Beginning with the obligiatory IANAL. I can't see any reasons why this can't be published as a 100% closed product. The OGL only applies to reuse of the original published product. I would say you are correct, and the original publisher has the right to "rerelease" their original fluff text (which presumably they own the copyright to) as 100% closed content without the OGL attached. They can't withdraw the OGL on the original publication, but they can republish without it as long as they are not using any OGC from anyone else in the republication.
The OGL applies only to their original release of their text - if they want to go and reuse the same text and not release it under the OGL, they are entitled to do that - in the same way that Wizards of the Coast can publish the D&D rules in OGL form and then (because they own 100% of the original copyright to it) publish them again in a 100% closed rulebook. The only factor that would prevent this product being 100% closed is if the original company were using OGL sources to write their fluff text - this is the bit to be careful about - do they (for example) reference any monsters from OGL material which could not have been sourced from anywhere else (in other words, monsters invented by another company and then "borrowed" through use of the OGL). If their fluff is absolultely, truly 100% their own and could have been legally published in a standalone format without an attached OGL, then as long as they retained the original copyright I would say they have the legal rights to republish it. The OGL is a licence for a specific release of work, and not equivalent to releasing something into the public domain (something you cannot take back for subsequent releases). Or to put it in a far simpler sentence - I concur with what you have stated below :) - Matt Matt Thomason DancingDryad.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ogf-l- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vicki Potter > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:04 AM > To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org > Subject: [Ogf-l] OGC contamination? > > I maintain that, since the fluff text will be published again by the > original publisher, that company can publish it without having to do so > under the Open Game License. In other words, the text published with our > licensed system would be 'closed', even though identical text published > elsewhere would be 'open.' That being the case, the OGL would appear > nowhere in the product and thus none of the material, including the > licensed mechanics, would be Open. > _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
