From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ryan S. Dancey
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2000 9:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Open_Gaming] Consolidated Remarks
<< WORDING: Section 7 opens up a new path I had not considered previously.
By
saying that you cannot use Proprietary Content (essentially "the setting")
without permission, the License now allows you to mix material that is
separate from Open Game Content in with Open Game Content. I think that
this is Legal's attempt to ensure that "the setting" doesn't accidentally
get rendered "Open" by mistake.
I wonder if this issue can be addressed in the reverse of the Open Game
Content identification, that is, some language could be added to the license
that allowed you to specifically indicate what was "Proprietary Content",
and exclude that material from the Open condition, even if it got mixed in
to some text that was otherwise Open Game Content.
Example:
let's say, I have a note at the beginning of my work that says:
"The words "Snakemen", "Eggmother", and "Snakewarrior", "Snakesense",
"Snakemagic", and the geographical description including maps of "Snakehome"
are Proprietary Content and may be copyrights, trademarks or registered
trademarks owned by Ryanco. The distribution of a work containing these
terms and descriptions by any entity other than RyanCo or its licensees is
not permitted."
This essentially creates a "carve out" for "the setting", without affecting
the utility of the rules themselves.
The thing I like about this approach is that it provides an affirmative way
for a publisher to ensure they don't accidentally Open "the setting", and it
gives us a great way to mesh licenses with Open Game Content in a protected
way.
Comments? >>
Please get feedback from legal on this IMMEDIATELY! This will save TONS of
effort in copy editing AND allow much cleaner text. The biggest effort I saw
in developing original D20 material was the fact that my design and playtest
notes -- in which I would quite naturally use proprietary names in the
middle of my Open Game Content, because that would be the natural flow of
the narrative -- would then have to be laboriously rewritten in such a way
as to remove all proprietary references from the OGC. I've toyed with some
examples, and found them both labor-intensive and more difficult to read.
It's a definite lose-lose situation for me and the customer. If instead I
could affirmatively declare a set of trademarks that are not open even when
referenced in OGC, then I could save a lot of work AND end up with clearer
prose.
I see some problems with this, though, in how it interacts with Section 7 in
regards to use of trademarks without permission. If my OGC contains my
trademarks which cannot be used without my permission, is the content really
open? So perhaps there's no real answer short of cumbersome, dense prose.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
