish reviews or students quote limited portions of other peoples' text. None of these cases apply to Hârn/HârnMaster fanon. You could not, by the way of example, publish a sequel to the Lord of the Rings, nor could you publish a map of Minas Tirith or Edoras, at least not without the permission of the copyright holder.

This raises the issue of what constitutes 'publication'. Publication has no connection to money. It is simply the act of 'distribution'. Simply showing something you've written to your sister is a grey area. Making something available on a website is not: that is definately publication, and the owner of the website is the publisher. If someone writes and publishes a product on a website, this makes both the author and the publisher 'liable' for any breaches of copyright; the publisher is, perhaps not liable until s/he is aware of the illegality, but is fully liable as soon as s/he is made aware. The law requires that everyone act in good faith.

It has very recently come to my attention that it has been the 'custom' on fanon based on my world of Kethira, and my HârnMaster rules to acknowledge both Columbia Games and myself as the copyright holders. This is the crux of the issue. Clearly, the author of the fanon must obtain the permission of all copyright holders, and the publisher must be ready to verify that this is properly done. Also, the author must acknowledge the copyrights of the original work. Here is where it is impossible to remain neutral.

Since the critical issue of contention is who owns the copyrights of the original works, and since CGI and myself hold mutually contradictory positions, it is difficult to impossible to make said acknowledgement without taking sides.

CGI has made the claim that fanon should be copyright CGI & N. Robin Crossby. I take the position that fanon should be copyright N. Robin Crossby and the author of the present work. Who is right, is contingent on whether or not the contract has been lawfully terminated. Whichever of these two options you select is a partisan decision. Hence, it is not possible to attach a copyright notice to fanon without taking a position. If you say 'Copyright CGI & Crossby' you are, in effect, stating that the contract was not terminated, is still in force, and that everything Crossby has published since the termination has been illegal. Attaching this 'Crossby & CGI' shared copyright is not 'compromise', nor is it a refusal to 'make a decision' about who is right, it is the wholesale adoption and promotion of the CGI view, and the denial of Crossby's view. It is, therefore, at best illogical and at worst dishonest to claim that the attribution of the shared copyright is 'neutral'. I point this out because, many people may not have considered this.

There is also one other point to consider in this regard. even if you were to attach the 'shared copyright' to a piece of fanon, you would by the logic of your own position still require the permission of both copyright holders (not one, both). It may be taken as a certainty that I will under no circumstances grant persmission for the publication of any work that acknowledges that CGI holds any rights to Hârn, HârnMaster or any publications or products derived therefrom. If I were to grant such persmission, even if I wanted to, I would have legal problems of my own.

I just checked the forum this am, looked for new posts and looked first at the FFF part5, looked nice, them I read this thread, if I download FFF part5, I'm breaking a law?

After some years (since the late 1980's) I think it's getting time to say cheerio to the shores of Harn.

_________________
"Am I still on the roof?"

Robin: how much longer before something is settled in court?

While I acknowledge and agree with your arguments (and personally respect them) it is ultimately beyond the individuals of fandom to determine the disposition of copyright. This issue has been hanging out for a long time - I would have thought the courts could have long ago settled this issue.

_________________
Member of the CoE (Council of Elitists)

Well, if I understand correctly that Crossby is explicitly withdrawing permission to publish fanon with a copyright that includes CGI (and considering that CGI is likely to do the same to fanon that doesn't acknowledge it), it sounds like we've reached the point where producing fanon is no longer possible.

Or that fanon authors should stop acknowledging copyrights altogether.

"Sue me!" - "No, no sue me first!" - "Don't sue them, sue me!" - etc.

_________________
«Fair is what we see, Fairer what we have perceived, Fairest what is still in veil.»
—Nicolaus Stenonius

I have trying to ponder why we are still facing this issue after a number of years. If the issue is of such import to either party why has no court action been taken. Is the aim to split the community overall between two faction and thus destroy what many of us have come to cherish?

