From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of kevin kenan
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Open_Gaming] OGL and Intellectual Property
<< 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. >>
You aren't alone, Kevin.
<< Contrast this with the situation in a roleplaying game. The analogy is
rules are like software, and adventure/setting material is like the
data. >>
Actually, I think there's another useful analogy: the Open Gaming rules are
like the API services of the Operating System, and my new closed content is
like my application code. My new open content is like new APIs I'm
publishing so that anyone who uses the Operating System may use them as
well.
<< 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. >>
I missed this statement. I hope he can clarify, because this sounds
frightening. If I build an adventure which usues ONLY existing monsters,
magic items, etc., I would want the adventure to be closed, period.
<< What we
want is for the rules to be Open, but the adventure material (my IP)
to be closed. >>
Small correction: some of us also want non-derivative rules to be open or
closed at the author's discretion.
<< 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? >>
And even if some judge it worth the risk: if a few creators get burned and
the story spreads around, how many more creators will decide that the effort
isn't worth the cost?
<< 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. >>
I suspect it goes farther than that: I suspect that there will be next to
nothing from Wizards that formally acknowledges any connection between the
two at all. Trademark law is rich with examples where a trademark became a
generic name due to being applied in a generic sense by too many people. If
I recall correctly, the classic examples are "aspirin" and "refrigerator". I
know that three hotly contested counter-examples are "Xerox (R)", "Kleenex
(R)", and "Band Aid (R)". All three are practically generic terms now (heck,
"xerox" is effectively a verb); but all three have been fought for
vigorously by their owners.
So I suspect that Wizards wants to be sure that D20 NEVER becomes a mere
synonym for "D&D compatible", because they want to be sure of one thing: if
ANYTHING becomes legally a generic term for role-playing, it will be the
relatively valueless term "D20", not the valuable term "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 believe Ryan has admitted exactly this, though I don't recall the exact
place. (Faust?) The only time they will be bound by the OGL is if they
derive from someone else's OGL works. I'll bet that never happens. If they
REALLY like some new rule, they'll probably negotiate an agreement outside
of OGL.
<< 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? >>
No. But I think this privileged position is the only thing that will tempt a
company to open an entire body of rules. Making a quality, play-tested game
is a lot of work. I expect that D&D 3E has been in development since before
Alternity was released, and maybe a lot longer. Conservatively, that means
the game has to repay some percentage of at least three years of development
time, probably fifteen developer-years at least. (Frankly, I think that's
WAY low.) The R&D to develop a D20SRD with a meaningful, useful OGL and
D20STL will possibly be another three to five developer years (guessing a
medium to large team working half a year to a year). PLUS they have to get
everything past a legal time (which costs REAL money) and a marketing team.
Compare that to simply adding skills to an existing game: gamers do this all
the time. Or even adding a new class: takes some work, but measured in
developer-weeks or months, not developer-years. Our risks will be small,
compared to the SRD designers' risk. This is not to denigrate the work any
of us will do; but the whole reason D20 excites me is NOT to be D&D
compatible (since I will likely never do a fantasy D20 product) but to allow
me to skip the bulk of the mechanical development and concentrate on just my
little niche.
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
