> Ryan S. Dancey
Kevin Kenan made some excellent points. I have a couple to add.
> "Open Game Content" including the game mechanic and/or source code
> means any work
> covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under
> copyright law.
ERROR:
"Open Game Content" is defined to cover the entire work, which conflicts
with (8) requiring an indication of which portions of that work are "Open
Game Content". I concur with Kevin's suggestion of a definition for a
"Document" or "Work" that contains "Open Game Content" and may or may not
also contain Proprietary content.
> "Open Game Content" including the game mechanic and/or source code
> means any work
> covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under
> copyright law.
>
> (d) �Product Identity� means the names, characters, spells,
> enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, artifacts, creatures,
> locations, environments, stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements,
> dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions,
> likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and
> other visual or audio representations of, relating to and associated with
> the game mechanic.
> (e)�Proprietary Content� means the methods, procedures,
> processes, routines, source code, assembly code and object code to the
> extent such software or content does not embody the Product
> Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art.
CONCERN:
It looks like you're trying to define three distinct types if IP: Open Game
Content (the game mechanic), Product Identity (creative elements), and
Proprietary Content (which I don't quite grok).
This seems confusing, because Open Game Content can also include elements
from the Product Identity and may include Proprietary Content under license.
What exactly is Proprietary Content? It seems to be anything that isn't
Product Identity. It seems indented to allow software based on OGL material
to remain closed.
My concern is that it will be used to refer to game mechanics, as a vehicle
to prevent 'the description of level advancement and the effects of
experience' or other critical game mechanic from appearing in Open Game
Content. If this is the case then the OGL will fail in its intended purpose
of creating a safe haven for game development because it will leave
unanswered the question of whether or not game mechanics can be held to be
proprietary technology. (If they can be proprietary then you need a license
to use them, of they can't be proprietary then you can simply use them
because you have the right to place them in Open Gaming Content. If two
parties disagree you go to court).
I feel it would be VERY bad to leave this area undefined.
> 7. Proprietary Content and Proprietary Trademarks: You agree not
> to use any
> Proprietary Content or Proprietary Trademarks, including as an
> indication as
> to co-adaptability or compatibility rather than source of goods, except as
> expressly licensed in another Agreement with the Proprietor which license
> agreement shall be independent of this license.
CONCERN:
I don't like this as it pertains to Trademarks. Ideally the part about
Trademarks will be removed. If existing trademark law is simply too
pro-consumer for WotC's taste, then at the very least restrict these to
Game-industry related marks. It is, after all, the Open *Gaming* License.
> 9. Updating the License: The Wizards or its designated Agents may publish
> updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of
> this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content
> originally
> distributed under any version of this License.
CONCERN:
This allows the license to change dramatically without input from the
Contributors. Add something to the effect of the following:
"Updates to the license may be made to correct errors or inconsistencies,
accommodate new technologies, and reflect changes in the law insofar as
those updates do not substantially alter the Offer made or Consideration
granted by this license. All such updates shall be posted on the OGF
website for a period of not less than 30 days for the purpose of soliciting
public comment on the proposed update prior to releasing a new version of
the license."
> 13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to
> comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within
> 30 days of
> becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the
> termination
> of this License.
OPINION:
Interesting. I assume all sub licensees would need to be notified of a
breach individually. I suggest that you state "Contributors and the OGF"
have the right to notify a licensee of a breach (but not WotC, unless they
are a Contributor), list the acceptable methods of notification of a breach,
and that a posting of a Notice of Breach on the OGF website should be an
acceptable method of notification to all sub licensees. This should prevent
the unscrupulous from creating new sublicenses every 30 days ad infinitim.
Ideally you will also enumerate some of the ways a licensee may cure a
breach, but that is asking a bit much.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
