Most of that was examples used and not actual design ideas. I figure that
our first book will be 50% open and 50% closed. (rough estimates here)
Like you said, all of the SRD stuff will be open (classes, bonus', etc.)
while the actual world info will be closed.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of kevin kenan
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 8:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Open_Gaming] The Spirit and the Letter
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. Hyrum Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 4:20 PM
Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] The Spirit and the Letter
> As one of the people developing content for d20, statements and attitude
by
> Kal make me seriously consider hiring an attorney. (Something I'd rather
not
> do) I'm developing a world (which will be closed and Kal, if you steal
> anything, and that's what you'd be doing, expect to be called on it),
> classes, races, cultures, and magic styles.
This is what worries me: if you are using rules derived from the d20SRD to
describe your classes, races, cultures, and magic styles then those
descriptions should be Open according to the d20SRD. You don't have to Open
the actual names of the class, race, culture, and magic styles, but the
rules and stat blocks that describe them are supposed to be Open (according
to the d20SRD). You can get away with not Opening those things so long as
you are fairly generic, but as you add more details that are described using
OGL-derived rules you skate closer and closer to the line of creating
material that is derivative and therefore risk a lawsuit. This is what I was
talking about earlier; OGL does not protect your IP very well. If you are
truly interested in retaining control over your IP, don't let it touch the
OGL. If you are going to use the OGL for a game world that you want to
retain control over, then you should definitely hire an attorney who knows
IP laws. Otherwise you will probably lose control over at least some of your
IP.
> What my partner's and I choose
> to make open we'll make open. We don't *have* to make anything extra open
> (although not opening some of our content would be stupid, IMHO), and if
we
> choose to close something we have that right.
The OGL requires you to make Open all rules derived from OGL rules. If you
do not you are in violation of the license and have no right to use any OGL
rules. You do not have the right to keep Closed any rules that you invent
that are derived from OGL rules.
Rules include all of the game-mechanical details of anything you create. If
you describe your new races using phrases like "...their serpent-like
physique gives them +2 dexterity" then those elements of your IP are
required to be Open under the OGL. This is how you will lose control of your
IP. If you want to retain control of your IP and you are going to use the
OGL, you are facing serious risk if you do not hire a skilled IP attorney to
review everything you publish.
> Just because someone comes along and says "Wow, those are cool rules, *I*
> should have thought of them. Hey wait, I just did, now they're open",
> doesn't give you the right to do so.
>
> What it all comes down to is that I, as the creator and publisher of my
> work, have the right to make open what I *choose* to make open, and to
close
> what I think should be closed. Would I be an ass and close everything in
my
> book for cover to cover? Sure. But I do have that right.
Unfortunately, this is not the case under the OGL. Ryan has said that it is
doubtful that anyone could create a work that used the OGL and was
completely Closed. Be careful! Hire an attorney to protect your IP!
-kenan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
