From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Clark Peterson
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 11:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Open_Gaming] The Spirit and the Letter
<< The only thing we need to RESPECT is the will of the
author. If an author keeps something closed that you
think should be open--deal with it. That is their
decision, not yours. >>
Well... If it's derivative (whatever the heck that means), he has one
decision: don't publish it, or open it. The license that allows him to
create a derivative work compels him to license his derivative work under
the same terms (assuming the draft OGL represents something like the final
OGL). So somebody needs to be concerned about this. And if I'm the author of
the work from which he derived, then I'll be concerned. If I think it should
be open BECAUSE it derives from my open work, then I may have to take
action.
For non-derivative stuff, I absolutely agree with you: it's his choice.
<< This isnt about crusading legal battles to force
content into the open. If we start thinking like that
we will all become a bunch of jackals. Because there
will be much disagreement on what should be open and
what shouldnt. I dont want anyone arbitrarily
designating themselves as defenders of open content
and making a derivative of my work and expecting me to
sue just because they think I should have left
something open. >>
Here! Here! (Or is that "Hear! Hear!") What he said. But I am left with a
nagging concern: the very most thorny issue in copyright -- the definition
of derivative -- is the very crux of OGL. And I have yet to see a clear
answer on who gets to decide that. "The Courts" is an answer that is bad for
OGL in the long run.
<< Or
maybe because this is uncharted territory people are
just erring on the side of protecting their work. >>
Just to add weight here: be darn certain that Wizards legal is making sure
THEIR work is protected. Other businesses will be smart to follow their
example.
<< All these emails I have been seeing about how this or
that should be open or there should be less copyright
protection, that is all well and good coming from
people who havent created anything. Once you make
something, I think you will see the validity of
copyright. >>
For the record, I have had patents and a copyright under corporate
ownership. And yes, while my company owned them, I defended them. Protection
of intellectual property is entirely valid. The only place I see in the
draft OGL where something "should be open" is when it is clearly derivative
of preceding open content. But we should encourage opening other content.
Not compel, just encourage.
<< And while I'm at it--you can give up the pipe dream of
a "spirit" section. No lawyer worth his salt would
include such a section. Contracts and licenses need
definiteness, not vagueness. >>
Someone mentioned a preamble in Gnu (or maybe Open Source). Such a section
is common at the start of a contract, stating the reasons behind the
contract. Seems to be full of Whereases: "Whereas the party of the first
part wants to make a lot of money; and whereas the party of the second part
wants to spend a lot of money for services rendered; we agree that blah blah
blah..." I've never seen it in a license; but I've seen it in lots of other
civil contracts.
<< So Kal, if you want to open everything you make up--go
right ahead. Or if you want to close everything--go
ahead. Let's let WotC (the licensor) and the author
(the licensee) decide if the OGL has been violated. >>
IS Wizards the licensor for the Open Content that I create? I didn't read
the draft OGL that way. I read it as I was the licensor for my new content.
I'll have to look again.
<< We all want the OGL and d20 to succeed. But suing each
other to "force content into the open" is about the
worst idea I have ever heard. >>
Here! Hear!
Martin L. Shoemaker
Emerald Software, Inc. -- Custom Software and UML Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.EmeraldSoftwareInc.com
www.UMLBootCamp.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
