Here are my thoughts about the Open Gaming Foundation and how I see it
working.
The original idea for creating the Foundation came from Netscape. When
Netscape went Open with the Communicator source code, they created
"Mozilla.Org" as a separate entity to handle the Mozilla project, administer
the various licenses, and serve as a resource to the developer community.
That seed idea, combined with the example of the Free Software Foundation
created by Stallman has guided my thoughts on the matter.
The OGF needs to do only two thing: Hold the copyright for the Open Gaming
License[1], and host a web site so people can easily get copies of Open
Gaming licenses and links to Open Gaming materials, read about the concept
of Open Gaming, and discuss various types of Open Gaming Content.
It isn't going to be in litigation with anyone. It isn't going to hold the
copyright to any actual Open Game Content. It isn't going to publish
anything. The burden of protecting Open Game Content and defending the
precepts of the Open Gaming License must fall on the contributors of that
content; where it rightfully belongs.
It is something that can be managed part time by one person on a weekend.
Very low impact. I believe that our current working concept of accepting
volunteer assistance for things like managing the web site and setting up a
review/database of Open Games is the model the Foundation will use
throughout its existence.
As far as I can see, there is only one way the Foundation could give
"preferential treatment" to Wizards; and that is by controlling the
information on the Foundation's web site to exclude other "Open Game"
initiatives from other companies. So far, I've been trying to keep up with
the Dominion Games effort because under their new license I think they're
clearly an Open Game. If and when I become aware of other such initiatives
or projects, I fully intend to recognize and link to them from the OGF page.
(In fact, I'd be interested in listening to anyone who wanted to volunteer
to manage that effort!)
If Wizards did gain an unfair bias on the Foundation web site, a rival web
site could easily be created that would reflect the breadth and scope of the
Open Game movement, and there would swiftly be a movement away from the OGF
site as a "reference". Since that potential is so real and so easy, there's
no good reason for the OGF site to ever develop a bias.
Due to the way the Open Gaming License is constructed, even if at some point
in the future someone running the Foundation changed the terms to give WotC
some bias, people would be able to just ignore the new version and keep
using the version that is totally open - therefore, there's no reason to
fiddle with the terms anyway.
I'm researching the Apache Group, and I think in the long run something
similar to the Apache Group organization may be the most suitable for the
Open Gaming community. Until some more concrete decisions can be made,
we'll all just accept the mutual burden of keeping the information on the
OGF web site fair and impartial and worry about the potential future
problems later.
Ryan
[1] It bears repeating that the copyright for the Open Gaming License has
nothing to do with the copyrights to material released using that License.
The copyright on the license just controls the actual License document
itself. The copyright in the content is held by the contributors, not by
the Foundation.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