I like what both parties have been striving to do over the last few years in regards to product development and would like to see this issue resolved yesterday.

I no nothing about the laws involved and although many have given their opinions this is not the forum to decide the issue. The only way this will be solved is that the two parties unentrench and come to an agreement or they have a binding arbitration take place or it goes to court and a decission is made there. Either way I for one want this resolved now in some way before this community plits to the point that Harn becomes another dead gaming system.

_________________
Roy Denton - the title says Baron, but Queen for a year. (Cheselyne I)

"Nathamh na hoibre an t-eolas"
(Knowledge comes through practice)

And of course, redenton said the same. And right they are. it is about bloody time this issue gets settled.

Both parties claim to be right.
Both parties claim to mean well for the community/development of Hârn we hold dear.

Either one of them should put his money where his claims are, take a finger out (Pardon my Klatchian) and get this settled through the proper channels - a court of law. To keep this farce up is, frankly, childish and an embarrasment. It has been way overdue.

Discussing this here ad nauseam will not settle anything - it will only serve to divide the community.

_________________
Questions? Insults? Mail -roghainmod(at)chello(dot)nl

Because a poor timing, here is Rothesay's reply to the original thread (because I can't join threads)

_________________
Cheers

Leitchy
List & Forum Admin
Admin FAQs
[Updated 25-FEB-2011]

I agree that this problem should not be one the fans have to decide. I have made my point on that as forcefully as I know how.

However, there is a significant issue here that affects all developers of fan material, and it MUST be dealt with. It will either see the issues resolved so fans can create new material with confidence, or it will kill all future production of Hârn material forever, and we can all move on with our lives.

Either way, the forum stays until the pus from this pestilent canker is washed away. It's time to air the dirty linen...

I will add one more thing; my hope is that an airing of this kind will FORCE the parties to either come to some agreement, or seek arbitration. If that doesn't happen, then I fear the community will be irrevokably split, and Hârn will die (I mean, there will be no new Hârn material, official or fan-written).

Regardless of the outcome, we fans will finally know where we stand, one way or the other.

At least, that's my hope....

_________________
Cheers

Leitchy
List & Forum Admin
Admin FAQs
[Updated 25-FEB-2011]

Does it matter that fan material is not being sold for a profit?

If this is not the case then technically I was in violation of TSR copyrights back in the 80s when I made a dungeon as GM for my characters to use then passed it around the Atlanta Fantasy Fair.

Or was I in vilolation of the Tolkein estate when I named my halfing thief Fordo when I was 14?

I ask these questions in all seriousness mind you because it does bring up an interesting problem of legality.

I was under the assumption that Fanon material since it is not being formally published or sold is not a violation of copright. the purpose of a copyright, I believed, was to protect the creators ability to market his creation and earn profit. I can not earn monies from anothers work without thier consent.

Both NRC and CGI have allowed Fanon to be made and thus by tacit agreement (by not asking anyone to cease and desist) of both those parties do allow the creation of fan produced materials.

So far, no Fanon material has been sold. (Unless you count CGI or Crossby as Fanon).
No one on this forum has profited driectly from the sale of Fanon( I havent been charged for downloadinf it). So I fail to see what the issue is.

I am not really understanding why Fanon material needs to bear a copyright at all other than as recognition of its creator(s).

Robin says quote:
Since the contract cannot be extant and extinct at the same time, it follows that only one of CGI and myself has any rights to publish the material. The other party is producing and selling Hârn HârnMaster products illegally. If you have no opinion either way, that's fine, but if you purchase products from one of the parties, you have a 50% chance of committing an illegal act and encouraging and condoning that party in its illegal activities. If you purchase products from both parties the chance goes up to 100%. In other words, if you purchase products from both, you know for certain you are receiving stolen goods.
end quote

_________________
"The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light."

You guys should know better than to act offended by Robin's obligatory legal statement of the year. It's just a periodic stake. Do penguins* in Antarctica care about little dotted lines on the map? Nah.

