Re: [Ogf-l] Final Email from Lists
Well, lets give a big thank you to Ryan. Open Gaming would be nowhere without you, Ryan. I have fond memories of this list. I remember the prerelease discussion we had. I remember how Ryan sought our input. I remember how many of the things we discussed directly impacted how the licenses were formed and changed. I remember the gentleperson's agreement and how it originated in an email from Ryan to many of us on this list. The analysis done of the various iterations of the d20 STL. Discussion of PI and OGC. This has been an amazing list and an amazing resource. I think we've behaved ourselves well. We've disagreed and debated, opined and speculated. And in general we have done so with professionalism and mutual respect. Thanks to everyone who contributed. If I have done anything to offend anyone, please forgive me. I hope we all remain friends and our discussion can continue in another forum. And most of all, thanks to Ryan! A great caretaker of DD, and the reason for the open game movement. Clark --- Ryan Dancey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well folks, they served us well and honorably, but the time has come to put the Open Gaming Foundation lists out to pasture. This is the final official message from the lists. They'll be shut down shortly. I have asked, and the ENWorld Team has graciously agreed, to move the OGF discussions to ENWorld. Two new forums have been created to mimic these lists. With 4E coming up, and WotC appearing to be planning to tinker with its licensing regimes, I suspect interest in these topics will revive. And I don't have the time to do list management and administration tasks. Rather than ignore the problem, I think proactively finding a more suitable host was the right way to go. Thanks to all who subscribed and participated. You are all the keys to the success of the Open Gaming Movement. Ryan ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Opening Closed Games
Robert- I guess I have two answers to your question: 1. Does the license allow you to recreate content like that? Theoretically it does. Presuming you are smart enough to not use trademarks, etc, the sticking point for you is this: 5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License. The question is what does original creation mean? Does this term have some additional meaning beyond the creation required for normal copyright law? Certainly, to some extent, this is not your original creation. It is a willful duplication of existing content that you would have no way to create and no reason to create if the actual original content didnt exist before yours. I'm sure you understand the contrary argument. 2. Even if the license does allow it, should you do it? I say no. I wouldnt. Maybe I am misreading your post, but I feel you are trying to find some emotional justification for what you are doing by stating that newbies want the content, the content is hard to get, it would just be gotten illegally anyway, the publisher has no interest in the games. It sounds like the real reason you want to do this is that you are tired of not being able to fully discuss or republish parts of the games at whim. Well, you dont own the content. The one with the right to have a whim as to what to do with the material is the content owner, which isnt you. The bottom line is the owner has said no to using licenses to release his content. So, presumably, he wouldnt want you doing so. I personally wouldnt hold up the OSRIC project as a good example. I think there are big problems with it and wouldnt touch it with a 10 ft (or, in ODD terms, a 10') pole. I appreciate the legal question of the use of the license. I think that is the most dangerous possible use of the license. You are trying to use the license to do soemthing it wasnt designed to do, IMHO. Plus, as I have raised before, there is what you CAN do and what you SHOULD do. Clark --- Exile In Paradise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Open Game Gurus, I would like to discuss a real-world issue I am wrestling with. I am a collector and fan of a game system published from 1980-1994 by a publisher that is long since gone. Last year, in an net forum, the copyright holder himself stated that he has no interest in the games anymore, but is continuing to develop the setting for his own undisclosed purposes. The original publisher has been approached several times since 1994 and asked if they would consider releasing the games as (in order) public domain, GNU open documents, Creative Commons, and Open Game License. Each time, and for each license idea, the answer has been no or silence. Meanwhile, every (rare) newcomer to the game asks the same three questions: FAQ#1: who owns the copyrights? FAQ#2: where can I get the books? And when they find the books are so rare they never even appear on eBay anymore, the famous: FAQ#3: can someone send me PDFs of the books? With the publishers own admission of apathy regarding the games, and being tired of not being able to fully discuss or republish parts of the games at whim, the idea has occurred to me to try to write, publish, and distribute Open Game versions of the copyrighted games. The setting and trademarks are not considered here. The setting is unmistakable anyway, so its a given that a new setting that allowed the same situations would have to be created. Also, its a given that all artwork and trademark terms would have to be avoided like the plague. The name of the company and some of their product names are some of those very terms which is why they are not listed here. For years the Linux software community has excelled at opening closed software... by recreating the closed program as a work/play-alike open version and releasing that. The excellent FreeCiv project is one example of many... its a look and play alike version of the copyrighted game Civilization by Sid Meier. I am wondering if the same ideas the Linux folks have used would work for opening closed/out-of-print tabletop games? The OSRIC project leads me to believe so. Here's my thinking that I hope you can all provide a sanity check for: According to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office memo (FL-108), game rules cannot be copyright, only the specific expression of the rules. My understanding is that the difference is this: The rules to a game like baseball cannot be copyright. Only my specific description of baseball rules can be. Anyone else is still free to write their own description of the same game in their own words. So, if I go line by line through the text, and rewrite the mechanics into my own words, and reorganize the whole thing (based on my own
Re: [Ogf-l] Opening Closed Games
Or I may get disgusted with the whole sorry state of copyright affairs related to a dead and gone game company and chuck the whole idea. I am not a lawyer and never really wanted to be. I cant stand this comment. It isnt for YOU to decide if the game is dead and what can or cant be done with it. That game is owned by the creator, not you. There is no sorry state of copyright affairs. What there are are some problems caused by new open licenses and people trying to jam content that isnt theirs into those licenses. Perhaps what you meant is that copyright as to games is still a pretty grey area. We have some statements of general principles (cant copyright games, just the specific expression) but not a ton of guidance as to what that exactly means in any given situation. So perhaps I am overreacting to your comment. Clark __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Publisher support for OSRIC?
