On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Robert Kozak wrote:
> > > 2. The document itself is closed except for the appendix which states it
> > > contains the OGC of the product.
> >
> > In other words you've closed OGC. Sorry not allowed under the OGL.
> >
> > > 3. Release two booklets. Close Book A and release Book B as the OGC from
> > > Book A.
> >
> > Once again you've closed OGC in book A. This is not permited under the
> > OGL.
>
> If I am the originator and sole copyright holder I can do whatever I damn
> well please. You make it sound like the OGL is forcing me to open up the
> whole damn thing. I did read the OGL and I don't see a problem with either 2
> or 3. There are other issues if I derived my work from someone else which I
> assume is what you are assuming.
I'm saying the OGL requires that you keep Open content Open. Whether or
not you make the whole thing Open is your choice. Your two examples used
open content and claimed it was closed.
> If fact this is exactly what WotC is doing with the SRD. It is released
> (part now eventually all) under OGL yet the original work is not. According
> to your statements it sounds like this is not permitted under the OGL. I
> don't read it that way.
It isn't permitted under the OGL, which is why Wizards isn't using the OGL
for their D&D books. You're correct that if you are the sole copyright
holder you can release your work both as OGC under the OGL and in some
other way that isn't under the OGL. The two examples you gave meant the
the closed portions were released under the OGL. I don't read that as
being permitted.
And to date I have not seen anyone publish (print media) under the OGL
that which they could claim to hold a sole copyright interest in. All of
it has somehow been derivative of the SRD, therefore Wizards has part of
the copyright.
> > The OGL requires that you find someway of keeping OGC open whenever it
> > appears. It does this by requiring that you identifiy where OGC appears.
> > Is there a reason people are trying to find ways to put OGC into closed
> > portions of products? Seems to go against the whole principle of open
> > gaming if you ask me.
> >
>
> In my cases 2 and 3 The Document sans Appendix and Book A are not OGC. Just
> the appendix and Book B.
But they both contain OGC and are released under the OGL. My reading of
the OGL indicates that any OGC used in a OGL product must be identified as
OGC. In cases 2 & 3 you are not identifying the OGC in the first two
documents, even though you've acknowledged they include identical material
as the second documents which are 100% OGC. And you can't release two
items together, one of which is covered by the OGL and one of which is
not. Ryan's been through this a number of times.
Anyone who wants to do what Wizards has done can. Develop your own RPG,
release it under normal copyright laws and then release portions of it as
OGC under the OGL. But you can't the bundle the two and sell them
together, since then they both have to follow the rules of the license.
And your own RPG can't be derivative of someone else's OGC. But I don't
think that's what this discussion has been about.
alec
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
