> It seems to me that complying with the OGL consists mainly of following a > few VERY simple steps and it's rather disappointing to me that almost three > years into the OGL, we are still having problems with them...
It's my impression -- and ONLY my impression, with no data behind it -- that the number of problems is declining. > 2.) As soon as you use Open Game Content from another source, update your > Section 15. Don't try to go through the document after the fact and figure > out where everything came from - as soon as you add something to your > document, update Section 15. Better yet, once you decide to add something, > update Section 15 first, THEN add the material. This is a nice practice in theory; and if I ever get my UML book out of the way so I can work on my own d20 projects, it's one I'll follow. Why? Because I'll be a one-man shop; and I trust myself to understand most of the basic issues with the OGL. But contrarily, this advice may not be so simple for larger companies. For some, the creative people writing the material are not the administrative/legal people ensuring compliance. There are some creative people who do not understand the OGL; they only understand the game mechanics and the stories they want to tell. (NOTE TO ALL YOU CREATIVE PEOPLE OUT THERE: I am ONLY talking about a problem that a company COULD face with a division of labor between admin and creative, ESPECIALLY if "creative" means outside freelancers. I know that many good creative people DO understand the OGL far better than I do; but Sigil's trying to define safety guidelines, and I'm trying to point out one possible hole in the guidelines.) So though I like this practice, I think it needs some modification. I'm not sure what, exactly, but it comes down to project management. Maybe the project manager needs to "own" Section 15, and tell the creative folks what sources they're allowed to draw from, PERIOD. If they want to draw from something else, they have to inform the PM, and let him or her decide. Then the PM can review the material in question, decide whether he or she believes its OGC is "clean" and clearly marked, and only then add it to Section 15 and authorize its use. And even there, there's a further complication: if the creative people don't understand the OGL well, they may not be clear on which parts of a given work are and are not licensed under the OGL. So the PM may want to play six-year-old-with-a-highlighter, highlighting those parts of each work which may be reused. And even after all of these precautions: review your work! That goes for one-man shops and for large studios with lots of division of labor. A second set of eyes goes a long way toward assuring yourself that you're in compliance. > Anyone want to disagree, add to the list, explain something > better, etc.? I think you've made an excellent list, and some great points. 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://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