I say keep playing and dreaming in our little fantasy world, if fanon authors are bothered about the copyright issue and feel it is not their business to publicly take sides, then simply invent a surreal one, such as:

Copyright : Whoever wins the soon-coming NRC vs CGI case

Copyright : Really, this is embarrassing, didn't they tell you about the fat one and the thin one's divorce?

Copyright : Misty Eyes of the Misty Isle

etc...

Personally I'd tend to lean towards NRC for moral (gasp!) reasons, but also feel that it would be unfair to totally take Hârn out of CGI's hands, which of course means that I would quite naively like to see both parties coming to an agreement. Settling it privately and peacefully seems also the more reasonable thing to do if litigation is impossible financially.

* Except the killer ones, point conceded. These have some kind of political awareness and live in an anarcho-syndical commune as far as can be told. And they are very territorial, armed and dangerous. Oh boy...

_________________
«Fair is what we see, Fairer what we have perceived, Fairest what is still in veil.»
—Nicolaus Stenonius

I would tend to agree save that this time, he ratcheted up the stakes pretty significantly. I can't recall either side ever referring to criminal liability on the part of the customer before.

A point that no one has brought up on this topic yet, is what constitutes a derivative work in respect to fanon. If you go by the TSR/WoTC theory (which is remarkably similar to the Lucas theory), fanon is derivative if it in any way references canon.

I disagree with this. Using the word "Hârn" is an insufficient threshold for derivation. Saying "this adventure is suitable for Hârn" does not make a work derivatve. Neither does saying "this adventure is set in Coranan."

But I don't know where the actual threshold is. Copyright law is deliberately vague in this area. An electronic CC2 map of Kanday is clearly derivative of Hârn. What what about a CC2 map of Depsut manor?

_________________
Cyril laugh at puny human!

There is a grey area with regards to copyright, but generally the closer one gets to the original property, the closer one gets to infringement. Generally, if you create something without sampling the original work, you should be safe.

CC2 maps of the entire world of Kethira would not be derivitive, presuming you created them yourself. Referencing the original maps to base yours on is fine.

This is how cover songs are legal. If you put together a band, and learn to play some other band's songs, you can perform and sell your version as it'll be your own creation. On the other hand, if you sampled and implemented even a 2 second bit from the original band's song (say a drum beat), then you're infringing on the original work.

Back in my D&D days I was heavily into Ravenloft. On the Ravenloft mailing list, there was a cartographer who did CC2 maps for all the various domains. He had no problems with creating and distributing these maps into Ravenloft Fanon, but when he asked to do family trees for some of the domain lords (which is heavily text based, and less graphically) he was not allowed on the basis of copyright.

I think many of the fanon articles that describe manors and holdings may only have the briefest of ties to Harn. Particularly if CGI or Kelestia hasn't touched those areas. These of course would be the easiest to modify to be generic setting-wise.

Anything that really delves into Harn's history and intertwines itself with existing products would have a much more difficult time.

I'm not a lawyer (but I've spent time as a Law Clerk)

Let's start by saying up front that I really, really like all the stuff everyone has produced , and quite frankly am appalled that the parties can't have a somewhat amiable divorce - there isn't actually that much property to divide here . I also really, really don't want to criticize THE CREATOR, but...



Or option 3: Someone, possibly both are mistaken. People make mistakes all the time. Personally, computers save me enormous amounts of money for erasers. Please don't use the word 'lying'.



Or option 3: The contract is terminated, but the copyrights remain in force. I haven't seen the contract and am not an attourney, but if I had to guess, this would be it. I am also guessing the contract language isn't 100% clear cut either. If it was, someone probably wouldn't be publishing.

Everyone would do well to remember that Intellectual Property Law (at least under the English system - both US and Canada) is not a win/lose proposition. It is a scorched Earth proposition, everyone loses (except the lawyers). You generally only pursue violations if you stand to lose more by not pursuing violations. A very likely outcome of any court resolution is that nobody is allowed to produce anything .

