Comment on recent chaqnges in the Game FAQ

[DerailedOmegaMale]

If you really want to become more permissive regarding what other people may or may not do with KS then I recommend considering changing the game's license from "Creative Commons BY-NC-ND" to something else. Maybe "Creative Commons BY-NC"?
(This is just a quick not very well thought through idea of mine. Of course making such a change requires very careful consideration and I am not sure whether CC BY-ND is optimal or not.)

[Silentcook]

That would require a repackaging of the game due to being within the manual, which I think is fairly seriously still in "not gonna happen" territory.

Also the license as is provides us extra protection in case someone decided to commercialize their derivatives, which as stated, is still forbidden territory.

[DerailedOmegaMale]

That would require a repackaging of the game due to being within the manual, which I think is fairly seriously still in "not gonna happen" territory.

Not sure if I understand this correctly. Pardon my bad English.
I'll just assume that you don't want to take the effort of rebuilding the game and rewriting the manual.

As far as I know you don't need to do that. By giving a license you give other people certain rights, you are not taking them away.
(The most restrictive option is giving no license at all. The moment when KS was put under "CC BY-NC-ND" rights were given and not taken. For instance people were allowed to redistribute exact unmodified copies of the game. "BY-NC-ND" does put the copying under some conditions of course, but to be allowed to make copies under certain conditions is a less restrictive option than to not be allowed to do anything with the game at all.)
So you should be able to give multiple licenses with the second one being more permissive than the first one. Giving someone "CC BY-NC-ND" and them ALSO giving that same someone "CC BY-NC" later on has the same effect as just giving "CC BY-NC", since all the rights given by "CC BY-NC-ND" are also given by "CC BY-NC". The old license doesn't take away the rights given by the new one just because the old one still exists. So I think this should work. It might sound counterintuitive and be a bit confusing for someone who receives two licenses, but there doesn't seem to be a reason that forbids doing that. Just because you attached a license to the game and the manual doesn't mean that you can't give an additional license separately. And it's not like you have to put the additional license inside the game/manual.

Also the license as is provides us extra protection in case someone decided to commercialize their derivatives, which as stated, is still forbidden territory.

Isn't this exactly the purpose of the NC part in "Creative Commons BY-NC-ND"? You can throw out the ND and keep the NC.

But even if I'm misinterpreting the NC part you can still write a license text of your own. Something like: "Hereby we give the same rights as the rights given by CC BY-NC-ND. In addition we give the rights to create derivative works under the condition that the derivative works are not used for commercial purposes."
If I'm right about NC then giving "CC BY-NC" is just a more elegant way to do the same thing, which is removing the ND-condition from "CC BY-NC-ND".

BTW interpreting NC in a different way just doesn't make any sense. If "CC BY-NC" allowed you to use a derivative work for commercial purposes just because it's a derivative (and not the original) then you could easily bypass the NC condition of an image under "CC BY-NC" by editing a single pixel and calling the result a derivative.