What I'm concerned about is that it seems that the OGL places your IP
at risk if you release a game based on that property under the
OGL. Feedback is appreciated.
A piece of software is a tool that operates on a separate chunk of
information, frequently a data file of some sort, and there is a clear
distinction between the software tool and the data. Using an Open tool
does not render the data upon which it operates Open. People have no
problem using Open software because of this; their IP is protected.
Contrast this with the situation in a roleplaying game. The analogy is
rules are like software, and adventure/setting material is like the
data. This seems reasonable at first glance, however, there is not
always a clear distinction between adventure material and rules. If
there was a clear distinction then I would be able to create
completely closed adventure material for an Open game, but Ryan Dancey
has expressed doubts about this possibilty. I understand his concerns,
the adventure material would be derivative of the Open rules. What we
want is for the rules to be Open, but the adventure material (my IP)
to be closed.
The OGL's answer to this problem is the requirement that you clearly
identify what parts of the adventure material are Open. Persumably,
you only mark the rules as Open and leave your adventure material
closed as it represents your IP. Unfortuately, identifing what parts
are Open includes identifying what parts are derivative of Open
material. Lawyers make lots of money arguing over what is derivative;
it seems a bit much to expect a game designer to know with any
certainty if he's correctly identified the derivative material. And
he's wrong, what happens to his game and IP? Does he have to recall
all of the books? Issue errata? Is Openness worth risking this much
trouble and expense?
In addition, there are concerns about creating rules to mirror the
setting. Say you come up with a great setting that you want to capture
in novels, comics, tv, and film as well as RPGs. You must be very
careful when crafting an OGL based game so that when the non-Open
parts are stripped from the adventure material, what's left is bland
enough not to threaten your intellectual property, yet the rules need
to be rich enough to capture the originality of your setting. Is
Openness worth risking the integrity of your IP?
Both of these issues represent serious risks that may very well keep
any professional game designer (someone who has a history of creating
valuable IP) from releasing material under the OGL. The uncertainties
and risks are too great; it is safer sticking to the traditional
model. No one wants their IP compromised.
Now maybe there is something I'm missing that alleviates these
concerns and protects your IP. We could turn to see how WotC is
protecting their IP while releasing the D20SRD under the OGL, but they
haven't released any of the relevant documents yet.
However, my suspicions are (and I may be wrong) that D&D is not based
on the D20SRD, but that the D20SRD is based on D&D. This gives WotC a
unique position with regards to D20. They won't have to identify Open
material in the Player's Handbook because the PHB won't contain any
Open material whatsoever. Nor will other official D&D products.
The D20SRD will be Open under the OGL, not the PHB and other
products. So while other companies have to worry about protecting
their IP when releasing a game using the D20SRD, WotC won't have this
concern.
I'm not picking on WotC, here. It seems that the OGL places the
originator of the game system in a privileged position relative to
everyone who uses the game system. If Steve Jackson Games released a
GURSP:SRD, then SJG's IP would enjoy strong copyright protection while
everyone using the GURPS:SRD would face questionable protection.
I don't like this. I want the people using Open material to have the
same protection as the people who originally made the Open system.
Am I missing something?
-kenan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
