> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of nat > Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 4:24 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Ogf-l] multiple licenses > > But, unless i'm mistaken, the original copyright holder has not given > up any rights by using the WOGL to distribute their work. So, the > original author can do what she likes with her work, even if it > violates the WOGL--such as making a change to a subsequent version > that the WOGL wouldn't allow [hypothetical--for sake of my argument i > don't care if there actually are changes you can make to a work that > the WOGL "wouldn't allow"].
Absolutely. The OGL is a license for use. You need no license to use your own material. You might CHOOSE to abide by the license so as to simplify life for others and encourage others to play by the rules; but you're not required to do so. > So, it seems to me that the original author can release the work > under more than one license simultaneously. Never thought if this, but I think you've made a strong case. > I support this with > three examples and one interpretation of the license. Example 1: > WotC's D20SRD and D&D3E Players' Handbook. the same material has > been released both as OGC, governed by the WOGL (in the form of the > D20SRD) and as closed content, governed by copyright and trademark > (in the form of the 3E PH). While I agree with your point, I disagree with this example. The SRD and the PHB are not "the same material". They are two separate works. I believe it to be self-evident that the SRD is derivative of the PHB (given Ryan's description of the production process, I cannot imagine how it could NOT be derivative, under the very same copyright theories that inspired the OGL as a safe harbor); but then the OGL only grants you the right to reuse the derivative work, not the original work. So this is a less clear-cut example of your point. A more clearcut example would be if someone published the exact same material, save that one version had the OGL and one didn't. That person could then place additional restrictions on the second version. Since anyone who wanted could still reuse the first version, I can't see that the second version restricts them in any meaningful way. > Example 2: every time you release a work with the WOGL, you are in > fact resting the strength of the WOGL on the strength of copyright > and trademark: it is the legally-tested weight of these laws that > enables you to enforce the WOGL, by threatening to invoke them should > someone choose not to comply with the WOGL. So, effectively, you > must license any WOGLed work doubly, once under copyright (where the > "license" comes in the form of fair use and the ability of someone to > reuse the content provided they change the expression), and once > under the WOGL. Sorry, but I dislike using legal terms to mean what they do not. A copyright is not a license. Despite that, your point seems right so far to me: copyright protects certain rights for the author, and allows certain uses by others; while the OGL grants certain additional rights for reuse by licensees. > as we have discussed here, it is worth giving up the > rights that copyright give you, in return for the "safe harbor" of > the WOGL, but most have also agreed that you could simply use your > rights of reuse under standard copyright, and ignore the WOGL. (What > exactly those rights would net you, in terms of what can be > reused/derived from/drawn upon, is up in the air, but the fact that > they exist doesn't seem to be in contention.) Those rights are indeed open to debate, as you say: they exist, but people disagree as to what they cover. In fact, one side of the debate does not even see the license as giving up much (or anything) in the way of rights, because they believe that a judge would eventually find that copyright prohibits unlicensed reuse of the works in question. The value of the safe harbor is it means we can reuse works without settling that debate, which would be a long and expensive and nasty legal battle in which there would likely be few winners. > Example 3: D20STL and WOGL. Clearly, the D20STL adds other terms and > conditions to the use of material, just not directly. That is, you > can use the material of the D20SRD as outlined under the WOGL. But > if you want the added benefit of the D20 logo, you have to agree to > further terms, which restrict your reuse of the OGC in the D20SRD. > This seems to me like "other terms or conditions" applied to OGC > distributed using the WOGL, namely: "you may only alter this OGC in > this way if you do not wish to use the D20STL. hmmm...not sure this > particular example is sound, since the D20STL is a separate license, > and, technically at least, doesn't apply to the D20SRD at all--but > there *is* that list of reserved terms, all of which are drawn from > the OGC of the D20SRD... And of course, that's clearly covered by the OGL. The OGL itself provides a clear restriction: you cannot claim compatibility or coadaptability with any trademark you do not own unless you have a separate license outside the OGL. The D20 STL is that separate license. It does not add any terms to nor subtract any terms from the OGL. I'm still struggling to figure out whether it applies any additional terms or conditions to any Open Game Content distributed using the OGL. The two big requirements are: * Minimum 5% OGC. Now that doesn't restrict the OGC itself in any way. * No rules for character creation and advancement. I can see how you might see that as an additional term or condition. I believe, though, that Section 2 was intended to be about restrictions on distribution. This is the clause which effectively says, "Once it's open, it's open." Your interpretation seems valid to me, though: the D20 STL effectively limits what may be released as (or along with) OGC. In that way, it could be seen as a sort of prior term or condition. I'd be interested to hear what an actual legal mind has to say on this. * No redefining reserved terms. This again seems to be a sort of prior condition. > So, adding all this up, it seems to me that the original author (but > *not* subsequent users of OGC) could choose to release a work under > two licenses as alternatives, rather than stacking them. In other > words, just as using the WOGL implicitly says "you may reuse this > work subject to the terms of the WOGL *or* subject to the terms of > copyright", you could, say, release something under the WOGL and the > OOGL (and copyright), or the WOGL and the Gnu FDL (and copyright). > You could not demand that someone abide by both licenses to reuse the > material (unless, perhaps, their terms were effectively identical?), > but you could say that "you may derive from and/or reuse this work, > provided you abide by the terms of *either* the WotC OGL *or* the > OOGL". > > What do others think? Obvious holes in my logic that i missed? > Misunderstanding of the WOGL or open licenses in general? Something > else that you need to smack me upside the head with? I think you've raised some fascinating questions. But I'm left with one more: why? I'm not seeing any benefit in the extra work. Martin L. Shoemaker Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com http://www.UMLBootCamp.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
