> Clark Peterson
>
> 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.
I like the concept, but this isn't accurate. An original, non-derivative
work may also be Open Content.
Calling the entire work (Open and closed) an Open Document clouds the issue,
in my opinion, but I would like to have a bit of clarification on the status
of work in a document which is not Open Content. I would rather it was
simply called a Document, so as not to give the impression that a hybrid
work was an Open work in its entirety.
(add to section 1) "Document" means any gathering of work which contains
Open Content, and may or may not contain other work which is not Open
Content.
The language as it is currently written indicates that only Open Content is
covered by the OGL, and implies that the OGL has no bearing on portions of a
document that are not Open Content. They aren't covered by the OGL.
Section 8 supports this, by making it an active task to place work under the
OGL.
I think section 8 could use some strengthening, by expressing the obvious
corollary to its current statement:
(add to section 8) Work contained within a Document that is not identified
as Open Content is not covered by this License.
> 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."
I agree with Darren that it is wrong to single out WotC in any way. There
are too many interested parties to be worried about only the largest.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
