<< Now, anyone who is familiar with my works knows that I do utilize open game content from other sources when it has a purpose. Take one look at the section 15 of Pale Designs and you will see that. When I asked Matthew about using material from Quintessential Rogue that they had originally declared closed, he had no problems at all about it becoming open content as a result of my use. >>
If the material in question was legitimately closed to begin with, this was all proper. If the material in question was either reused OGC or derived from OGC, then it must be open, and clearly indicated as such. You do not need to ask, though it may be courteous to do so. (I still wonder: how many publishers send a courtesy message to WotC to ask to use the SRD?) And if it's difficult to tell whether the material is open or not -- I'm not saying that it is, but that has been contended more than once -- that's a problem. "Just ask us" is NOT clearly indicating anything. << To be honest, if that question were to be asked again today given the skewering certain folks seem bent on pursuing, I doubt he would grant it. >> Matthew mentioned some poor behavior on some other lists. I haven't seen those lists, so I can't speak to that. But I haven't seen any sign of "skewering" here. Maybe you have. Maybe that's a matter of opinion. But you should be aware that people accused of "skewering" may see themselves as trying to clear things up. << Now, having said that, its apparent that everyone wants the ideal situation of every publisher producing nothing but 100% open content so they can use it without worrying about whether its product identity. >> Nope. A few would prefer that. Most simply want the OGC clearly indicated and the Section 15 maintained properly. And there are differences of opinion on what those two concepts mean. << What it boils down to is that regardless of what folks on this list may think, it is no one other than Wizard's responsible to police the OGL. It is their license and their responsibility. >> Sorry. Wrong. If I release OGC under the OGL, I become a licensor of that material under the OGL. If someone then misuses MY OGC, it's MY responsibility to enforce that license with regard to my material. Wizards does not own the compromised material, so they have no standing to enforce my license. And then there's another side of the problem, where Wizards has standing to act but not necessarily motivation. (And note: I AM NOT SAYING MONGOOSE NOR ANY OTHER PUBLISHER HAS DONE THIS. I AM SAYING IT IS A POTENTIAL PROBLEM. I AM NOT SKEWERING ANYONE HERE, SO EVERYONE PLEASE RELAX.) Suppose Wizards releases OGC -- like, say, the SRD -- and then Company X releases derivative Product Y. Further suppose that Product Y very clearly indicates every bit of OGC that it uses verbatim from the SRD, and has a superlatively written Section 15. Further suppose that Product Y is brilliantly written, stunningly illustrated, AND makes people want to go out and buy extra copies of the Wizards books just so that they'll always be able to play Product Y. But now suppose one fatal flaw: Product Y is filled with material derived from the SRD, but NOT clearly indicated as OGC. Company X and Product Y are thus in violation of their license from Wizards; but Wizards is benefitting from the sales of Product Y. Now suppose Wizards has let go every person who "gets" the Open Gaming concept, and is left only with bottom-line people. Are those bottom-liners going to raise a finger to interfere with Product Y? Doubtful. They're benefitting, violations or no. But it's the rest of us who lose by this blatant license violation. Wizards has benefitted. Company X has benefitted; but they failed to live up to their obligation to allow the rest of us to benefit. And while the OGL gives us no legal standing in this regard, it's not true that we have no standing in the community. The OGL is supposed to guarantee that those who get license and benefit also give license and benefit. And in theory, the OGL is supposed to ensure that new, great works can serve as the basis for even newer, even better works. So even a non-publisher has an interest when someone closes off a chain of derivation. It would be entirely proper for us to raise the issue here in this forum, which is expressly dedicated to discussions of how best to work under the OGL. There ARE reactions which would be improper (I recall the bad old days when a list member threatened to "force open" works he deemed to be insufficiently open); but discussion here would not be one of them. Bashing would be; but I haven't seen bashing, just the sort of wringer Clark and others have been through in the past when their own material raised questions. << And wishes (or open sentiments) that someone should get sued just to set everyone else in line is about as out of line as some of the comments on this list regarding Mongoose's attitude. >> I missed the message where someone wished for or openly encouraged a lawsuit to set everyone else in line. I DID see a message where Doug predicted that WHAT HE SEES AS lax compliance with the OGL will only continue and get worse, up until someone suffers serious consequences such as a lawsuit. Now Doug and you may disagree on whether there's a trend toward lax compliance; but in no way was he advocating a lawsuit. Rather, he was predicting that current trends may lead to a lawsuit (exactly the thing the OGL was designed to preclude as much as possible). There's a difference between predicting and advocating. 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