More power to them. You wont find me in that group. Clark --- Eric Anondson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 17, 2006, at 6:35 PM, Ryan Dancey wrote: Re:OSRIC ... In summary: I wouldn't touch this without SERIOUS work to ensure everything I used was actually OGC. It has been reported the Expeditious Retreat Press is going to be supporting it with published products. Supposedly two lawyers have also looked at the documents and given thumbs up. At least those who are writing the OSRIC documents are reporting as much on this ENWorld thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=171670 Regards, Eric Anondson ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
I'm as willing as the next guy to engage in wild paranoia (to a fault g), but it's worth pointing out that contract law is contract law and the terms of the OGL don't change based on who the CEO of WotC is. And if it did, then we should all run for the hills and adopt a new system on which to base our respective publishing companies. Then run for the hills now. Because a ton of all of this depends on who's butt is in the legal chair at WotC and how close they watch stuff. In fact, just about none of it is actually about contract law. Terms may not change, but enforcement sure does. Clark __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
Ah look. Just another example of publishers working together in enlightened self-interest. How bucolic and utopian. :) Lets all put that crack pipe away, shall we. :) Clark PS--sorry, I wasnt trying to single you guys out. You know I like both of you guys. But I thought it might be an interesting example to help those who have this dreamy illusion of enlightened publishers working together to craft the common good of the game. Heck, we cant even agree on logos. We cant even agree whether we agree on logos. We cant even agree if we are on the right list to talk about our disagreement on logos. So I guess my point is (and you guys are my unwitting pieces of evidence) that it is rather pie in the skie (or should I say Orc and Pie in the Sky) to think that we publishers can really unite in any grand way. It hasnt really worked and I dont see it working in the future. Clark again. Hey, wasnt this a PS? That got rather long... --- Mark Clover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve, you know full well my mention of negativity was in regard to your rudeness, ala - Then the thing you need to consider, Mark, is which of our goals is actually looking at what the people on the list here are talking about (basically telling me to shut up if my goals differ). Twisting it to imply I wasn't interested in constructive criticism is just another example of the very problem that drives people away from posting in the first place. As always, Mark Clover www.CreativeMountainGames.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] DD 4E
Dave- I'm agreeing with you for three reasons: 1. your post was too long to read, so I cant argue with what I didnt read :) 2. the part I did read was hillarious and most of all 3. you put my name with Monte. And, as we all know, Monte is a genius. So I feel all warm inside. Clark --- David Shepheard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: The Sigil [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:50 AM Surely if the Wizards of the Coast bring out a 4E DD that is not compatible with the SRD it will just make it economically viable for people to add character creation rules to the SRD and sell their own 3e PHB/DMG/MM clones. Game companies would also have an incentive to do their own SRD bug-fixes and while certain companies might not want to be as co-operative as others, enlightend self interest would push most publishers together. *snorts with laughter* Forgive me, David, but I just HAD to respond to this. Enlightened self-interest would push most publishers together to adopt the same bug-fixes? It will NEVER happen. One of the talking points that had everyone excited about the OGL was that we were likely to see a whole bunch of rules and ideas, and the best ones would quickly be adopted and become the standard among third-party publishers, and possibly among WotC/DD play as well. That never even came close to happening. Hang on a second Sigil. I'm not talking about publishers creating new OGC in a co-operative manner (I've already seen that while cooperation is probably in the interest of publishers that want to stay in the business for the long term, many publishers do *seem* to hoard their own content for various reasons). I'm talking about something different. I'm talking about publishers working together to maintain the core rules (if WotC abandon them during the change to 4e). This co-operation would be limited only to the concept of upgrading the 3.5 SRD to a level where it would attract customers who want an alternative to the 4e DD books. It would only do the following: 1) Take over the procedure of fixing existing bugs in the SRD (after WotC stop releasing erratas) and 2) Produce enough new core rules to catch up with 4e DD (and do nothing else). This would be a minimum amount of cooperation and could probably be done if just a few content creators agreed to do it. Why not? Three factors. First, the OGL's viral Section 15 - but nowhere else - credit requirement made it impractical to do so without creating ever-bloating Section 15's. I'm sure there is a workaround for that. Suppose that the publishers that helped with the project didn't actually publish erratas, bug fixes and 4e upgrades under their own name. The section 15 could then be limited to the joint name that they operated under. Lets say for arguments sake WotC shut the door and that after that a rag tag band of publishers decide that staying in the d20 System business is worth the extra effort. Perhaps something like this could happen: 1) A few publishers, for example Monty Cook, Clark Peterson, Green Ronin and Mongoose say what the hell - lets give it a go and if it doesn't work out we can move on anyway. 2) They get in touch with the Open Gaming Foundation and agree to all work for the OGF so that there is one publisher and none of them get top billing over the others. 3) They agree with Ryan that the following section 15 will be used on the alternate 4e SRD: 15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc. System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas Reid, James Wyatt, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. Forth Edition SRD Upgrade version 4.01 Copyright 2007, Open Gaming Foundation; Authors Monty Cook, Clark Peterson, Green Ronin and Mongoose. For more information about Forth Edition see www.opengamingfoundation.org 4) Ryan agrees to put links to every company/individual that helps out in the continuity editions of the SRD. He also puts up some blurb that says how all of these publishers are working together with the OGF to keep the Forth Edition alive and suggests that gamers that want to keep the SRD alive should support the publishers so that they can continue to donate their time. 5) Publishers who can't be bothered to contribute would be forced to print the full copyright notice advertising exactly who was working on the Forth Edition. Hence publishers that don't get involved advertise all the companies working on the Forth Edition SRD Upgrade and are forced to provide a website where RPG fans can find out more information about them all. 6
RE: [Ogf-l] RE: OGL Logos
I might have missed what you are saying. Yes, it is true there are non-d20, non-OGL products out there. But distributors know what is up, to some extent. They know their market. And non-d20 OGL stuff that isnt licensed content (a la Babylon 5) or from an established publisher isnt selling crap right now. Distributors wont all of a sudden forget what these products are. They know that the market for them sucks. Clark --- Steven Trustrum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except this argument ignores the fact that other companies still manage to sell distributors on their products without them even using the d20 logo or OGL. There is an entire aspect of the gaming industry that goes through the three tier system and has nothing to do with the discussion here because they have nothing to do with the OGL system. The new branding would basically be a marketing tool for the consumer, so if the distributor doesn't recognize its value the publisher still has the same chance of pushing his product to the distributors as some guy who is bringing his own unique products to the market. Yes, the whole ride the authenticity of d20 aspect would disappear, but that's not even remotely the same as opportunity disappearing entirely. Regards, Steven Trustrum President For Life (or until the money runs out) Misfit Studios http://www.misfit-studios.