Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
woodelf wrote: And, while picking a license may be complex, at least the licenses are readable and clear. I don't see anything like the still-unresolved ambiguity over exactly who has authority to declare IP, what can be declared IP, and what the scope of said declarations is. Kindly, then, show me the Creative Commons explanation for the following related questions: * Does my website with advertisments count as commercial use? * What if I'm paid for something else and I use it in a matter of my primary course of work? * What if I sell it but give all of the profits to charity? All of the gross to charity? In comparison to the above, the OGL's reliance upon legal copyright standings for declaring OGL and PI is hardly worth wondering over. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dragon is licensing directly from WotC, if I'm not mistaken. Dragon doesn't need to follow the OGL or d20 STL at all because it is getting direct permission from WotC to use its open content AND PI. Dragon has a number of advertisements and articles historically that use the OGL. Magazines are themselves works which contain other works. So technically the magazine as a whole may not be a work covered by the license but individual ads and articles may be, by themselves, works covered by the license. However, WotC FAQ says if you distribute things like this (bundled somehow) then the OGL extends to the bundle instead of the covered work (I do NOT agree with this interpretation). But if this is true, by their own logic, then every Dragon with a single OGL'd ad (Mutants and Masterminds did this a lot), etc. makes the whole Dragon a work covered by the license and potentially makes everything in the work covered by the license OGC if it hasn't been declared as PI. Clearly, this is not what is happening. Only individual articles are works covered by the license, not the entire magazine, and WotC's FAQ file question on bundled goods is full of crap. They were foolish to make that comment about the way bundled items and collections work and then have individual OGL covered ads in their magazine. With all due respect, an advertisment is not an actual product, merely a method to promote and expose their product to potential customers. The publisher of the Covered Product have every right to advertise their OGL-based product, just as long they follow section 7 of the OGL, anywhere. And DRAGON did not have to be under the OGL for the sole purpose of offering advertisement space for OGL-based publishers. If that is the case, then the entire OGL and d20 would be worthless, and that's not what Ryan Dancey intended. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
Doug Meerschaert wrote: woodelf wrote: And, while picking a license may be complex, at least the licenses are readable and clear. I don't see anything like the still-unresolved ambiguity over exactly who has authority to declare IP, what can be declared IP, and what the scope of said declarations is. Kindly, then, show me the Creative Commons explanation for the following related questions: * Does my website with advertisments count as commercial use? * What if I'm paid for something else and I use it in a matter of my primary course of work? * What if I sell it but give all of the profits to charity? All of the gross to charity? I'll rely on the well-established legal definitions of not-for-profit (which i don't know, but which should be relatively easy to suss out--the IRS is pretty explicit about these things). In comparison to the above, the OGL's reliance upon legal copyright standings for declaring OGL and PI is hardly worth wondering over. I don't understand this statement. Are you saying that the WotC OGL builds the authority to declare PI upon copyright law? How is that possible, given that almost everything in the exemplary list for PI is not protectable by copyright? Not to mention the fact that it took *how* much discussion, including trained legal professionals, to sort out whether the lists in the OGC and PI definitions in the license were exemplary or definitive? And i still don't see anything in, say, the WotC FAQ on the license that expresses that understanding in plain language for others to benefit from the fruits of that discussion. Nor is there any way, IMHO, to find out about the third type of content allowed when using the WotC OGL, save for digging through the archives of this list--and even around here we're not 100% in agreement that there *is* a 3rd type of content under the license. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/12/2005 11:03:33 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 12 Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote: I don't recall bibliographies being specifically banned by the OGL. But other people's trademarks and such are, and that can very definitely include book titles, and company names. The OGL forbids you from indicating compatibility or co-adaptability with other companies' Trademarks, neither of which a Bibliography does. They are just fine for OGL books. Chris Pramas Green Ronin It also forbids you from using PI, period. And while it's hard to trademark the title of a single book, lots of companies have been claiming their book titles as PI. Also, compatibility and co-adaptability is a pretty vague, reaching phrase. I'm not sure a bibliography couldn't be interpreted as qualifying. If i were being very careful, i think i'd avoid any bibliography entries that included PI. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
