Darren-
Outstanding post!
You keyed in on the line that as a lawyer troubled me
from the beginning:
""Open Game Content" means any work covered by this
License, including translations and derivative works
under copyright law."
I was worried that meant anything I made would be
open.
Ryan Dancy some time ago made the now-infamous quote
implying that WotC could take our open work and
republish it in some collection if they wanted to.
That caused the first revision of the OGL.
His quote was:
"We have the same freedom to use your work as you have
to use ours. If we use your work, however, we cannot
make it 'closed'; our version of your work must be
covered by the OGL as well; therefore you in turn
could use whatever we added to your original work
without our permission in turn. And so forth."
The new version of the license--in response to the
scare this comment created--provides (as you point
out) for identification of open content:
"If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly
indicate which portions of the work that you are
distributing are Open Game Content."
That of course seems to conflict with the
interpretation that anything we make is open. Why
would we have to designate what is open if it is all
open?
What that means is that derivative rules will remain
open. However, the publisher is free to designate what
portions--such as the original text and other
materials--is open or closed. Many have suggested
shadowing the open content with a gray box or
background to indictate open content (assuming you
arent going to open the whole work up).
I like your suggestions for the d20/OGL license. I
would go one further:
"Open Document" means a derivative work containing
Open Game Content published pursuant to this license.
"Open Game Content" includes any content provided
specifically for this purpose by WotC, or any content
which has been specifically designated as Open Content
by any Contributor under section 8 of this license.
"Contributor" means any person publishing an Open
Document pursuant to this license.
That would mean the only open content would be
material specifically released as open content--as of
now, the only thing that would fall in that category
would be the the d20 SRD--and any material a
contributor designates as open.
What I really want to see is this provision:
"WotC agrees not to use non-Open Game Content from an
Open Document in any manner without the prior written
approval of the Contributor."
Meaning, that if WotC wants to publish something I
make, they have to get my approval (and pay me) to do
it. They cant just take it and say: "Hey, its all
open."
I think that is what they are trying to say with the
identification clause--that our original material can
be designated non-open and is safe. But I'd like to
see that in the license so I can be sure.
Because if I felt WotC could take my publication and
republish it at their discretion and not have to
reimburse me for it then I would never publish
anything under this license becasue I couldnt compete
with their marketing and production facilities.
Essentially, WotC could sit back, let us make modules,
find the ones that sell well, snatch those up and
publish them themselves and make money off them
leaving us in the dust. That would be wrong.
Clark
=====
http://www.necromancergames.com
"3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
