From: "Adam Benedict Canning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> i.e if I write something under license version 1 there is nothing to
> stop version
> 2 giving additional rights to people using that item which I did not
> intend, for
> example in a paranoid view giving WoTC rights to copyright attached
> items justified
> by the theory you have stated on derived works and Stallone vs
> Anderson.
What would be the meaningful effect of such a change? Since the material is
Open Game Content released using a previous version of the Open Gaming
License, neither you, nor anyone else could ever be stopped from continuing
to us that material per the terms of the very first version of that License
or any future version you found more palatable.
WotC claiming "additional rights" at some point in the future with an OGL
change gives the company no advantage - you just continue to use the content
using a previous version of the License and WotC can't stop you. The
license is >one way< - once content becomes Open Game Content, it >cannot<
revert to proprietary content, regardless of changes to the terms of the
License itself.
It does not matter who holds the copyright to Open Game Content; the vast
majority of the "rights" enumerated by the copyright law are replaced by the
terms of the copyright license (the Open Gaming License). Since the license
>requires< contributors to allow derivative works, the problems of
>unauthorized< derivative works do not obtain. >Authorized< derivative
works are not the problem in the Anderson v. Stallone case.
Now, if at some point in the future, WotC changed the license, and then
released >new content< using those new terms, that new content would be
bound to that new license. And then nobody would use the new content as the
source for derivative works. And therefore it would be pointless to make
such changes.
> That unfortunately means dealing wwith the mental stigma of being
> associated with
> Hasbro, WoTC and TSR, some personnel of whish have had what is believed
> to be evil
> intentions with respect to Intellectual property or gaming as a hobby
> rather than
> an industry.
Or I can ignore those people, understanding that they represent a tiny
fraction of the potential consumer base and that they will never be
satisfied or have their concerns addressed until US law is changed to
protect them against frivolous lawsuits from huge corporations.
I have already seen the positive impact of this effort, and I feel that the
intentions of the Open Gaming concept have been accurately and fairly
enumerated,
Ryan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
