>>Uhm, are you sure?<< Pretty darn sure.
>>I create a game world. Let's call it "Mutants, Mecha, and Magic", just for fun. :) Part of this gameworld is my lengthy list of completely original mutant monsters, such as Cat-people, dog-people, snake-people, etc, etc, etc. The entire document is made OGC.<< At this point all of that material is OGC and is considered freely available to anyone who adheres to the OGL. In addition, that material must now follow the rules of the OGL. Including section 2 which states (essentially) that the OGL license applies to any content designated OGC and that "no other terms or conditions may be applied to any OGC distributed using this license". >>Now, some other company comes along. They want to publish a version of my rules which uses their house system, and which will not be published under the OGL.<< That is doable. >>It seems to me I still own the copyright on 'Cat-People', (the OGL does NOT place material in the public domain, after all, I retain all rights not explicitly granted to others by the OGL)<< That's true but the OGL has given the OGC content which you designated "a perpetual, worldwide, royalty free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this (the OGL) License". So yes, you can license it, or sell it or grant permission but technically they can go ahead and use it without your permission. However there is one startling catch. >>and can tell them, "Go ahead, sure, use it." Their game does not become open content because I sub-licensed my copyrighted material to them,<< Wrong. The material is now OGC. You can sub-license it to them if you can get them to agree to such terms but there is nothing that says they *need* to do so. moreover the material is OGC and cannot be declared "closed". Finally, and this is the "hooker" if a product uses OGC material they *must* adhere to the OGL. >>but, neither can they complain about any OGL work which also uses that same material, PROVIDED that material comes from the OGC version, not their non-OGC version.<< That kind of depends (see next section) >>If they take 'Cat-People' and create the new race 'Tiger-People', their work does not derive from the OGC -- it derives from the separate license I gave them, and 'Tiger-People' remains non-Open, or so it would seem.<< Here is where it gets murky. If company A derives material from company B but changes the rules and the name and then publishes not under the OGL is that material OGC? Well I think if both the content and the name changed the derivation would be hard to prove. Even for a licensing contract. >>Now, obviously, material in M,M&M which was derived from other OGC sources CANNOT be sub-licensed by me in such a manner. The mechanics of the cat-people race, for instance, would need to be totally rewritten. But the *name*, even if I release it as OGC rather than keeping in PI, I should be able to also license elsewhere. However, no one else can, because only I, as the original copyright holder, can allow the use of the OGC in non-OGC publications.<< >>I think....<< I am afraid that I believe you are wrong. The OGL does not differentiate between rules and names. If you declare either OGC then you have applied the license to them. That is why companies go to such pains to clearly mark out rules content and others proudly boast that "all" content in their products is OGC. >>If not, this is a powerful argument for keeping names, etc, PI...<< This has been one of the biggest issues regarding the licnese since day 1. AV > _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