In the end, I intend to continue to support both parties because I want more. More publications, more stuff to buy, more stuff to download. Bring it on! I cast down my wallet in challenge! Produce enough stuff to make it hurt! Force me to choose between spending my hard earned money at KP or CGI! I am going to continue to get high quality writing any way I can! [Rocky Theme] [/Rocky Theme]

_________________
Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from SCIENCE! -- Agatha Heterodyne

Copyright law is bent and stretched all the time, which is why it is difficult to get a good grip of it. Some major copyright holders are doing all they can to make copyrights seem all-inclusive. It is sometimes simply amazing what is claimed to be protected by copyright. In reality the basic rule of thumb is that copyright is exactly as wide a concept as you can afford to protect. For example FOM can make ludicrous claims about the extent of their copyright to consumers and get away with it, because none of their targets have the finances to outlast them in court.

However, in principle ideas cannot be copyrighted, only specific expression can be copyrighted (this according to WIPO, TRIPS and most copyright acts around the world). Thus Harn or Middle-Earth as ideas cannot be protected by copyrighted, only the works of the respective authors describing these places can be copyrighted. Again, in principle I can draw a map of Minas Tirith and I can write a book about events happening in Minas Tirith, just as long as I don't use parts of the original work doing it.

Two difficult issues regarding copyright are characters and names. Sometimes a character can be protected by a copyright if it is deemed to be an original expression (like Mickey Mouse), othertimes not. Also in some cases, which are especially relevant to fantasy worlds, names can be considered protected, othertimes not. Usually it is prudent just to avoid using characters and names to avoid these problems. So when I draw the map of Minas Tirith, and I haven't asked permission from the potential copyright holder, it would be prudent not to use the title Minas Tirith for the map. BTW my map of Minas Tirith (if I didn't use the title no matter how obviously it would be Minas Tirith) would be my original work and not a derivative work. I could even sell and profit from it, if I dared to face the onslaught of angry letters, which would surely follow.

Another issue to note is that even though copyright notices are customarily used primarily due to past US internal rules, there is no obligation to use these notices. The copyright notice itself does not create or alter copyright, although it might serve as evidence of the perception of relevant rights or act as a warning.

Of course all of the above are just general observations and should not be considered as legal advise by anybody.

I think everyone here believes that Harn is copyright material, the question is who holds the copyright.

BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)

Article 2
(3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work.

Article 12
Authors of literary or artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing adaptations, arrangements and other alterations of their works.



Robin could not for instance copyright the idea of an island location for FRPing, but he can copyright the Harn FRPing corpus.



I'm sure that Robin would have no problem with anyone making a HARN (High Accuracy Reference Network) map.http://www.sddot.com/PE/roaddesign/docs/harn03.pdf



As Robin pointed out that although the very act of publishing something gives one a copyright, according to the Berne copyright convention, publishers of derivative material ARE required to acknowledge the copyright of the source material.

Nobody wants to be accused of receiving stolen goods, and threatening prosecution without a intention to do so is foolish.

I think that you are losing sight of your point that putting joint copyright on fanon (which itself clearly violates copyright, but is tolerated industry wide) is partisan and completely biased against your position.

You are not going to convince fanon writers who know that they are violating copyright if they can't put "used with permission" on their stuff to change the notice. The consensus among the writers is that CGI says it is OK top publish fanon if I put the joint copyright on my material, so of course they will do it that way so they can feel that they are not doing something illegal.

In any case CGI is hardly likely to buy anything from a writer who does not put their copyright on anything submitted to them. There is undoubtedly someone monitoring the output of these people (Kerry and John for instance) for just such a violation of the CGI rules.

I have placed Kerry in an unenviable position by asking him to remove the copyright notice. If he does remove the notice, CGI may be offended enough to stop buying material from him. This would be an additional financial burden on top of the $50 that he paid for the artwork.