In a message dated 8/24/2005 3:21:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With all due respect, an advertisment is not an actual product, merely a method to promote and expose their product to potential customers. The publisher of the Covered Product have every right to advertise their OGL-based product, just as long they follow section 7 of the OGL, anywhere. And DRAGON did not have to be under the OGL for the sole purpose of offering advertisement space for OGL-based publishers. If that is the case, then the entire OGL and d20 would be worthless, and that's not what Ryan Dancey intended. Mutants and Masterminds, as an advertisement during product launch not infrequently had multi-page spreads. I think in Dragon, but certainly in other gaming magazines. They had condensed rules and a character. They clearly were promotional materials. And, drum roll, they had the OGL in like 3-4 point font buried in them if memory serves. Just because you guys haven't seen these promotional inserts doesn't mean that they didn't exist. By WotC's logic, if they have an extended promotional pullout (as noted above) or ANY other OGL-covered article then they would have covered the entirety of the whole magazine with the OGL. That's not my logic (I disagree with that reading of the OGL, and I believe that you pick the covered work and the OGL extends only to that work). Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
In a message dated 8/23/2005 9:36:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How is an ad covered by the license? If it were, would the ad not be required to have a minimum of 5% OGC? Would it not require the OGL? The declaration of OGC and PI? An ad is a REPRESENTATION of the product – it is not the product. If the product is not compliant that is because of the product itself, not the ad (and the other way around.) There is NOTHING in the OGL about 5% OGC for coverage. That's the d20 STL. And I said Mutants and Masterminds, which is not d20 STL-covered. The extended promotional sample was in one or two magazines. I thought Dragon (but I can't promise that). It was probably in Game Trade magazine. http://64.17.155.164/files/mnm_preview.pdf That preview link is what I remember. Now, part of my point may be undermined if this wasn't in Dragon. It wouldn't be undermined in principle if SOMETHING that was OGL-covered was printed in Dragon without an overt attempt to cover the entire magazine with the license (by WotC's logic that the inclusion of one OGL'd item in a bundle requires that the entire item be covered). I may be wrong, but I think I've seen other OGL'd ad inserts before too, though I could be hallucinating that. The promotional insert above was definitely in gaming magazines, however. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
In a message dated 8/24/2005 3:43:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't understand this statement. Are you saying that the WotC OGL builds the authority to declare PI upon copyright law? How is that possible, given that almost everything in the exemplary list for PI is not protectable by copyright? Almost all of them are protectable, but only as collections of items. The case law on recipe books covers this type of copyrightability of collections of otherwise uncopyrightable elements. Also, things like names may be copyrightable insofar as they are attached to a very specific character description. A character name (or spell name, etc.) removed from its corresponding description and not presented inside the collection of other names that originally appeared with it would not be copyrightable (although it could be trademarkable). Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
Yes, that includes rules so it requires the OGL but its hardly an advertisement its a preview. Promotional material is not the same as an advertisement. The way you were talking in earlier emails you were speaking as though a typical ad required the OGLs inclusion. This is something entirely different. I still dont know if this would count in the way youre representing it, though, because its still not a complete presentation that is operational as a commercial product. It doesnt, for example, list the preview in Section 15, nor is there a declaration of OGC and PI (that I saw.) Its entirely non-functional. Regards, Steven Trustrum President For Life (or until the money runs out) Misfit Studios [EMAIL PROTECTED] 416-857-2433 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:33 AM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license In a message dated 8/23/2005 9:36:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How is an ad covered by the license? If it were, would the ad not be required to have a minimum of 5% OGC? Would it not require the OGL? The declaration of OGC and PI? An ad is a REPRESENTATION of the product it is not the product. If the product is not compliant that is because of the product itself, not the ad (and the other way around.) There is NOTHING in the OGL about 5% OGC for coverage. That's the d20 STL. And I said Mutants and Masterminds, which is not d20 STL-covered. The extended promotional sample was in one or two magazines. I thought Dragon (but I can't promise that). It was probably in Game Trade magazine. http://64.17.155.164/files/mnm_preview.pdf That preview link is what I remember. Now, part of my point may be undermined if this wasn't in Dragon. It wouldn't be undermined in principle if SOMETHING that was OGL-covered was printed in Dragon without an overt attempt to cover the entire magazine with the license (by WotC's logic that the inclusion of one OGL'd item in a bundle requires that the entire item be covered). I may be wrong, but I think I've seen other OGL'd ad inserts before too, though I could be hallucinating that. The promotional insert above was definitely in gaming magazines, however. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
