Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 11:11 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: but aside from that, you would need a license if you intend to just copy the d20 system (or create a derivative thereof). I think there is a miscommunication here: I think Ken is not talking about copying the d20 system but, for example, making a game system that is compatible with the d20 system rules. Of course, copying the d20 system, text and all, would clearly be copyright violation, but would using the d20 mechanic, the d20 attributes or some other mechanical aspect of the d20 system be copyright infringement. I would argue not. If you still think that game mechanics are not copyrightable, can you point me to some authority to support your claim. I'd be interested to see how they are distinguished from things like cookbooks (which are copyrighted). AFAIK, there is no pre-existing case law that demonstrates that game mechanics are or are not copyrightable. There have been cases of people being brought to court for making compatible rules (Palladium I believe did this) but I think the case was settled out of court. I would also note that there is a long history in the RPG industry of publishing games with mechanics that are identical if not the same as Dungeons and Dragons. That said, I would argue that, in the same way you cannot copyright mathematical formula, you cannot copyright game mechanics, only their representations. For example, you can copyright cookbooks, but I don't think you can copyright the mere recipes themselves. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 12:01 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: But the text is an embodiment of the expression of the game... Is it? If I take, for example, the experience progression tables from the d20 system I can easily determine that they use a simple mathematical formula. I can extract this formula and then use to it produce my own tables for experience. Clearly, in this case, the text is not the embodiment of the game. I would imagine it depends on what you define a game mechanic to be. Well, the industry is very much of the opinion that it is copyrightable... so absent case law or clear statutory language to the contrary, I'm having a tough time believing they are not copyrightable. In these instances, industry custom carries a lot of weight. I would point you to games such as Tunnels and Trolls, Warhammer FRP and others which closely mimic the rules of Dungeons and Dragons and have been published for years within the industry. The industry has a long history of copying rules from other games and, is in fact reliant on the sharing of game mechanics and concepts (dice pools, alignment, attributes, etc). Wizard's of the Coast do not constitute the industry. But a math formula is not original expression, nor is it an original idea (which is why it's not protectable under patent law either). As for recipes, yes, they are copyrighted. I understood mere lists of ingredients were not copyrightable unless accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.[1] As a broader point... the line that distinguishes ideas from expression (and thus copyright law from patent law) is anything but clear. I would agree there is no clear legal precedent here, one way or the other. [1] http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 13:07 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: Sure, there is an underlying mathmatical formula. And you are free to use any mathmatical formula to create charts to your heart's content. But the DD people chose a particular formula and have created tangible works of authorship with that formula. When you use their underlying formula to create your own new tables, you are copying their expression. My point is not that you can cheat copyright by skipping through mathematics, but that the game mechanics - the rules themselves - are not expressive enough. I think there is a distinction between the rules and the description of the rules. One can describe how the rules work and can copyright that description or expression, but can one copyright the underlying concepts and ideas the rules themselves? In the same way that lists of items for recipes are not copyrightable, one could similarly argue that tables of numbers are not copyrightable either. I think what you are trying to say is that, for example, the combination of the idea of experience progression (gain points to gain levels and extra powers) and the tables is a substantial or original expression. I would argue not. I also think this argument is centering around whether it is possible, through the existing law, to copyright game mechanics, and not so much on whether it is right to do so. As we have seen from recent legal shenanigans, it's possible to do lots of things with law in certain territories as long as you have enough money. I would say, it does not necessarily follow that it is right to do so. You're absolutely right. Microsoft and IBM violate eachother's patents all the time, but I assure you they both believe patents cover software. Just because industry players violate eachother's IP does not mean the industry does not believe the IP exists. Lots of reasons not to sue... and a bit one is the chance the court may totally disagree with the argument and end IP on games all togehter. But for the record, WoTC's market share in the game industry is of good size, and when you remember they are actually owned by Hasbro, it is nearly 80% of the game market. I'm not really talking about big companies: roleplaying is a pretty small industry, if you can call it an industry. It's made up of a couple of big companies and lots and lots of little companies. Neither am I talking about violating patents: I don't think a patent for game mechanics would stand up, although WotC have certainly tried. I don't think one could simply characterize the general opinion of the industry in that way. We know WotC consider game mechanics copyrightable, but I would pause to state that the rest of the industry would consider it so. I would also note how undemocratic it is that those companies with the highest market share would seem to be able to dictate interpretation of the law. IANAL but I hope the law doesn't always work that way, certainly for the sake of smaller companies and groups like the Debian Group, and free software in general. Certainly in Europe, despite the efforts of various market leaders, we are still fortunate enough not to have software patents, yet. They are a list of numbers combinded with extensive instructions (wow, extensive... I've been learning them again in preperation for starting a campaing... the stuff is as complicated as case law). One migth even call it substantial literary expression in the form of explanation or directions. I would agree the extensive instructions are copyrightable, but the disagreement would center on whether the underlying concepts and ideas (i.e. the actual mechanics) are copyrightable. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 25/08/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/24/05, Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In other words, it discriminates against the legitimate field of endeavour of writing games and other works compatible with other trademarked works. Please also see my notes on restrictions on software usage. This might be a real issue, but I'm not certain about that. Essentially they're saying that you can't use other people's trademarks without their permission. I think it goes beyond merely a note that the license is not a grant of trademark right. It excludes the ability to indicate compatability with other trademarked works. Imagine if a license prevented you from writing an import/export license for MS Word or some other trademarked work in a word processor for fear of indicating compatibility or co-adaptability. From what I understand from the author's opinion on marking compatability I would argue that this interpretation is the original intent. It's specific intent is to require downstream user's to use a seperate license for the purposes of using Wizard's of the Coasts d20 trademark license and restricting claims of compatability with their Dungeons and Dragons trademark. As I understand it Section 7 is there because of some dispute over how trademark law can be interpreted for claiming compatability. