Hi,
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Kevin J. Brennan wrote:
> > It seems to me that you want the OGL game market to be *less* open
> > than the current non-OGL game market is.
[...]
> > With your interpretation of the OGL, you want to be able to shut me
> > down if you don't like something that I have released that is noted
> > as "compatible-with" your product. Thus, if I have any sense, I
> > should seek out your permission first.
>
> The OGL lets you use copyrighted materials (the D20 SRD initially, plus
> anything else that might get put under it) in return for giving up any
> right you might have under law to claim "compatibility".
First of all, you are not just giving up the right to claim
"compatibility". You are giving up the right to comparison (i.e.
"more flexible than D&D"), to reference ("this is a role-playing game,
similar to D&D except ..."), and so forth. In any case: if you have to
get the publishers consent anyway because of trademark restrictions,
what good is having that right?
Old "Close" Way:
I want to make a book for game X. I need to talk to the publisher
and get their permission. Or I can risk lawsuit and make the
book without their permission.
New "Open" Way:
I want to make an OGL book for game X (released under the OGL).
I need to talk to the publisher and get their permission.
If this is the practical and intended effect of the OGL, then
it's simply meaningless drivel by itself. We should forget about the
OGL as a separate entity from WotC and D20.
- John
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