In a message dated 8/24/2005 8:52:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The way you were talking in earlier emails you were speaking as though a typical ad required the OGL’s inclusion. No, in fact I wasn't speaking that way. I said NOTHING about a typical ad. I said that there were some advertising materials historically that have used the OGL and then I referred to MM. Also, I find it really hard to say that this isn't an extended ad. If you read the first page, it's basically an ad. If that had appeared by itself, it definitely would have been classified as an ad. You are, at this point, arguing semantics and utterly missing the point. If an OGL covered ad, preview, or article appears in a magazine, then according to WotC (but not according to me) the entire encompassing unit of distribution (boxed set, magazine, etc.) must be OGL covered, putting WotC in breach of their own license every time they publish anything like that without making declarations for the entire encompassing unit (like a magazine). This is something entirely different. I still don’t know if this would count in the way you’re representing it, though, because it’s still not a complete presentation that is operational as a commercial product. It doesn’t, for example, list the preview in Section 15, nor is there a declaration of OGC and PI (that I saw.) It’s entirely non-functional. Um, yes, it DOES list the preview in Section 15. Right from their Section 15: "Mutants Masterminds Preview, Copyright 2002, Green Ronin Publishing." And as to not listing OGC and PI, that just make it the grossest possible example of why WotC is foolish to claim what they do. The license says that inside a covered work, anything that's not PI is OGC (right in the definition of OGC -- OGC is any "covered work" except the parts that are PI'd). Now you can have a multi-part work (like a book, magazine, etc.) where not all of it is covered by the OGL, according to my reading of the phrase "covered work". However, according to WotC's reading of that phrase, their entire magazine would be a covered work without an OGC or PI definition. Now, depending on how a judge rules (if he followed WotC's logic), he'd either say: A) WotC failed to declare OGC and PI for their magazine and breached the license; and/or B) he'd say that since there is no PI, then 100% of the magazine is OGC (since the definition of OGC says any work covered by the license, except the parts that are PI, are OGC), including WotC's trademarks, etc. Again, I think this appeared in Dragon. I'm positive it appeared in other magazines, since I used to own a copy of a magazine (I think Game Trade Magazine or Dragon) with this preview. I think it appeared in both magazines, but Chris Pramas could probably tell us best. Also, as Woodelf has noted, other WotC 'zines (according to him) have definitely had OGL'd articles. All that is required to backup Woodelf's point is that one find ANY OGL covered article, promo, ad, etc. in a WotC magazine to bring their own FAQ into question. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] Reply-to problem
Is anyone having reply-to problems. A lot of the posts off this list, when I click "reply" are set to reply to the original author instead of to the list. Is this a problem with the list or with mail headers for the individuals I'm replying to? Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
In a message dated 8/24/2005 9:35:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nothing about the license allows it to apply disparately to WotC as opposed to the rest of us. Except that they are not a third-party and are the owners of the material from which all else is derived. This does create some disparity between them still needing to use the OGL in WotC works that include third-party material (Unearthed Arcana, etc.), but I don't know if it extends to something like Dragon, that is essentially an outsourced house organ where they pay to have those OGL articles included. To myself, a layman, there seems to be little technical difference between the two, but I also find it hard to believe that the license's originator has operated so long without realizing a discrepancy in their policy with regards to Dragon. Possible? Yeah. Likely? No. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
In a message dated 8/24/2005 10:09:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nobody is talking about licensing stuff from themselves. They clearly don't need the OGL for that. That's not what I'm saying Woodelf said that there are OGL'd things in some magazines and that if you look at their concept of bundling it would seem that it would make their whole magazine OGL covered (which raises tons of questions). I can't remember if the MM preview was just in Game Trade Magazine or also Dragon. But Woodelf says he's seen OGL covered stuff in WotC magazines. If we can find any example of even ONE OGL-covered thing in a WotC magazine where the whole magazine isn't treated as a covered work it sort of makes their FAQ clearly wrong. I think it's wrong even without an example. My point is that their FAQ is written for third-party publishers and clearly not themselves. Again, not being a lawyer, I can still assume that there are legal workarounds that don't apply to WotC as the originators of the license. The answer to the question in the FAQ could be as simple as ammending it to if you are not Wizards of the Coast ... Of course, if any of the list's lawyers care to speak up, it could be far more complex than that but, as I previously stated, it's more plausible that their position as the license's originator gives them more wiggle room than a third-party rather than them having a monthly magazine that's been published improperly for several years without anyone having brought it to their attention. You could, of course, fire an email off to WotC and ask them to clarify the point and their fact, rather than all of us speculating. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