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] 416-857-2433 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clark Peterson Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 4:35 AM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] RE: OGL Logos You guys are forgetting the real market force here: distributors. (though some of the arguments are the same) Your products dont get to the fans unless the retailers buy them from distributors. Distributors bought d20 at first. But d20 as a whole was a disaster. Lots of people got stuck with d20 products. What distributors and retailers learned is taht there are a few companies (regardless of logo) that make products that sell through. That is what a distributor wants. You can make as many freaking logos as you want. If you dont get to put the official logo on your product (or in the case of d20, the official non-official logo) distributors are going to be WAY less interested. It doesnt matter if you make the connection with the purchasers. I agree with the posters who said there is only a small chunk of OGL saavy purchasers and they know what it is without the logo. What matters is if you make the connection with the distributors. If there is no logo like the d20 logo for 4E (ie if the d20 license is yanked) then my uneducated (ok, slightly educated) guess is that distributors will have little love for unofficial support. They arent that thrilled about d20. They like Green Ronin and White Wolf and Malhavoc and Necromancer, etc. But we have proven those things as companies, not logos. Sure, we used the logo to get in. But, even having established a track record of sales (we've done over 40 books now I think and only 1 lost money--and it didnt lose much. now if you are a distributor that is a track record you want to jump on) I still dont know how excited distributors will be to carry my stuff if it isnt more official. My guess: When 4E hits, if the best we can do are OGL products to support it, I think that means trouble. Not so much from the fans. I mean from the distributors. Clark --- Roger Bert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If 4E is not licensed then you can't brand your OGL products to DD or d20 for that matter. The d20 System Trademark license and licensees will likely be rescinded by WOTC. Who are you going to be branding too? Perhaps today a little OGL logo means it is compatible with DD more or less for the very few purchasers who know what the OGL is or even notice the logo. But this will be meaningless when the logos disappear from the real DD books. If your product is not meant to be played with DD than using a logo is really meaningless even now. Gamers want a fun and useable game and they could care less if publishers can re-use their material. Gamers can reuse anything they want! And, to be blunt, most of the publishers are not re-using material from other companies. Sure, there has been a little. But like I said the people who could reuse the material already know what to look for. There is no need for an OGL logo and this is especially true if 4E is not released under the OGL. Product branding, artwork, and any logos should relate to the product (and publisher) and not to the OGL. -Roger -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Steven Trustrum Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 8:32 PM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] RE: OGL Logos
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] DD 4E
People didnt copy Monte's designations. Other publishers were doing it that way for some time before Malhavoc was even in existence. Clark --- The Sigil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not at all. I think you are mostly right. You're probably aware of my take on crippled OGC--I dont buy in to all the claims, and I think that most people are just trying to do stuff the best way they knew how, but I know for sure that there were some publishers who were trying to hoard content. Much as I love Monte Cook's work, and I really think he single-handed launched the PDF side into respectability and the public eye, I kind of wish he hadn't been the first big success story... people saw his OGC designations and just copied them without really knowing what they were doing... which isn't necessarily a bad thing, except if you read Monte's OGC designations in the first published draft of the Book of Eldritch Might and compare to the designations in the current 3.5 version, they're much different... which tells me that Monte didn't get things right (by which I mean, legally reflecting the way he wanted to open his work) the first time - a mistake I think all of the earliest jumpers-in probably made. The problem is that everyone else just copied his early OGC designations and didn't learn about the OGL and update their designations as he did. I blame the proliferation of crippled OGC declarations on the fact that most publishers that got into the game after the release of the Book of Eldritch Might seem to have used that early as their model and never bothered to look at the OGL again... in other words, it's a lazy problem, compounded by the fact that they happened to copy an OGC designation that wasn't great to begin with (not through any fault of Monte's other than the very forgivable sin of not being perfect the very first time - and Monte isn't part of the lazy problem). Once all these new publishers jumped in and followed that example, the designation became the standard because almost everyone was using it (with the exceptions of those publishers who had been on the scene prior to the BoEM - Bastion Press, SSS, and Mystic Eye spring to mind). That WotC never felt it worth their while (rightly so, probably - I can't imagine their lawyers are cheap and most companies aren't turning profits so that they could pay for the cost of WotC's lawyers, much less any damages) to crack down on sloppy OGL compliance doesn't help... people could afford to stay lazy with their designations (the argument of Clear Designation compliance that has been beaten to death on this list). But you forgot another reason: 4. A lot of the third party stuff wasnt that good. Natch. In my defense, I was trying to address the issue of why the good stuff wasn't pooled and turned into the de facto standard and so I ignored this point on the theory that it didn't address the good stuff. On the other hand, I suppose the volume of stuff out there made it hard to find the good - was it Dancey that said, 90% of everything is crap? - and thus made it tougher to find the standout content in the first place. And another reason: 5. There was too much of it. There was no good way to track who was making what to even rationally discuss what should be adopted as the standard. It was hard to sort through the noise of d20. Plus, there was no interest in actually selecting a standard. Heck, you had GR compiling everyone elses spells. You had Monte doing his best of d20. That is as close as anyone came. And neither of those are good solutions. Simply compiling stuff isnt selecting what is good, it is just putting it all in a pile. And Monte deciding what is good, while I respect Monte, is hardly the voice of the whole community selecting the best content which is what you need for a standard. This is true, too. It's hard enough to get two people to agree what toppings to put on a pizza - let alone get an entire community to agree on what is the best OGL/d20 material. You are right. I cant imagine anything about 4E that would make the above problem any better. Enlightened self interest is a nice dream. Greedy begrudgingly minimal compliance is the reality in many cases. The only thing I can imagine about 4E that would make the above problem better would be a much-revised OGL (and in fact, it would probably have to be a different license altogether to avoid the problem of people using the current hole-filled OGL instead). The license would have to have more bite than the current OGL does, especially with relation to what must be designated as OGC (or the functional equivalent thereof under a new license)... something that would basically be, if you touch any part of your product with this license, your whole product must be open (with the exception of registered
Re: [Ogf-l] Open Game Content Logo
Markus- As I'm sure 100 other posts will tell you, this was debated for quite a long time about 4 years ago. And, as an aside, and not meaning to be a dick, I'm not a big fan of the logo. It doesnt, for me, do any of the things a logo should do. Clark --- Markus Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greetings: I'm completely new, not only to this list, but also to Open Gaming Content. Well, new in the regards of getting into publishing Open Game Content. For reasons I won't go into, my company isn't interest in the d20 license, but we are interested in the open game license. While d20 has a nice, fancy logo, open game content does not. If there is a logo, I have not found it, and it isn't on the www.opengamingfoundation.org website. Thus, I've created one. Before we start telling everyone in the world about it, I wanted to get the input of this group. Is a logo needed? Is there already a logo, and I just don't know about it? If there is a need and one does not exist, please take a moment to look at the logo that Tower Ravens has created and is licensing under OGL v1.0a. http://www.towerravens.com/ogc-logo.php Let me know what you think. If I've committed a faux pas, please set flamethrowers to stun. Best, Mark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] DD 4E
