kevin kenan wrote:
> I'm interested in seeing the solutions that other people come up with. Using
> an alternative font or style inside the stat block to represent closed
> material might work, but it creates additional complexity that the reader
> must keep in mind. Not necessarily prohibitive complexity, but just enough
> to make me leery. I'm leaning toward a generic reference, such as "mortal
> enemy," in the stat block with a footnote to the more descriptive text at
> the bottom of but outside the stat block. It still feels like a kludge,
> though.
>
I don't think an alternate font would cause any issues on the part of the
reader. After all, the Reader is not the person that will steal the IP. A game
designer is, and A game designer is going to read the copyright and trademark
notices and be well aware of what is and isn't IP. More importantly as discussed
before, the kind of info included in a statblock is most likely impossible to
copyright and hard to trademark. The text description outside the text block is
copyrightable and represents no leak.
>
> One last thing: is the rule I'm using as an example generic enough to be
> closed or is it derivative and so should be open? No clear answer is
> available. To be safe, I would make it open, but if you are thinking of
> walking the line between generic and derivative, then definitely get advice
> from an IP attorney. Keep in mind, though, that any one rule may be generic
> and not threaten your IP, but all of those so-called generic rules taken
> together may betray the character of your IP and allow others to produce
> derivative material.
>
> For instance, say Stolze and Tynes released Unknown Armies using d20 and the
> OGL. Unless they were quite careful in plugging most of the IP leaks (and in
> a game like that, where the setting and rules overlap considerably, plugging
> the leaks would require great effort), I could publish source books or
> novels, if I had the talent, that would seamlessly link to official Unknown
> Armies material based on the character of the IP that I picked up in the
> open sections of the rules. Essentially I would be stealing their IP. This
> inherent risk in using OGL is what I think will keep S&T and other
> professionals from releasing original games under the license.
>
> -kenan
What you've suggested is WotC's primary Goal in pushing the OGL and the D20STL.
They want others to produce material that fits seamlessly within their IP. To
protect themselves, they have created the SRD which distinctly outlines what is
considered open AND, what is considered imutable and closed. Any company wishing
to use the OGL, or even the D20STL would be wise to release their own SRD
describing exactly what is trademarked and copyrighted and what is open. In text
that satisfies Lawyers. By releasing that document and referring back to it.
(THe permissions on the Material in this book are defined using the SRD, all
text and descriptions not included in the SRD is copyrighted.....)
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