My point is that their FAQ is written for third-party publishers and clearly not themselves. Again, not being a lawyer, I can still assume that there are legal workarounds that don't apply to WotC as the originators of the license. There is NO exclusion in the license that allows WotC to be treated differently from any other publisher during the times when they use the OGL except that they don't need to use the license to license stuff from themselves. Read the license for yourself. There's nothing there. And there's nothing at law that says the drafter of a license can ignore it's provisions. If anything, because this is a contract of adhesion, anywhere there is ambiguity, if WotC bring a case to court, the ambiguity is construed AGAINST the drafter, not in favor of the drafter, giving WotC nominally less protection at law and less wiggle room than a typical OGL user. The WotC FAQ makes the odd assumption, de facto, that if I have 3 products and I bundle them together in shrink wrap (let's say I am giving a bundled discount) that suddenly the shrinkwrap makes them one work and then the OGL extends to all of them if it extends to one of them. That's preposterous. There's only one part of the OGL that would apply to such a bundle. It says you may not make compatibility declarations "in conjunction with" an OGL-covered work. Instead the answer below wrongly says that the coverage comes from the fact that the OGL suddenly covers all products bundled together, even if they have separate and distinct copyrights, trying to rely on some construction of "covered work" which is fairly nonsensical. It's not the legal definition of "work" that needs to be construed so much as the legal definition of "in conjunction with". Now, a boxed set that is designed from start to finish as a single commercial unit may count as a work, but works may contain other works, and the OGL may be applied to any sub-work in the box instead of applying it to the containing work. Doing so would not mean that the containing work was OGL covered (beyond the "in conjunction with"clause). Q: I want to make a product that claims compatibility with someone else's Trademark, and uses Open Game Content. I'm going to put the Open Game Content in a separate booklet in a box, and only use the Trademark on the packaging on the box. Can I get away with this? A: No. The terms of the Open Game License extend to the whole work. If you have questions about the technical legal definition of a "work", consult your legal counsel. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Reply-to problem
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 09:31 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is anyone having reply-to problems. A lot of the posts off this list, when I click reply are set to reply to the original author instead of to the list. Is this a problem with the list or with mail headers for the individuals I'm replying to? So far it appears I only lost that one email that got returned directly to you (and I can't now repost to the entire list because it's on a different computer.) ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Dragon mag and OGC (was Re: Interesting comments about Creative C...
In a message dated 8/24/2005 12:04:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not sure how long they've been doing this (and if it was included when they did their 2 or so OGL'ed articles, and any OGL'ed ads), but I recall seeing it for quite a long time now. Thanks for the info, Ken. I wonder if they used to do that, but I'll leave Woodelf to do the research on that. In any case, I think that the OGL does not automatically apply in full to all parts of a bundle. I think that it applies: a) only where is explicitly applied AND ALSO b) it prohibits advertising compatibility with trademarks "in conjunction with" a covered work To me, the discussion really starts and ends there, and WotC's FAQ is wrong even if there isn't a single OGL'd article in any of their publications. The latter isn't what makes there FAQ wrong -- that part of their FAQ is just wrong. Such a publication would only prove that they don't even believe their FAQ. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
And there's nothing at law that says the drafter of a license can ignore it's provisions. In that case, even Wotc wouldn't be able to publish the PHB as they'd be restricted to the material in the SRD and that has since been made OGC by third parties. There are obviously cases where WotC is not subject to the OGL. It's possible that, because Dragon is publishing OGL material from other publishers (a Freeport article comes to mind) for which the author was likely paid rather than just using a third party's OGC and subsuming it into their own work without compensation the work is considered a WotC publication with permission to use a third-party PI instead of WotC using someone else's OGC. I'd have to see a copy of Dragon to see exactly how such articles are presented, but it's been a long time since I found the mag worth picking up. I'd also have to pick up a copy containing OGC to be sure that Dragaon hasn't simply put in somewhere something to the effect of This product operates under the