That little rant is not likely to endear me to anyone in the RPG industry, but there it is. The uglier the truth, the truer the friend that tells it. Not at all. I think you are mostly right. You're probably aware of my take on crippled OGC--I dont buy in to all the claims, and I think that most people are just trying to do stuff the best way they knew how, but I know for sure that there were some publishers who were trying to hoard content. But you forgot another reason: 4. A lot of the third party stuff wasnt that good. And another reason: 5. There was too much of it. There was no good way to track who was making what to even rationally discuss what should be adopted as the standard. It was hard to sort through the noise of d20. Plus, there was no interest in actually selecting a standard. Heck, you had GR compiling everyone elses spells. You had Monte doing his best of d20. That is as close as anyone came. And neither of those are good solutions. Simply compiling stuff isnt selecting what is good, it is just putting it all in a pile. And Monte deciding what is good, while I respect Monte, is hardly the voice of the whole community selecting the best content which is what you need for a standard. You are right. I cant imagine anything about 4E that would make the above problem any better. Enlightened self interest is a nice dream. Greedy begrudgingly minimal compliance is the reality in many cases. Now, there are lots of exceptions. I like to think Tome of Horrors is an example of great sharing of open content. But even that product, as great as I (rather biased, I admit) think it is, wasnt exactly reused that widely. And I even put instructions in the thing on how to reuse the content. The bottom line truth is that there was very little significant reuse of OGC. Clark __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Using (and declaring) OGC from The Tome of Horrors
Using the monster names from WotC was a bit tricky so I tried to make the OGL stuff as easy as possible, and at the same time still make sure the original creators of the various monsters were directly credited, rather than just lumped in some 50-name list. We hit on a pretty creative solution, I think (if I do say so myself :) ) Clark --- Doug Meerschaert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keith Robinson wrote: So, am I right in thinking that the stat blocks for these creatures are OGC, but their names (and any other info in the Credit section) is not? That is to say, I can use the stat block, so long as I use a different monster name? That's my reading of it. My understanding--not having ever looked at ToH--is that you can go right ahead and use monster names, as long as they also appear somewhere other than the Credit section. After all, you wouldn't expect to have to redact all occurrences of the word originally (or in, is, or and for that matter), so why should a word like The Haunt get special treatment? If a trademarkable word is declared OGC, then it's OGC, even if it also happens to appear in a section that isn't OGC. Unless Clark marked it as a trademark (or someone else's trademark) or gave some other specific indication that you CAN'T use it, you can use it. (That is, after all, what saying monster names are OGC means.) DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Does it matter? Doesn't the license have to stand on its own as a legal document? If we have to bring in the author (well, impetus for authorship--i believe Ryan's said that lawyers drafted the final license, based on his impetus and various internal discussions at WotC) to figure out what the license means, is that really valid? Oh goodness, dont tell lawyers and english teachers that! Lawuers look at legislative intent and intent of the framers and things like that all the time. And english teachers (particularly cheesy PHD types :) ) spend their waking hours trying to figure out what the author meant and then deconstructing it anyway. Sure, what the drafters intended is important for our exercise: trying to figure out what the OGL means. So to the extent Ryan can offer insight and guidance to our practical use of the license it is useful. If you ask the quesiton could Ryan come in to court to testify about what the license 'meant' maybe the answer is no. But that isnt what we are doing here. So, IMHO, the view of the drafter(s) is very important. But I agree that on the flip side, the license is the license and is subject to several interpretations. Which is what we are all here talking about. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Supreme Court precedent on the matter says that for contracts, and particularly for contracts of adhesion (contracts which are drafted by one party and presented on a take it or leave it basis without negotation), which this is, any vague area of the contract should be construed against the drafter if there is a disagreement between the drafter and another party. This is absolutely, indesputibly NOT a contract of adhesion. It is a license. Plain and simple. The doctrines underpinning the contract of adhesion issue just are not present here. Take it or leave it and drafted by one party are not the sole issues. There also must be an inequity as a result of relationships that makes something inherently unfair. There is nothing inherently unfair about the OGL. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Before anyone gets too mad at anyone else can we all just agree that this is open to interpretation and we all wish the language of the license had been a little clearer. :) I several reasonable views here. Now, I prefer mine but that is just me. I can see Lee's point. IMHO, that only isolates the definition (which seems poorly worded to me) and seems to ignore the other sections of the license. But then if you take my view, there is sure a good chunk of support for the contrary position in the very definition. That is why I tried for an interpretation that harmonizes the various inconsistencies and that doesnt make things default OGC. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Now what do you think the words mean, Clark? I'm just telling you how lawyers think. It isnt math. It isnt venn diagrams and sets and subsets. You can only read that phrase in conjuction with the entire phrase. I know what you are saying logically. I get that. But if you take your position and parse out the definition into three definitions as you do, then why do you need the first part of the definition? why do you even need the second part of the definition? if your interpretation is right, you dont. And lawyers dont read things that way. (dont mean that to be insulting, by the way, just a statement that lawyers look at things in silly ways). You try to give effect to the language. You dont want to read language a way that makes things a nullity. Plus, of your three definitions the first two are rather specific and the third is rather general. Which raises an interesting issue. But that is another thread. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
Welcome to the law! Trying to harmonize something that isnt totally able to be harmonized. I agree the license says what it says. But here is why your interpretation is problematic: 1. it gobbles up all other definitions. The law doesnt like that. 2. It seems to default everything to open content, while at the same time another part of the license requires OGC to be clearly defined. That is inherently contradictory. 3. The definition you reference is general (a broad statement), whereas the requirement to clearly identify seems rather specific. The specific will control over the general. Bottom line: yes, there is a problem with the wording in the license that is causing all of us confusion. I agree. Clark --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, Clark, I'm back to the big question -- what does the third meaning of OGC mean if it doesn't mean what I think it means. I'm pretty much always willing to be proven wrong, particularly in IP law, provided that I learn something in the process. I do civil rights law lobbying and analysis for a living. I do contract law and IP law as a hobby (meaning I have no formal training in it). But, every time I read that definition, I come to one conclusion: the only way to reach a different conclusion from my own is to make the 3rd meaning of OGC vanish from the contract. Because it is the logical superset of the first two meanings. You give meaning to the first two parts, but you give largely redundant meaning. Is there a way to give non-redundant effect to EVERY part of the OGC definition in such a fashion that every work covered by the license doesn't contain 100% (OGC + PI)? I'm open to alternatives. Plus, of your three definitions the first two are rather specific and the third is rather general. Which raises an interesting issue. But that is another thread. Feel free to start an alternate thread. People will be intrigued, I'm certain. Thanks for sticking with the thread. I'm just looking for the details instead of the conclusions. I'm hoping that people start responding with the details -- what does each sub-type of OGC consist of? Are they distinct, or are some subsets of each other? Things like that. Lee ___ 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] Any work covered by the license