I hereby appologize to Kerry Mould for my action the other day, and ask him to beg permission from Tom to remove the copyright from just the one sub file in FFF5.

Now - isn't there something that could be used in the OGL/D20 ideas on publishing/copyright? I am no lawyer but it appears literally dozens of publishers are legally publishing tons of stuff for D&D these days under the OGL causing a real renaissance for said game and as such improving the general level of publications.

Is the concept that is put forward in the OGL unsuable in a case like this? I do believe that the license forbids all but the original creators (WOTC specifically and in our case NRC) to publish anything remotely linked to the creation of characters (Which arguably is seen as the basis of a RPG) while everything else is fair game - or somesuch legal-mumbojumbo beyond my skills to comprehend fully.

Surely clever folks could work something similar out that allows both sides to publish certain parts of the game/setting - unless this is of course undesirable and it is deemed preferable to perpetuate this silly state of whodunnit for the decades to come, ultimately resulting in a collapse of the game/setting as we know it.

_________________
Questions? Insults? Mail -roghainmod(at)chello(dot)nl

It may be interesting as a sidenote that Dennis McKiernan has published couple of "extensions" to Middle Earth by keeping the names out. One is "The Brega Path" which is clearly an account of the Khuzdul retaking Moria. Another is "Dragondoom" which is an account of the slaying of Scatha the Worm and the events that followed. One can almost excuse his earlier "yet another lame lotr ripoff" trilogy as being necessary to set up these two other stories.

_________________
Cyril laugh at puny human!

No time soon.

If I were to initiate legal procedings I woud have to do so in BC court, but CGI has 'moved' to Washington state. So the judgement would have to be 'sent' to a federal court in Ottawa, then to a federal court in Washington DC, then to a state court in Washington state. At any point in the process, the court could simply decide not to implement the ruling. The whole process would likely take 4-6 years. Once CGI had been served with a judgement, they would probably ignore it the same way they ignored the termination itself. Then I would have to go back to a BC court for an enforcement order which would then have to wend its way along the same path, possibly taking a similar amount of time.

If CGI were to attempt litigation (or even arbitration) they would have to do so in BC. Since they are no longer located in BC, they would be obliged to post a bond sufficient to cover any possible costs, expenses and damages. This could be in excess of $100,000. Given that there is a very high probability that they would loose the case, this would be an extraordinary risk for them to take. I am sure CGI is aware of this. This is why they only 'threatened' litigation.



Well, the 'court of public opinion' does not make or enforce rulings in the same sense as the other kind of court.

In 1967 (?) a man came to my school and talked about South Africa. After we listened to his words, most of us stopped buying Outspan oragnes (or got our parents to stop).

In a sense, the court of public opinion is like an election. You listen to the arguments, then you vote... or you don't (unless you live in Austraila of course). There are several ways in which the fans can vote in this matter. If anyone is interested, I can suggest what some of them are. There are also several reasons why it is in the fan's interest to see this matter settled.

I've been involved with the OGL and d20stl for quite a while, so here are some clarifications.

The OGL does not have any restrictions of any sort against content in a product. You can reuse any Open Game Content you want with the OGL. The d20stl on the other hand allows you to claim compatibility with the d20 logo, but you are prevented from including the process of Character Generation or Advancement. There are other things that the d20stl prevents, but the two licenses are separate. If you use the OGL, you don't need to use the d20stl, but if you want to use the d20stl, you have to use the OGL.

There is one important thing that should be taken into account before any party releases Harn material under the OGL. One of the goals of the creator of the OGL and d20stl (Ryan Dancey) was to in essence give D&D to the players, and to prevent any company (who may ever own the D&D property in the future) to kill it off. It was a brilliant plan, and not to mention extremely profitable on the part of WotC. As with all large companies though, changes often happen, and those who originally promoted the OGL are no longer around. Those in R&D still believe the OGL to be beneficial to their bottomline, it's the legal and upper management who are less interested in the OGL.

