> Hmmmm..... Unless there is an OGL/D20 *AND* an OGL/FreeD20.
>
> 1. OGL/D20 - just as it is - serving primarily the needs of professional
> producers.
People interested in using material professionally -- i.e., at or beyond the
margins of "fair use" and past the vague equivalent of trading Grateful Dead
bootlegs with friends -- are the people for whom OGL is of the most value.
It is also of value to people who are not professional but might like to be
one day, or who might be gratified to see derivations of their work in
professional works.
But frankly, if I were just a fan interested in sharing a few tidbits with
friends, I'd write them up, avoid any trademarks or copyrighted material,
stick my own copyright notice on it, and not bother with the OGL or any
other license. Or I'd OGL it but identify PI up the yin-yang, if I was the
paranoid type. (See more on this below.)
> 2. OGL/FreeD20 - just as it is, EXCEPT:
> - all materials based on FreeD20 are fully open - no PI
An OGL publisher does not HAVE to identify PI. In all the Penumbra line,
the only PI so far identified consists of three proper names in "The Tide of
Years."
> - no fee can be REQUIRED for redistribution of FreeD20 covered IP.
This really gets in your way if you're an aspiring writer. If people agree
as terms of a license that no fee can be required for redistribution of
material or derivative works, then what is being created is a category of
"uber-Product Identity" that CAN'T be included in OGL works (unlike regular
Product Identity, which simply requires separate permission), which must be
avoided carefully by OGL publishers. This doesn't seem very "open" to me.
(And as an OGL publisher I cringe at the thought of having to train my staff
and freelancers to understand the distinction and to look carefully for
things that are submitted to us which might include material which is not
the "right kind" of open game content.)
On the other hand, with the current OGL you can delineate PI and license its
use only in not-for-sale materials. You might even include that
license/permission within the original OGL'd work, leaving open the option
of for-profit licensees making a separate arrangement with you. Voila. The
OGL working within its existing parameters.
> What we are talking about is essentially creating a "sandbox" for the
little
> guys to play in. They can get their thrill of adding to the community,
but
> us producers will KNOW not to use their free content, because it is marked
> with a (somewhat) different mark.
They can get that thrill by sticking with "fair use," avoiding copyright or
trademark violations, and just putting out their materials on the net, as
they have been doing all along. Or they can play by the very reasonable
rules of the OGL, and be able to do things like grab spells and domains and
prestige classes out of all of our books,
modify/adapt/develop/alter/spindle/fold/mutilate to their heart's content,
and put the resulting OGC on their website.
> BTW anyone who still thinks the OGL serves the hobby crowd (This means
you,
> John) should go over to the DnD Community Council and ask Brad Bemis about
> his NETBOOK OF FEATS and what happened to the contributor list when he
> OGL'ed it.
>
> Went from 800 entries to 80. The OGL is almost as INTIMIDATING as the
> associated notion that someone will be able to PROFIT from your work
without
> also making it freely available over the web.
It strikes me that a great many fearful and perhaps somewhat slow-witted
mice must be contributing to that netbook, to put it politely.
The problem is in peoples' minds. As Maggie says and explains, the problem
is ignorance. I would add a distinct lack of creativity in interpreting the
OGL rules as being a problem as well (ironic, since we're talking about
gamers; the big "loopholes" people proudly announce after reading the OGL
always turn out to be the obvious things -- canny insights like, "you can
print up the SRD and sell it on a streetcorner if you want!" -- which Ryan
intentionally, loudly, and explicitly put there; it's like people watching
"The Triumph of the Will" and declaring, as though in a fit of hermeneutical
genius, "You know, I think this was designed to portray Nazism in a good
light!"). Creating a new license for a separate category of
"non-professional" people only complicates things more. If those folks are
intimidated by the OGL, they will also be intimidated by an alternate
license.
How can we tell that this is so?
Because the existing license lets anyone get around the purported problem
that "that someone will be able to PROFIT from your work ." Every
contributor to that Netbook could explicitly identify each of his Feats as
PRODUCT IDENTITY. This is clearly allowed by the OGL*, whose definition of
PI includes "names and descriptions of...special abilities". Seems to me*
that not only the name of a feat, but the text describing the feat, COULD be
identified as Product Identity, if for example you're a frothing internet
paranoid convinced publishers will steal your ideas and make millions off
them. Any publisher who wants to PROFIT from your work must then get your
consent with a separate agreement. Say, a contract to buy the rights, just
like from any freelancer. Or the publisher can file off the serial numbers,
rename the feat, describe it in his own words--oh, hey, and that would be
exactly what can and does happen anyhow when writers borrow and research
from gazillions of sources.
(*I say this as a non-lawyer. This is not legal advice. Message brought to
you by the internalized voice of Clark from inside my head. ;)
So we can tell that, since these folks have no clue as to what they can
ALREADY do under the OGL, it would only be MORE confusing to give them two
separate and very different licensing arrangements under which to operate.
Then watch the fun as semi-literates publishing on their AOL home pages mix
standard OGC with non-profit-Open-license material with pages full of Xena
transcripts, half the text of "The Hunt for Red October," and a big glowing
D20 logo right next to a picture of Princess Leia.
(On the other hand, it may be that many of those 720 recalled entries were
more or less shamelessly copied from some other source, and their
contributors realized that they ought not to make the claim of originality
that the OGL includes. A different license wouldn't help them, either.)
---------------------------------
John Nephew voice (651) 638-0077 fax (651) 638-0084
President, Atlas Games www.atlas-games.com
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
