Re: licenses for RPGs
Do you have the right to make a game which is mechanically compatible with another game? Yes, it appears that you probably do, unless there is a patent or trademark right involved. Do you have the right to make a product which contains the unique copyrighted content of DD, or derivative works therefrom? No, in my opinion, you do not. And in-between lies a big grey area where only a court can decide, on a case by case basis, if a particular work is an infringing derivative work. The OGL (like the GPL) is just a framework for getting rid of the threat of lawsuits and the grey area. Sure, you could black-box and clean-room Linux, but you're far more likely to use Linux with the GPL, because you can do so at essentially no cost, and in a framework which provides for little risk of litigation. The OGL framework, when applied to the System Reference Document, provides a way to make DD compatible content that is far, far more extensive than the basic rights you might have as they relate to the public domain status of the game rules of DD. And there's no grey area. Both conditions which make it possible to bring to market a commercial product without having to provide for a substantial threat of litigation. And it's furthermore quite silly to point at the former TSR (now Wizards of the Coast) business and say that the climate of litigation is fostered by one company. Every commerical hobby game publisher has taken the exact same position for 25 years - that the mere game rule content in an RPG is the least part of the copyrighted work of an RPG, and that derivative works based on such a product are infringing. The OGL and the d20 concept are a step away from the parochial view of RPGs as isolated creative endeavors and towards a view of clearly deliniated rights - and to my mind, that's a positive step forward. Ryan
Re: licenses for RPGs
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Ryan S. Dancey wrote: The OGL framework, when applied to the System Reference Document, provides a way to make DD compatible content that is far, far more extensive than the basic rights you might have as they relate to the public domain status of the game rules of DD. And there's no grey area. Both conditions which make it possible to bring to market a commercial product without having to provide for a substantial threat of litigation. That's where the extortion comes in. "If you submit to our conditions, you can do something which is legal anyway, but which we'll otherwise sue you into bankruptcy for". And it's furthermore quite silly to point at the former TSR (now Wizards of the Coast) business and say that the climate of litigation is fostered by one company. Every commerical hobby game publisher has taken the exact same position for 25 years - that the mere game rule content in an RPG is the least part of the copyrighted work of an RPG, and that derivative works based on such a product are infringing. Ryan, the problem is that TSR has bizarre ideas of what constitutes a derivative work, as well as bizarre ideas that the company owns all derivative works, which together amounts to a threat, not only to sue, but to take other people's works without compensation.
Re: licenses for RPGs
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, David Johnson wrote: The only licenses halfway-acceptable for me are the OOGl and OGL. What do you like about these licenses? I have two issues with them. First, they are lengthy and potentially confusing (to the user) licenses. Second, they are copyleft, and I am not desiring a copyleft license for this project. Unfortunately, the Open Gaming License will only approve copylefted licenses and games. In other words, I can release a public domain game and they would refuse to call it free and open. That seems bizarre to me. -- * Phil Hunt * "An unforseen issue has arisen with your computer. Don't worry your silly little head about what has gone wrong; here's a pretty animation of a paperclip to look at instead." -- Windows2007 error message
Re: licenses for RPGs
On Tuesday March 20 2001 01:39 pm, phil hunt wrote: Second, they are copyleft, and I am not desiring a copyleft license for this project. Unfortunately, the Open Gaming License will only approve copylefted licenses and games. In other words, I can release a public domain game and they would refuse to call it free and open. That seems bizarre to me. To me as well. It would be like the FSF saying that the MIT and BSD licenses are not Free. The Open Gaming Foundation can do whatever they want with their own stuff, but defining an upper limit on openness is ludicrous. It might be too open for their tastes, but it's still open. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
Re: licenses for RPGs
The Open Gaming License isn't quite what it seems. The difference between that license and the GPL is that without the GPL, you can't distribute copies at all, and the GPL gives you the right to distribute copies under some conditions--that is, it adds rights. The Open Gaming license is closer to extortion. The key is that game rules are not copyrightable, and normally you'd have complete rights to create D20-compatible material. However, TSR threatens to sue people who do that. Since nobody can afford the cost of a lawsuit from TSR, TSR can prevent perfectly legal activity this way. What the Open Gaming License says "if you adhere to these conditions, we promise not to sue you for something that you really have the right to do anyway". Without the license you have *more* rights--just less freedom from being bankrupted by frivolous lawsuits.
Re: licenses for RPGs
On Wednesday March 21 2001 05:46 am, Ken Arromdee wrote:
The Open Gaming license is closer to extortion. The key is that game rules
are not copyrightable, and normally you'd have complete rights to create
D20-compatible material. However, TSR threatens to sue people who do that.
Since nobody can afford the cost of a lawsuit from TSR, TSR can prevent
perfectly legal activity this way.
Don't I know it! I was once threatened with a lawsuit for creating a
character generator for [unnamed company] ("We're planning to write our
own").
I think the Open Gaming Foundation (aka TSR, aka WoTC) is quite hypocritical
in demanding that all free games be copyleft. Yeah right! Maybe I'd pay more
attention if it wasn't so gosh darned illegal to photocopy DD and give out
copies to my players.
Oh, and since the possibility exists that some former [unnamed company]
employees may be contributing to my project, the tables may yet turn.
--
David Johnson
___
http://www.usermode.org
licenses for RPGs
--- David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A while ago you may recall that I inquired as to free and open licenses for documentation. I chose the FDL at that time since the document in question was for software covered by the GPL. I am now creating a roleplaying game with some other people that needs a free and open license. It may be some months before it is released. If you have not done so already, check out: http://opengamingfoundation.org/ http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/licenses.html http://gamespawn.com/library/links/ -- David Wallace Croft http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~croft
Re: licenses for RPGs
On Monday March 19 2001 06:55 pm, David Croft wrote: I am now creating a roleplaying game with some other people that needs a free and open license. It may be some months before it is released. If you have not done so already, check out: http://opengamingfoundation.org/ http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/licenses.html http://gamespawn.com/library/links/ The only licenses halfway-acceptable for me are the OOGl and OGL. I have two issues with them. First, they are lengthy and potentially confusing (to the user) licenses. Second, they are copyleft, and I am not desiring a copyleft license for this project. Unfortunately, the Open Gaming License will only approve copylefted licenses and games. In other words, I can release a public domain game and they would refuse to call it free and open. If I wanted a copyleft license I would use the FDL, since it is the most sensible. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org