I agree that is probably going to be the interpretation. Sort of ironic, of course, that you have to go to standard copyright law to get that definition. Maybe I'm the only one who finds that funny :) My question was more to find out what the prior poster's view of work was that was underpinning his argument and discussion. Clark From: Clark Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can I say the work is just chapters 2 and 4? Or, in your view, does the work mean the whole book? The intent of the license is that it apply to all chapters. This is a required interpretation. Otherwise, it would be possible to put the things that we didn't want you to be able say like This product is compatible with Dungeons Dragons(R) on the cover and claim that it was not a part of the work covered by the OGL. My reading of copyright caselaw indicated that the courts view any commercial unit sold as a whole as a work for the purposes of copyright licenses. 3 booklets sold in a box is a work. A magazine featuring many articles is a work. The caselaw regarding anthologies and collections is also pretty clear: The work is the body as a whole, but that body may comprise many individual components with different copyrights. However, the collection gains copyright protection as well (you can't make a CD of Beatles tunes that features the same songs in the same order as 1, even if you had the individual right to republish the songs themselves, or even to publish a collection of #1 hits.) This is the same interpretation I believe should and would be applied to the trademark license. Otherwise, you could put all the verboten stuff in a booklet shipped inside the cover of a hardback game and make a complete RPG, etc. From my reading, I believe that work is almost always used in the most expansive way possible. For example, in Anderson v. Stallone, the court held that the entire script written by Anderson was an unauthorized derivative work of Stallone's original Rocky script, despite the fact that the only thing the two works shared in common were the names of the characters and their general descriptions. Ryan ___ 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] Any work covered by the license
My position is that you cant default stuff to OGC unless, perhaps, you can clearly show that it is or is derived from OGC. I dont buy the OGC by default argument. In my view, nearly any ogc by default situation, what you really have is a failure to use the license properly. A license violation does not create default OGC. It creates stuff that should have been designated as OGC and wasnt, but that isnt the same as making it OGC by default. Clark --- Thomas Kyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Does this mean that, in a work that had 10 chapters, where thefollowing definitions were in place: (abbreviated, obviously) OGC: Chap 2, 3, 6, 7, 10 PI: Chap 1, 4, 9 Would the other chapters [ 5, 8 ] default to OGC (So all _but_ 1, 4, 9were open, even though they weren't declared that way?) I've seenseveral well-known authors\publishers declare both, with some parts asneither Ryan S. Dancey wrote:From: Clark Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can I say the work is just chapters 2 and4? Or, in your view, does the work mean the whole book? The intent of the license is that it apply to all chapters. This is a required interpretation. Otherwise, it would be possible toput the things that we didn't want you to be able say like Thisproduct is compatible with Dungeons Dragons(R) on the cover andclaim that it was not a part of the work covered by the OGL. My reading of copyright caselaw indicated that the courts view anycommercial unit sold as a whole as a work for the purposes ofcopyright licenses. 3 booklets sold in a box is a work. A magazinefeaturing many articles is a work. The caselaw regarding anthologies and collections is also prettyclear: The work is the body as a whole, but that body may comprisemany individual components with different copyrights. However, thecollection gains copyright protection as well (you can't make a CD ofBeatles tunes that features the same songs in the same order as 1,even if you had the individual right to republish the songs themselves,or even to publish a collection of #1 hits.) This is the same interpretation I believe should and would be appliedto the trademark license. Otherwise, you could put all the verbotenstuff in a booklet shipped inside the cover of a hardback game and makea complete RPG, etc. From my reading, I believe that work isalmost always used in the most expansive way possible. For example, in Anderson v. Stallone, thecourt held that the entire script written by Anderson was anunauthorized derivative work of Stallone's original Rocky script,despite the fact that the only thing the two works shared in commonwere the names of the characters and their general descriptions. Ryan ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l -- Thomas E. A. Kyle ( Kirin'Tor ) eTools - ContentManager d20 Multiverse - Webmaster Designer No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/2005 ___ 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] Any work covered by the license
If this is the case, then there's no such thing as the third type of content I'm a little slow, :) but I'm not sure that this is necessarily true. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
From: Tim Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] You have a work, as defined by Ryan to be an entire product from cover to cover. In this work you are required to declare what is OGC, and to declare what is PI. However, there is nothing in the license that says the entire work IS OGC unless it is declared PI. That is the correct interpretation, as far as I am concerned. Ryan I am so glad you agree with that :) I didnt want to be on my own on this one. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] WotC's Advantage
I'm not even sure at this point what you guys are arguing about/discussing. Clark --- Spike Y Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 09:28:21 -0400 Steven Trustrum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what DID they do? They created an entirely new license. A license they can change and you can't. A license that allowed them, and not you or anyone else, to define what the core material for the market's majority share would be. A license that allowed them to define what aspects of copyright would be jumped over. I'm not sure on this point, but am I remembering correctly that WotC accepted some input from some other publishers on the details of the licenses before the first version of the OGL was released? And, the point that you're missing entirely with regards to the SRD is the fact that the license points to the SRD to begin with. Instead of listing their corebooks directly and opening them up, they created the SRD and specified it in the license. That gives WotC a considerable advantage in the market, an advantage that arose because only they were given the choice as to whether the default section 15 would include references to the core books or the SRD. I don't think this is as big an advantage as you seem to think it is. It's certainly not anything like as big an advantage as having the name Dungeons Dragons on the cover is. There's not a lot of PHB/DMG/MM etc. material that's useful to OGL and D20 publishers that's not in the SRD. And for almost every carve-out that WotC made for itself (e.g., names like Mordenkainen and Tensor), third party publishers were given permission to make equivalent carve-outs of their own (declaring things P.I. or including them in third type of content sections). Now, a publisher using SRD material that has been redacted by WotC might have a bit of extra work to do (e.g., writing his own sentence describing what a monster looks like, instead of just copying out of the MM), but in general that little bit of extra effort is eclipsed by the enormous amount of effort saved by not having to create an entire new game system (including the monster descriptions) and the market recognition that comes with it. I should also point out somewhere around here that WotC isn't the only company that has released Open Content into an SRD. True, in the case of GOO, the material was first released as OGC in its core books and then in an SRD, so you could take material from both places, but the key principle behind the two remains the same: By putting all the OGC in an SRD and pointing people there if they want to do any OGC borrowing, you help protect those parts of your property that haven't been released as Open Content from accidental borrowing. Spike Y Jones ___ 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] WotC's Advantage
Clark Peterson wrote: WOTC is vil! The OGL is a plot to STEAL YOUR IDEAS! Hey, dont cut and paste like that. I didnt write that. I wrote a response to someone who wrote that. YOur cut/paste makes it look like I did. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] WotC's Advantage
We appear to have a WotC conspiracist back in the mix, ladies and gentlemen! Somehow (please ignore 5 years of the most open and generous behavior on the part of a hobby gaming publisher ever), WotC is still out to screw us! Ryan You know, I had a conversation with Ryan at GenCon. We talked about a lot of things. But I really have to echo Ryan here. There were lots of WotC skeptics at the beginning. Heck, I was one. I was worried they could take our stuff, reprint it and then drive us all out of the market, all the while snatching up all our content. I hope that in part some of my stated concerns about that is what led to the idea of PI in the first place. But there were plenty of people who were worried. But now we have to look back. We have 5 years of history here, folks. And what has WotC done: 1. Opened the whole of the most popular industry leading system. 2. They have never once taken vindictive action against any publisher. 3. They havent stolen anyone's stuff. 4. They have tried to embrace the license itself (though doing a clumsy job of it in MM2). 5. They show a continued commitment to Open Gaming by releasing a majority of their recent Unearthed Arcana (the WotC one, not Monte's one). That book is mostly open content. 6. They have always been gracious and professional with me (and all other publishers I know) when we try to work with them. 7. There have not been any real draconian changes to the d20 SRD. 8. They've never charged a fee for any of this (which they could easily do). 9. They dont ask for approval rights (find a major licnesor who doesnt do that!) Basically, if we wanted a safe harbor, we got it! They have created a warm kiddie pool for all of us to swim in and there are no mean sea monsters anywhere in sight. I think it is time to acknowledge that WotC has been the biggest friend to openness that anyone could have expected. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