OGL. Text X from Article Y is considered OGC. The rest of the magazine is not. The WotC FAQ makes the odd assumption, de facto, that if I have 3 products and I bundle them together in shrink wrap (let's say I am giving a bundled discount) that suddenly the shrinkwrap makes them one work and then the OGL extends to all of them if it extends to one of them. That's preposterous. I agree, that is preposterous. This is, however, many steps removed from something like Dragon magazine where the items are bound together with the same staples and cannot be removed from the rest of the bundle in any way for purchasing. It's also much different than a boxed set. Now, a boxed set that is designed from start to finish as a single commercial unit may count as a work, but works may contain other works, and the OGL may be applied to any sub-work in the box instead of applying it to the containing work. Doing so would not mean that the containing work was OGL covered (beyond the in conjunction withclause). Q: I want to make a product that claims compatibility with someone else's Trademark, and uses Open Game Content. I'm going to put the Open Game Content in a separate booklet in a box, and only use the Trademark on the packaging on the box. Can I get away with this? A: No. The terms of the Open Game License extend to the whole work. If you have questions about the technical legal definition of a work, consult your legal counsel. Again, unless you're able to break the box down and sell it's pieces individually as a matter of course, I don't see why the whole thing wouldn't be considered covered by the OGL as it catalogues, sells and was developed as a signle product. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Dragon mag and OGC (was Re: Interesting comments about Creative C...
Thanks for the info, Ken. I wonder if they used to do that, but I'll leave Woodelf to do the research on that. In any case, I think that the OGL does not automatically apply in full to all parts of a bundle. I think that it applies: a) only where is explicitly applied AND ALSO b) it prohibits advertising compatibility with trademarks in conjunction with a covered work To me, the discussion really starts and ends there, and WotC's FAQ is wrong even if there isn't a single OGL'd article in any of their publications. The latter isn't what makes there FAQ wrong -- that part of their FAQ is just wrong. Such a publication would only prove that they don't even believe their FAQ. Again, why not just email and ask? It could be a simple matter of poor wording in the fact. They could directly be talking about bundled products that are not sold in their individual pieces while you also read their FAQ to include products that are sold individually but are sleaved together for a special or the like. WotC could have simply not considered that situation when writing the FAQ. The FAQ is derived from such questions, after all. ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
What if I sell it but give all of the profits to charity? All of the gross to charity? Doesn't matter. This a red herring question. At law, any selling/distributing can be considered a commercial purpose, even if all profits, etc. are disgorged to charity. Just sayin'. Matt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Meerschaert Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 1:36 AM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license woodelf wrote: And, while picking a license may be complex, at least the licenses are readable and clear. I don't see anything like the still-unresolved ambiguity over exactly who has authority to declare IP, what can be declared IP, and what the scope of said declarations is. Kindly, then, show me the Creative Commons explanation for the following related questions: * Does my website with advertisments count as commercial use? * What if I'm paid for something else and I use it in a matter of my primary course of work? * What if I sell it but give all of the profits to charity? All of the gross to charity? In comparison to the above, the OGL's reliance upon legal copyright standings for declaring OGL and PI is hardly worth wondering over. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
In my opinion, you'd do well to do some research into how copyright law defines "work" before continuing this chain of logic. Ryan ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
In a message dated 8/24/2005 1:33:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In my opinion, you'd do well to do some research into how copyright law defines "work" before continuing this chain of logic. Ryan What, in particular, do you disagree with? Do you disagree that: 1) Works can contain other works (such as in a compilation)... 2) That the OGL provides no specific instructions on multi-part works stating that all works in a compilation must be 'covered works' for any work to be covered... I personally have done some researched how into Title 17 and some of the available case law. Largely "work" is a term of art meaning "commercial unit", but "work" in the most basic copyright law sense means "that in which the copyright subsists". So, in a compilation of 15 different poems by 15 different authors, if the authors still own their copyrights then there are 16 different copyrights: one on each of the poems, and then one on the compilation. Each one of those 16 elements can be deemed a "work" under copyright law. I then presume that any "work" can be established as a "covered" work in terms of the OGL, separate from any other work in a compilation or a collected volume, particularly in instances where the authors are wholly distinct. Similarly, where I