With this said, there might be some benefit to opening HarnMaster with the OGL, but what really made D&D a strong sales performer, and exploded it's popularity was the existing consumer base. Many people already knew how to play D&D, so it was fairly easy to convert them over to the new ruleset. By comparison, Harn's consumer base is quite small (though extremely devoted), so it's likely that sort of development may not ever happen. The d20 movement did start off with a number of 3rd party support companies right from the start, which did help to give it momentum. Harn does have that in the numerous fanon writers, but then you go back to the aspect of consumer base.

I don't know much about the OGL issues as I don't play D20 etc., but it seems to me there would be some parties right off who would be interested in Harn: Steve Jackson/GURPS and the newly reconstituted ICE. No doubt there are others, but I'd expect the mere addition of a module or two from such sources to expand the Harnic base, possibily dramatically.

First, my intent is to offer constructive thoughts on how to move forward.

Assumptions:
- This conflict / ambiguity is bad for everyone, CGI, Robin and the fan-community.
- It is not getting resolved through the court system due to that route being too cumbersome
- Trying to resolve it through the court of public opinion in an unstructured way promises to be highly divisive and damaging
- There is currently no structured and effcient resolution mechanism
- Even attempting to get to a solution assumes that both CGI and Robin see a solution as preferable to the status quo, is this true for both parties? If this is not true, I doubt a solution can come about unless a sizeable chunk of the user community boycotts Harn until a Roadmap is agreed upon.

Here’s the Roadmap I propose (I am sure it can be streamlined / improved but I think it is an important basic notion to move forward):
1. Choose someone, like Leitchy (don’t mean to pick on you) or whoever could be seen as impartial, to coordinate the work on a solution (The Coordinator)
2. The Coordinator has CGI and Robin confirm in writing that they agree to the following process (or whatever process is agreed upon through this forum).
3. The Coordinator picks an arbitrator that is accepted by both sides. This may involve bringing up several arbitrators until a suitable one is found.
4. The Coordinator collects funds for lawyers’ and arbitrators’ fees, say $2,000-3,000 each from CGI and Robin and picks an attorney / law firm acceptable to both. Again, this may involve sampling several firms etc. If a different amount is needed, a different amount is needed. This I think is where money talks… Do you want a solution of the status quo?
5. The selected law firm is tasked with drawing up two contracts a) one stating agreement binding arbitration and b) … later… one legally defining the ruling of the arbitrator, signed by the arbitrator and enforceable both in the U.S. and Canada, etc.
6. Robin and CGI sign contract A.
7. The arbitrator organizes the arbitration hearings and delivers a verdict after consulting with both parties. This may be all in favor of one party, or a mix, depending on the good judgment of the arbitrator and the evidence presented, oral arguments, etc.
8. The verdict is communicated to the law firm which drafts contract B.
9. The arbitrator signs contract B and sends it to both parties including this forum where it is posted.
10. CGI and Robin can then decide what action they want to take going forward with contract A and B on hand, and the fan community can make more informed choices based on independent professional arbitration.

Should someone stray from the Roadmap, I suspect the court of public opinion would be more likely turn against that party. Should no party even want to agree to a roadmap I think that would be very sad and say a lot about the willingness to come to a solution. But until there is a roadmap agreed upon to a solution, we’re getting nowhere. But again, there has to be genuine will by both parties to break the status quo. There should be a time limit / date to almost all of these to set a clear definition of what is acceptable within the Roadmap. Finally, I realize that agreeing to a roadmap represents a big risk to both parties’ ability to continue to make money (however much or little) off Harn. But if neither side wants to get this issue resolved hard enough, I can see where the Harn community risks dying a slow death – especially if fan materials cannot be freely shared.

Personally, I look forward to tinkering with Harn in decades to come and I don’t want this wonderful community messed up.

I am not saying I have all the answers, but the above is my two cents to get a conversation on the concept of a Roadmap.

_________________
Björn