The meta-license I envision would have two major components: commercial and clarifying. We might also call these the carrot and the stick, because the commercial component provides the incentive to accept the clarifying strictures.
The commercial component is a limited license of copyrighted titles for the exclusive purpose of attributing open content to its source. New works released under the meta-license are both allowed and required to use the relevant titles in order to specifically link any open content to the original work in which it was created. As an example, let's say the publisher Behemoth3 releases a book called Masters & Minions which is a covered work under both the OGL and the meta-license. Part of the open content of this work is a monster called the ashmalkin. The ashmalkin is then reprinted in two other works, one covered only by the OGL and one by both the meta-license and the OGL. In the OGL-only work, the ashmalkin appears on page 24. On page 1, there is a Section 15 declaration that Masters and Minions is copyright 2004, Behemoth3, authors Tavis Allison, Nat Sims, and Brian Stith. (My intent here is not self-promotion, but to avoid confusing the issue by using imaginary or borrowed copyright information.) In the meta-licensed work, the Section 15 declaration is identical, since this work must also comply with the OGL. However, as part of the reprint of the ashmalkin on page 24, a citation must appear stating that this content originally appeared in Masters and Minions, copyright 2004, and so forth. The meta-license allows the authors of the covered work to use this copyrighted title for this purpose without having to obtain permission, and without needing to try to separate their end notes from the covered work. (Optionally, Behemoth3 could, as per the OGL, require that Masters and Minions must be referred to in the meta-license as M&M, or Horde Book I.) The meta-licensed work may not state (unless permission is granted) that it is compatible with, or part of, Masters and Minions, or make any other use of this trademarked title except for citation. I think that being reprinted in the meta-licensed work is much more advantageous to Behemoth3, because it tells all users that they can learn more about the ashmalkin by purchasing Masters and Minions. The OGL work repeatedly and prominently tells users that they must buy the core books, while leaving all but the most savvy unaware that some of its content was once found in any other source. As long as Hasbro is content to use the d20 market to drive sales to only the core books, it is better served by the OGL than by the meta-license. However, Hasbro has just released Unearthed Arcana, the first instance since the takeover that a D&D book has released a significant chunk of original work as OGC. Rather than waiting and seeing whether UA will be added to the official SRD, the community quickly began to extract its OGC and distribute it electronically; see http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=82908 for the resultant flapdoodle at EN World, which has currently attracted over 9,000 views. While it's difficult to predict what outcome this might have on sales of UA and whether this was an expected result, I think it is possible that even Hasbro might eventually want to lead users back to more sources of OGC than just the core books. Their reliance on immediate sales through retail channels, and the power of the D&D logo, might mean that Hasbro's sales suffer proportionately less harm when the OGL conceals the source of their OGC reprinted in other works. However, Hasbro's enormous popularity means that their books are almost the only ones that pirates have been inspired to not only scan and trade but also OCR; a meta-license would allow them to fight these illicit electronic texts with official ones designed to drive sales back to the source. The clarifying section of the meta-license would require users to consent to a community interpretation of the OGL and perhaps set up procedures for resolving disputes. As many "fixes" as could be implemented without contradicting the OGL should be added to this section. The success of the meta-license would marginalize those who weren't willing to sign on because they depend on gray areas or the ability to present contradictory arguments in court. The meta-license should probably allow for retroactive declarations of copyrighted titles that can and must be cited in covered works. In other words, if Masters and Minions was published before the creation of the meta-license, Behemoth3 would be able to follow a procedure for announcing that this copyrighted title should be linked to OGC taken from that source and used in any meta-licensed works. (As part of making this declaration, B3 could be required to release any future editions of Masters and Minions using the meta-license.) Since the success of any open license also depends on the review, revision, and consensus of the community, I'm eager to see what wiser heads than mine think of this proposal and the market reasoning behind it. --- Tavis Allison Editor in Chief, Masters and Minions www.behemoth3.com Information wants to be free. Money is not the most interesting form of information. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