have 16 pieces of art which I own copyrights to, and you combine that with text you own copyright to, there are individual copyrights on each piece of art, a copyright on the text, and a copyright on the book (to the extent that the book orders and presents the art and the text). Similarly, I could envision a boxed set where John owns the copyright on the perfect bound volume of fiction, background, and maps. Jill owns the copyright on the separate perfect bound volume of rules. And Joe has licensed the works of John and Jill and put them in a boxed set with additional materials he owns the copyright on, establishing a separate copyright on the collection and its packaging. Such an arrangement would not be inconsistent with copyright law, in my opinion. The number of separate copyrights is not necessarily based on the physical separation into separate units. For example, if I write a long work, and say put it on my website as a PDF in fixed form, it is copyrighted automatically. If 10 years later, I print it in 3 volumes which are broken up simply because the binding would crack if I printed it as a single volume, then that new printing does not in any way give me three separate copyrights which have been expanded in any appreciable way over the 1 copyright I already have. At best the 3 volumes might have their own copyrights which extend only to any new formatting, but the underlying content is a single copyrighted work. A lot of this is up to judges, depending entirely on fact patterns, intent of the publisher, packaging and presentation, etc., which will vary on a case-by-case basis, making a single, uniform, all-encompassing, specific definition of work (beyond "that in which the copyright subsists") either impractical or impossible. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
In a message dated 8/24/2005 2:30:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's my point. The PHB contains information in the SRD but it gets around having to use the OGL because WotC is the owner of both the license and original materials. No company other than WotC could publish the work that is the PHB. That's entirely different from saying that the OGL applies differently to WotC when they use it. When they actually use it, they get no special treatment simply because they drafted the license. However, if they print a Freeport article, for instance, that doesn't contain OGC then they don't need to put the OGL in the Dragon magazine. As the owners of the OGL, they could gain permission or a license from Green Ronin to use Freeport entirely outside of the realm of the OGL. The fact that Freeport material has appeared under the OGL wouldn't prevent this so long as none of said material appeared in that Dragon magazine. If Freeport was stripped of its d20-isms, then I could (if Green Ronin allowed me) license Freeport. The ability to license outside of the OGL doesn't mean that the OGL applies to you any differently when you are using it. And we were discussing this in context of a FAQ entry Woodelf posted which applies to people who ARE using the OGL. This whole thing about not using the OGL is missing the key point: the FAQ is about using the OGL, not about not using the OGL. They can indeed publish materials related to other materials that are OGC without opening up the former, so long as they come to a secondary agreement and don't use previously released OGC. You can do the same thing with your materials. Mark Arsenault can, with his own system, do the same thing with Action System. This is NOT because WotC drafted the license. It has nothing to do with whether they drafted the license or whether you drafted the license. They could publish endless articles that would, due to brand recognition, seem to be using existing OGC but could actually be entirely closed in this fashion. Mark Arsenault could do the same thing. The point is NOT who drafted the license, but who owns the underlying system. Mark didn't draft the license, but he can do (with Action System) everything that WotC can do with d20. He can license it separately, he can make Action System products that aren't released under the OGL. Indeed, but without having access to those deals going on behind the curtain, all we can do is assume as to whether such a deal occurred or if it is an error on WotC's part if not indicated through the usual means. This is irrelevant to Woodelf's original assertion about a FAQ on usage of the OGL. This means, what answers apply not when you are avoiding using the OGL, but when you ARE using the OGL. Easily the best way to resolve your questions is to ask WotC directly. WotC historically has been a little loathe to give out official interpretations of the OGL except for those things in their FAQ. I could email them and see if they bite. I've had some very usable feedback on the license from WotC, but anything complicated enough for them to ask a lawyer about is something they don't trivially share around outside of formal channels. Ask WotC to expand on their definition of "works." If all those items you stash under the title of "works" are being sold as a single entity their definition could possibly be better described using the word "product." At some level, their definition is at the same time the opinion of an 800 pound gorilla and moot. They are the gorilla because they can sue you and make it hurt. However, they drafted a contract of adhesion and so as the drafter, any ambiguities are construed against them, not in their favor, rendering their opinions actually less value than a well-drafted opposition viewpoint. But that just brings us back to the point of whether or not "work" is defining the entire package because the items YOU are describign as "work" or not commercially separable. Commercially separable is not the only issue. In a book of poems, if 16 poets contribute 16 poems they own and a 17th person puts them in a volume to be published, there are 17 works: 16 poems with individual copyrights and the 17th work is the compilation. That's basic copyright law. Such a book of poetry is a single product in that instance, but it may represent 17 "works" (1 compilation of 16 individually copyrighted sub-works). I'm using the definition of "work" from that context to think about multi-part works (such as magazines, boxed sets with contributions from various individuals, etc.). Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