But since Mongoose itself derived those elements in part from the public domain sources, how is one to determine whether or not Daniel's interpretation of, say, Firbolgs is safely public domain or breachedly Mongoose-derived? It seems pretty common sense to me that if they both match the public domain inspired concept that there is no problem. Some of you list veterans may remember this discussion goes way back to my snow ape example in the real early days of the OGL. The question was: can I PI the name 'snow ape' for my monster? Though not a public domain issue, it raises similar issues. I also have a good public domain issue--our Orcus logo. Now the name Orcus is clearly public domain as it is an ancient Roman God of the dead. However, IMHO, the particular bat winged goat guy with a skull tipped wand is TSR/WotC's particular incarnation of Orcus. To me, this is an excellent example of how you can take a public domain idea and create your own expression of it and have something that is PI-able. As a result, I got permission to use that incarnatioin in our logo. Subsequently, we had the logo privately designed and we therefore have a copyright interest as well as a trademark interest in the Orcus logo, and as such we can PI it (and we do!). I still say the easiest course is likely to be to get in touch with Mongoose and see what can be worked out. I think you know my long standing position on just calling and getting permission :) As a general principle, I absolutely think it is the right thing to do, just from a professional courtesy and prevent headaches standpoint (not as a legal requirement). But in this case, to use a few public domain names doesnt seem to be a problem even needing a phone call. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
But as you correctly state, Mongoose really has no ownership of words like Fir Bolg (or firbolg), Fomorian, or even enech, or cromlech, the last two being the Gaelic word for regular English terms (it'd be like me PI-ing the Spanish version of those words). Their interpretation of some of these terms borrows heavily from myth, as is expected, though it also mixes in new story material unique to the series. Now, if I stay away from these new story elements (which I already do) but want to borrow the OGC that corresponds to some of these new story elements, am I violating their PI or not? NO. (not in my opinion anyway) Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
The short version: I think claiming public domain materials as PI is (or should be) bunk. I dont think you are really getting tbe point and might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. There are times when you create an NPC and that NPC has a name that may derive from the public domain. You can, and should always be allowed to, PI the name of that NPC so long as doing so only means you are PI'ing that name as it relates to your particular incarnation of a fictional character with that name. The OGL allows this. The question is does it allow more. To disallow any PI'ing of names that may be from the public domain creates and equal though opposite problem. Clark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
I agree with you 100%. The Slaine name they are PIing is their version. They cant PI a name and take that name for all time and in all incarnations. Clark --- Highmoon Media Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am writing a Celtic themed product, and using OGC material from Mongoose's Slaine RPG. The PI declaration lists a number of terms they claim as PI, and I have a problem with it. While some of the various terms claimed as PI are certainly unique to the Slaine series, there are others that are part and parcel of Celtic myth and lit. The following terms all are claimed as PI and also appear in my Oxford Dictionary of Celtic Mythology: Slaine, Warp Spasm, Tir Nan Og, Fomorian, Red Branch, Fir Bolg, Enech*, Cromlech. Slaine is a character in the early stories. Warp spasms are traced to Cuchulainn, though he wasn't the only hero to become distorted during a rage. Tir Nan Og is the mythical Land of Youth; though the common Irish spelling is Tir na nOg, Tir nan Og (or Tir Nan Og in some cases) is the Scottish Gaelic spelling (as an aside, the book also claims Land of the Young as PI, and while my dictionary lists only Land of Youth or Land of the Ever-Young, I have certainly seen Tir nan Og called Land of the Young in other academic works). Fomorian is the name of a mythic Celtic race, as is Fir Bolg (or its alternate spelling, Firbolg). The Red Branch is an older name for the Ulster cycle, and a popular name for the band of warriors based out of Emain Macha. Enech is the old Irish word for face (as in saving face or honor). Cromlech is another Gaelic word (more used in Wales and Cornwall, though not exclusively) for dolmens. The only thing I can think of is that I can't use the Slaine's universe interpretation of these terms, but I don't see any way in which they could stop me from using these terms simply as terms; that would be like me claiming as PI Olympus, Achilles and so forth. Personally I have a mind to simply ignore the PI declaration as it applies to these terms, which have obviously been in use before the Slaine comic or the game, but I wanted to ask for thoughts on the matter. Daniel M. Perez Highmoon Media Productions www.HighmoonMedia.com Products available at: Digital Book Booth, DriveThruRPG.com, e23, RPGnow.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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] PI declarations
It's my opinion, it is Ryan's opinion, and it is the only reading of the license that makes any reasonable sense. Obviously, like everything else with the OGL, there is no official pronouncement on anything :) Clark --- Spike Y Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Clark Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They absolutely cannot do that (prevent you from using public domain names). They can PI the name, but it is only as to that NPC or person from their product. You have every right to use those names you want to use, presuming they have a public domain origin. Mongoose, or any other publisher, cant gobble up public domain names by declaring them as PI. If the names are public domain, then you have a source for them (the public domain) aside from Mongoose's content and thus you can use them freely. Is this your opinion (which I agree with, by the way) or has this been officially declared to be the correct interpretation of the ambiguous license terms by WotC and/or a court of law? Spike Y Jones ___ 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] Who can declare Product Identity (Third PartyBeneficiaries?)
1) Acme Games publishes a non OGL roleplaying game with no OGC declared. 2) Several years later WotC bring out the OGL and Acme Games joins the OGC community. 3) Someone at Beta Games phones up the guy that runs Acme Games and says: I've been looking at some of your old stuff and there is something there that I'd really like to use in one of my products. 4) The head of Acme Games says: I don't mind you using it, but I don't want to have to go to the expense of republishing it under the OGL. However, as long as you promise to declare X,Y and Z as PI for me, you can use it. Wouldn't this then mean that Beta Games would be making PI declarations on behalf of Acme Games? Beta Games would then be a third party that benefits from the protection of the OGL. Is this the sort of thing you are getting at? If that is what he is talking about, I have already done it a bunch of times. Any time you use content under license, you are most likely going to be doing something like that. For example, our Judges Guild products and our Grimtooth's Traps book. In those books I declare PI content that I am using under license. I dont see any logical or legal prohibition to doing this. Clark = ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third PartyBeneficiaries?)
I can't speak for American law, but my lawyer up here in Canuckistan told me it's not a contract but a license with terms of limitation when I did my initial review of the OGL and d20 STL with him. In a sense, both are right. From a big picture view, any time two people (or more) agree on things for their mutual benefit, whether orally or in writing, you can consider it a contract and analyze it under contract law. That is just a sweeping generalization. Saying the OGL is a license is just a more specific and precise way to describe the nature of the relationship. By the way, I love Canukistan. That is hillarious. I am stealing that, I hope you dont mind :) Clark = ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third PartyBeneficiaries?)