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 13:05 -0400, Raul Miller wrote: [Note: I do agree that their trademark language should be upgraded so that the usual implicit rights to use trademarks are retained by users of this license.] I would note that the official Open Game License FAQ by the license authors specifically notes that the OGL restricts a users' implicit right to use trademarks by deliberately excluding the (legitimate [1]) ability to indicate compatibility with any trademark.[2] The interpretation that this is simply a language mistake and that Section 7 is simply claiming the license is not a grant of trademark rights seems incorrect to me, and I would imagine a court would interpret the section as it reads[3]. [1] http://www.inta.org/info/faqsU.html - International Trademark Association FAQ. [2] http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f - Open Game License:Frequently Asked Questions. Do a page search of compatibility. [3] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 24/08/05, Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Raul Miller wrote: The problem is that the GPL says if you obey this license, you can do these things that you otherwise can't do. The OGL says if you obey this license, you can do these things that are otherwise legal anyway, we just promise not to bankrupt you with baseless lawsuits that we know you can't afford to defend against. Game rules can't be copyrighted (though their specific text can), but the OGL is based around TSR's/WotC's attempt to assert copyright in its game rules and claim that nobody can use them without a license. I disagree. OGL says: 4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content. Yes--but it also defines open game content as follows: Open Game Content means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. Game mechanics, methods, procedures, etc. are not copyrightable. This license is an attempt to license something that TSR (or its successors) don't own. A license which licenses something that can't be owned isn't a DFSG-free license. The Section 7 of the OGL also states that: You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. In other words, it discriminates against the legitimate field of endeavour of writing games and other works compatible with other trademarked works. Please also see my notes on restrictions on software usage. Kind regards.. -- Ricrdo Gladwell
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 19/08/05, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Granted. But when the question is is the GFDL a license suitable to release free documentation? their answer is very different from our... :-( That's the main reason I came to debian-legal first. If someone could point me in the direction of a more appropriate forum I would be most grateful. We have so *few* DFSG-free non-programs, that I don't consider this as a minor issue... I'm worried about this possible scenario: * a user comes to us seeking for license analysis or recommendation * we tell her if you are not talking about a Debian (prospective) package, go away * she finds another 'forum' and follows their analyses and recommendations * sooner or later she becomes an author and writes something useful * she chooses the license based on what she was recommended * many other people contribute to her work * an RFP or ITP is filed against that work in the Debian BTS * it's time for debian-legal to check the license * ouch! the work does not comply with the DFSG: must be rejected from main * it's too late to persuade people to relicense: another work is lost Maybe we could have talked to her earlier in this process... :-( I was hoping to review the Open Game License[1]. Although not a software license, it has been used in the popular PCGen software application which could, hypothetically, be added to Debian at some point. -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 22 Aug 2005 10:48:13 GMT, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if the freeculture.org groups are good for this? You will find a range of opinions there, but other than the anti-commercial strand, it's not that different most of the time. I actually find few people agree that the freedoms that apply to software should similarly apply to other types of work, especially digital works such as documents, images, etc. Only debian-legal really seems to take such a stance, even if there seems to be some disagreement with the list on this point. Otherwise, the FSF doesn't seem to have any similar forums. The closest thing would seem to be your own mailing list. I would also note that the freeculture.org site seems to be down. I was hoping to review the Open Game License[1]. Although not a software license, it has been used in the popular PCGen software application which could, hypothetically, be added to Debian at some point. [1] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html I think there's a small risk in the COPYRIGHT NOTICE wording if someone adds adverts in it and there's a half-implementation of trademark law in it, but I'm not sure it's enough to block a work under that licence. I don't understand why it needed a new licence for this. Neither do I. For future reference I would also note the OGL would seem to have restrictions on using content in software[1] and allows the mixing of copyleft open content and closed content in a manner similar to the invariant sections in the FDL. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On 22/08/05, Sean Kellogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Funny story about the Open Game License!!! This summer I intered for Wizards of the Coast in their legal department. Your kudos just went up in the gamer community. In some circles, people would happily give up their right arms to inter at Wizard's of the Coast just cleaning the toilets. :-) 1) they consider the OGL to be similar to how Linux is licensed. I think this is a dubious claim: Wizard's claim there are several restrictions for using open content in software, most notably that open content cannot be compiled into binaries. 2) no one at Legal has really looked at the OGL for some time. That is interesting. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 21:47 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Plus the Debian project as a whole. We already had that GR. You lost, badly. Oh, and that whole creative commons mob. Yeah. Real few people. Wow. That seemed unnecessarily hostile. I'm not really sure what you think I lost but I thought the Debian Group generally held that the DSFG should similarly apply to documentation. I've still yet to figure out exactly what the Creative Commons stands for but I don't really see them taking a stance similar to free software in a few areas, such as non-commercial licenses. -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules for submitting licenses for review
On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 03:07 +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: I prefer the more charitable interpretation that you want debian-legal's advice because you think you'll agree more with our viewpoints than with other possible suppliers of license advice. Thank you for the polite summary: your charitable interpretation would indeed be correct. I have to admit to being unfamiliar with any internal disagreement within the Debian Group and I had no wish to stir up any old enmities. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rules for submitting licenses for review
Hi, I'm new to this list and I'm planning to submit a license for review. I'm not sure of the procedure for doing so: I know I should send the entire text of the license in the body of my email, but what other rules are there and what is the scope? Could I submit a license for review just for my own personal interest and even though it is unlikely said license will ever be used in debian free or non-free? TIA... -- Ricardo Gladwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