In a message dated 8/24/2005 3:33:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We were, yes, until you stated that WotC cannot operate around the OGL. I didn't say they couldn't license outside of the OGL. What I said was (quoting from an older post), "Nothing about the license allows it to apply disparately to WotC as opposed to the rest of us." And that statement is true. There is nothing about the license that makes anything in their FAQ apply any less to them when they are using the OGL then when you or I are using the OGL. That's why I've also been saying (to paraphrase) "AND because WotC originated the material the OGL operates upon." I believe that you said they get off the hook on the OGL because they orginated the license (in other words, because they drafted it. "[Steven Trustrum] I imagine, considering WotC is the license’s originator rather than a third party, their lawyers have told them there are some aspects of the license that will not apply to them. " You claimed specifically that some parts of the license do not apply to them. That's simply not true. The whole license applies to them when they use it. It is a truism that a license applies to nobody who is not using it and who is not an agent or third party beneficiary of one of the contracting parties. The issue here being that, because you're operating under a license, several points of basic copyright law are being bypassed by one's acceptance of the license's terms. I wouldn't make any assumptions on the basis of basic copyright law But I would, because the phrase from the license reads in copyright law: "means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law" As an IP license which references works under copyright law, without a more explicit definition you read in the definition from: a) statute b) case law c) industry practice where applicable and where not in clear contradiction of the license Statute and case law precedents are always "read in" to every contract except in the places where both of the following are true: a) such laws do not pre-empt their exclusion in contracts, and b) the relevant laws are specifically excluded from application to the contract by clauses in the contract mandating this So, the basic principles of contractual construction beg us to read in the term "work" as we would find it in statute and case law since it's not overtly provided for in some alternate form in the license. I may email WotC later this week. I have to dig up the last address I had for their licensing questions. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 02:35:45AM -0400, Doug Meerschaert wrote: * What if I'm paid for something else and I use it in a matter of my primary course of work? So what? We do this all the time with fully copyrighted stuff. The licence doesn't touch on this. Otherwise, all *kinds* of people are in deep trouble for using software they've purchased in their jobs. And I'm in all kinds of trouble using textbooks as references for classes I teach. The licence only covers redistribution. If you're *redistributing* this as part of your job, then, yeah, that's a commercial use. -Rob -- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics Astronomy, Vanderbilt University [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
Explain, then, how the PHB doesn't have a license in it with so much as a nod to the SRD since it clearly contains information from the SRD. Simple answer: because WotC owns the original content and they drafted the license. Unless they are including third party material, not a single d20 book they print has to include an OGL or d20 STL, just as they can ignore the d20 STL all they want, create another set of SRD-derived rules and slap the d20 trademarks all over it (as incorrect as it may be.) Again, none of the rest of us can do that. Saying that owning the material doesn't get WotC some great degree of special treatment with regards to the OGL and d20 STL is a laughable point to try and make. Regards, Steven Trustrum President For Life (or until the money runs out) Misfit Studios [EMAIL PROTECTED] 416-857-2433 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert A. Knop Jr. Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:21 PM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 11:28:56AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's my point. The PHB contains information in the SRD but it gets around having to use the OGL because WotC is the owner of both the license and original materials. No company other than WotC could publish the work that is the PHB. Nothing special to WOTC about that. No company other than publisher of X could publish the work that is X is always true (unless X is fully open content), even if some of X is under the OGL, regardless of who publisher of X is. -Rob -- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics Astronomy, Vanderbilt University [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