Wow. Ignore my last post about contract and license. I didnt know this discussion had gotten this technical. I see we are way beyond the generalities I was speaking in in the last post. Clark --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:53:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can't speak for American law, but my lawyer up here in Canuckistan told me it's not a contract but a license with terms of limitation when I did my initial review of the OGL and d20 STL with him. Were it not for the requirement to waive your fair use rights I'm not certain it would be a contract. It would simply be a grant with limitations on it. That's the primary form of consideration that's being given up. Now, on law school exams profs can fib, and call things consideration when they aren't really consideration. So the mere fact that the contract says offer, acceptance, grant, consideration is there to color this like a contract. The only question is whether waiving your fair use rights is a valid form of consideration. If it is, then it's a contract. If that's deemed to be not really consideration then it's a license that acts as a grant + promissory estoppel. Lee ___ 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] courtesy OGC
your right about courtesy. it is not a legal obligation. and that perhaps leads to a problem with the semantics of this very discussion. most talk of this issue in terms of permission to use OGC. OBVIOUSLY there is no need for that. But yet we use the term permission to refer to the courtesy notice of use and the chance for the original company to say hey, we are doing a reprint, do you mind not using it right now or you know, if you dont mind, i'd rather not have my ogc associated with the book of troll sexuality or whatever other issue both parties may have. i guess we should really call it notice and chance for objection. but it exists for three reasons: 1. because courtesy is the best way to do business, 2. it provides the opportunity to solve any problems that might arise ahead of time, and 3. it will most likely make the owner of the content you reuse more willing to overlook errors or minor mistakes in your reuse of the content. clark --- Reginald Cablayan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is courtesy? I know it's not a legal obligation, as Lee pointed out. The OGL does not specify that I must request the owner/contributor of the OGC for use in my product, only that if I want to use the PI, I must acquire their permission, which is a good time to be (or pretend to be) polite to said PI owner. Then it must be a social gesture. But what do you get out of that? A connection with that person who may later on ask you to help collaborate on some future project? To pay homage to the contributor, hoping that others will do the same when it comes to your OGC material? Or is it simply nothing, but it is just the way you are? -Original Message- From: Web Warlock I know I am not required to do it by any means, but I usually send an email to the publishers under the heading Notification of use of your OGC. I have received some positive feedback when doing this and under the worst circumstances I have only been ignored. It's not asking for permission (which I don't really need), it's just more as courtesy to the people that did the original work. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] courtesy OGC
This goes to a lot of issues, really. Like any other business, treat others as you would like to be treated. We ask permission to use content and also ask how people would like things done, where practicable. We also try to drop an acknowledgment for a product aside from what is required by the OGL, such as putting a sidebar near the utilized content such as This item, and others like it, can be found in Big Cool Book by Kicka$$ Games. Similarly, if you are going to reproduce alot of content from a book, you should probably ask permission. The publisher may be planning a reprint or a revision. I would hope you would want the same courtesy if it was your content. Again, this isnt required. Its just pretty much how most of the people who have been doing things for some time do it. Now, just like you dont have to ask for permission, I dont have to look the other way on violations. My general policy is that if a guy asks permission there is a better chance he will comply with the license. If he goofs, I will cut him some slack and be helpful in fixing things. But just like he doesnt have to ask permission, I dont have to be cool about violations either. If someone doesnt ask permission and they screw up their section 15 or commit some other violation, I will be way more harsh with their violations than with a guy who did ask permission. In fact, I once had a guy tell me he was using A through Z items in a pissy tone sort of and there is nothing you can do about it and I dont even have to send you this email. I wrote him back and said, ok smarta$$, use it. but I will be combing over your designations and compliance like a hawk. you better do it absolutely perfectly or i will come down on you for even a percieved mistake like a ton of bricks. but remember, that is the way he chose to play it, not me. in fact, i have even TOLD people how to reuse my content. See Tome of Horrors. The Legal Appendix has step by step instructions on how to reuse the content and how to do your section 15 correctly. So no, you dont have to ask permission. But neither does the publisher have to be cool if you make a tiny mistake in your use. That is why both sides gain by being professional and courteous and asking permission. To answer your questions more directly: There is no requirement in the OGL to ask or receive permission to use OGC, as long as you comply with the terms of the OGL, including an accurate section 15. Correct. But again, the publisher whose content you use is under no obligation to be cool about accidental mis-designation by you. They are free to try to shove it where the sun dont shine. I find that asking permission is a simple, common courtesy that exists in any industry and promotes professionalism and prevents problems from accidental mistakes. It might be courteous to acknowledge what material comes from what sources, but currently this is not allowed (or is very difficult) due to restrictions on the use of PI, such as company names. Agreed. If I am using cotent, its becasue i like it. I usually want to promote the content more than meerely mentioning it in a section 15 designation. But to do that would require permission. Which is why when i use content I ask permission and in doing so i also ask if they mind if i drop a little plug in the product. What permissible role should courtesy play in using OGC? I dont think its an OGC issue as much as it is a professional business issue. Lets all play nice. Should courtesy extend to notifying a company of one's intent to use their OGC? I think so. A company may be planning to reprint a product and your use of OGC may blunt or hamper the success of that reprint or revision in some circumstances. If that happens, as mentioned above, and they feel you stepped on their toes they are free to be very strict in reviewing your compliance. Should the amount of OGC used make a difference? Yes. If you use alot I think you run the risk of accidentally stepping on toes. It makes more sense to ask permission if you are reusing alot of content. See above. Should courtesy extend to supplying a company with a copy of the new publication in which their OGC was used? I dont think so and I certainly havent seen that done on a regular basis. Clark Peterson Necromancer Games = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Signing Off
well then why not leave all of gaming. clark --- Steven Trustrum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, because those situations are all analogous ... You don't agree with Bruce, and that's fine. It's your right to have a different opinion. However, don't cop an attitude as though it's hard to understand why someone might feel uncomfortable remaining on this listserv considering this revelation concerning a GAME-RELATED organization. The fact that Bruce decided to make a statement with regards to such concerns is not beyond understanding in light of this and the Fix Gama ordeal. Steven Trustrum President For Life (or until the money runs out) Misfit Studios -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Maggie Vining Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 2:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Signing Off I've cheated on my husband, college, and taxes... told good friends to go to hell and turned my back on my family at times when they needed me most. Don't join my discussion lists either. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Signing Off
Its not the uncomfortable part that is troubling. If you are uncomfortable, leave. Thats fine. Its the leave with cheesy announcement that I had the problem with. Nothing better than having an axe to grind and an agenda to push, but wanting to disguise that with the appearance of noncommittal righteousness. Now I also happen to think the moral revulsion angle regarding being on this list and some connection Ryan as a result of this list is totally stupid, but that's just me. I'm not saying he has to agree with my take on that. Let's put it this way: drawing attention to himself and denigrating Ryan is the only possible purpose behind the leave with cheesy announcement tactic. And I am calling b***s*** on that. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Ryan Dancey: ogf-l and ogf-d20-l archives dead?
