> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kal Lin
> From the Definitions section (sec. 1):
> >"Open Game Content" means any work covered by this License,
> >including translations and derivative works
>
> Now I gather that if a work can be argued as derivative (whose
> meaning is unclear) then the work in its entirety would necessarily
> become open content.
What makes a work derivitive, and the copyright standing of a derivitive or
partially derivitive work, is a matter for the courts to decide.
If WotC's lawyers aren't comfortable with that, we can expect a modified
definition along the lines Ryan's already outlined.
> Suppose some publisher decides to gather up every good publication
> that uses open content and sell the collection as one big product.
Something released under the OGL (as it currently stands) must have some
clear distinction between what's open and what's closed--the open material
is fair game, while the closed material is covered by regular copyright
laws.
> It seems like a big legal land mine to me. Derivative work is already
> poorly defined. Now we are inviting people to explore the mine field
> with the Identification section of the OGL. Comments?
The "Simplifed OGL" is preferable to the complex "Larger Works" hassle that
it replaced; the burden of properly identifying derivitive work as open
rests on the publisher--and there's even a time-period to correct mistakes
in the license!
If *I* publish something, and mistakenly mark some of my work that is
derivitive of an open work as "closed" (or fail to mark it as open, rather),
then I would be informed of the mistake (by SOMEONE) and I would have a time
period to recitfy the error--or else I could be accountable for B/K and
Copyright infringement.
> *1: Another mode of operation that could be used is making
> the bulk of the work open content except for some illustrations/
> well delineated passages. These portions could remain closed by
> clearly identifying them as used with permission?
IIRC (too late to look it up at the moment) the OGL defines open content as
that which is "clearly designated" as open content--and a different clause
states that anyone can make a derivitive work based on the open content of a
work covered by the OGL, provided that all of the derivitve aspects are
"open content" as well.
DM
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