i think we are just all tired of discussing PI issues and there havent been any happenings or any newbie postings to trigger a round of posts. clark --- The Sigil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ryan: It appears that the www.opengamingfoundation.org site is no longer configured to allow users to peruse the ogf-l and ogf-d20-l archives. It has been this way for months; did I miss someone else asking the question as to why this has happened and whether it will be fixed? Also, this list seems dead of late; not sure if that's good or bad, but just trying to make sure everything still works. --The Sigil _ Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up now 2 months FREE! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/ ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Section 1 Definitions
:) Clark --- DarkTouch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Phew! Thanks Clark, now I can back down and STILL save face ;-) I still think I'm right, even if noone else agrees with me. It is afterall my own opinion of what useless whining and complaining is. And its not as though though that opinion has never been contrary to the majority in the past. I had that same opinion of the Prometheus project when it first started (And no offence to them but part of me still holds that opinion). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Clark Peterson Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 11:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] Section 1 Definitions On the other hand, if someone says I was rereading the lisence this morning and it occured to me that there is this loophole the rest of you peons never saw before... hypothetically what if I created... That's when the brain shuts off. Its OK. You can give up now. You took the first shot at this guy thinking everyone would agree with you that his punctuation observation was lame. Unfortunately for you, the issue he raised was legitimate and you looked clueless for poo-pooing it. So now instead of saying you were wrong you are focusing on how you are just bored of hypotheticals and continuing to blast him. Give it a rest already. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Section 1 Definitions
On the other hand, if someone says I was rereading the lisence this morning and it occured to me that there is this loophole the rest of you peons never saw before... hypothetically what if I created... That's when the brain shuts off. Its OK. You can give up now. You took the first shot at this guy thinking everyone would agree with you that his punctuation observation was lame. Unfortunately for you, the issue he raised was legitimate and you looked clueless for poo-pooing it. So now instead of saying you were wrong you are focusing on how you are just bored of hypotheticals and continuing to blast him. Give it a rest already. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Section 1 Definitions
As a native english speaker who doesn't speak for the rest of the native english speakers, I never noticed the 'typos' nor did I really care. You certainly dont speak for me. I noticed the typos and I cared significantly. In fact, I spent some type re-writing it as I thought was consistent with the most logical interpretation of the language. If you have used the license and not parsed the language, I haver serious doubts about YOUR ability to use the license. Now, in the end I didnt find the typos significant. But I noticed them and found them to be very much worth dealing with. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Stealing OGC
Valid point. As with a lot of things, if you take any position but the most-extreme (at either extreme), it is a somewhat-arbirtary position, often without objective support for why your position is valid and one just a little bit to either side of yours is not. I dont know about arbitrary, but I agree with your point. How about instead of arbitrary we just say unsettled. I do believe my position is correct and is not arbitrary. I have what I believe is objective support for it. But reasonable minds can certainly differ on the topic and it is unsettled in that no one has said definitively what is right or wrong. (by the way, this is not to buy into the scary grey area debate, which I dont agree with, but simply to say that reasonable minds can differ on things and not be arbitrary in their positions or disagreements). [Not to attack your position, just observing that the only positions that don't lead to ambiguities are all information must be free and you own everything you write down, more or less.] I didnt take it as an attack at all. Very well stated. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Creating A World For Release
It seems to me that SwordSorcery did that with Scarred Lands, didn't they? Uh, no. Scarred Lands was the setting by SSS, which is a subsidiary of White Wolf. They were never a pdf-first publisher (though Monte Cook does do that with his SSS releases, but it is more of a strategy than a necessity). Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Stealing OGC
But note the hacker mentality of his reasoning: Yep. Hacker mentality. IOW, the solution to preventing spiteful republication is not making it more difficult, it is making it *less* difficult. Problem is that you will have people with the hacker mentality that anything less than 100% open is unacceptable, so clarity of designation isnt necessarily the problem. Besides, you can see how people disagree on clarity, particularly people who are just fence sitters who like to bitch and moan and who dont actually use the license. Some of them think stuff is unclear or crippled (I use that term because it has been used, not because I like it) that to people who actually use the license dont think it is unclear or crippled at all. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Stealing OGC
There have been occasions where, like woodelf and clark, I've been tempted to allocate some webspace for just this sort of thing. I dont think I should be on that list :) Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Stealing OGC
Just to set things straight, this quote was from me, not Clark. -- Moses Wolfy Wildermuth (Mosopoli) Thanks MW. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Stealing OGC
Is it just me, or do others have a problem with this only the big boys have the moral right to copy OGC attitude? Who are you talking about here? And what OGC copying are you saying is going on by some people that others are not able to do? Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] How to revise the OGL
Now, one can argue that people aren't going to court now. People aren't going to court now, not because there aren't disagreements over licensing issues that should be resolved really in some fashion, but because it's unclear how the chips would fall in court. People arent going to court because there is nothing of significance to resolve by way of litigation. No one who actually runs a business involving d20 products that actually makes money has any interest in going to court to clarify something that is already workable. I appreciate the ongoing discussion. I am a big supporter of the OGL and its growth. But going to court to force some view or interpretation of the OGL on the license itself is, how should I put this gently, not that great of an idea. And I dont care whose view it is, frankly. The license is the license. Unless WotC changes it (unlikely but possible), you are stuck with it. If you want to change the license, then USE the license. Establish a common standard of practice. If, years later, there is ever a legal dispute about the meaning of the license, the courts will look to how the industry uses the license as a standard practice. So in a sense, YOU get to define the license by how it is used. The courts do this because they realize that goofy hypothetical discussions are just that. The real test is how do people actually USE something in commerce. So dont get all revved up to write legal briefs, go make products! Use the license and your use will help define what the terms of the license mean. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] How to revise the OGL
it's never a question of getting everything done the way you'd like. It's only a matter of figuring out what you can leave as less than you'd like, because you _must_. That is the truth. And, frankly, some of the legal stuff is the last to get done and the most rushed. Your point is excellent: very rarely do you have the time and luxury to do things 100% how you would like them. You go with 90% and hope that is good enough. One of the things that's not immediately obvious is precisely how contentious and bickering it is. There is some bickering, that's true. Most everyone tries to get along. But there are, as I understand, various hard feelings here or there over past products or prior dealings or from events at prior employment, etc. But it isnt as contentious as you paint it. seen the cycle go by a bunch of times, and have attitudes that would seem cynical to people newer to the fray but are regrettably well anchored in a pragmatic assessment of the realities. Another good point. d20 seems great and all important to this list, but many people have seen things come and go. You dont just latch on to the currnent new thing in any business and forgo your other options. Yes, they may be more cynical about d20 than us. Note that none of these folks has found it worthwhile to standardize an open-content declaration for all of their products within a single company. They're all experimenting, evolving variations in response to the reactions past efforts got, and tweaking for all kinds of reasons. Another good point. This is very true. I change my designations all the time. I keep thinking up new ways to do things. And I try them. Sometimes, months later, I look back and say what was i thinking? some stuff I say yeah, i did that right. and there is no attempt to standardize things even among Sword Sorcery companies. I do stuff my way. Monte does stuff his way. The SS guys do their thing. If the folks who have most interest in such things haven't converged on anything like a single usage or even two or three most common usages, that strongly suggests that there is no obvious commercial advantage to any one particular interpretation, and therefore little reason to surrender one's own judgment to someone else just because they find another approach more aesthetically pleasing or whatever. I agree with this point, but I am not sure it follows from the prior one. We may all designate differently and do our notices and things differently, but there is general agreement on OGC and PI and how they are used and that the license as is is perfectly workable. I wouldnt use the fact that we may all designate things differently as an example that we disagree on usage. I think there is more agreement than disagreement on usage. There are different ways to do designations, but agreement on usage in general seems pretty standard. Note too that, to put it mildly, these folks aren't all best buddies, nor do they have general philosophies of the relationship between their work and that of other OGL creators anywhere very close to each other. Believe me, if there was some need to standardize this amongst the big kids it would get done IMHO. Despite differences, if there was a big problem, the industry is small enough that a few phone calls could get things resolved. That hasnt happened because there is no need for it. All of the people who actually publish as a business use the license similarly. You might not agree with their designations. It is possible to get antagonists together and get them to agree to a single standard even though it's not in anyone's obvious interest to do so. But it's hard. And precisely because all these folks have seen time and effort gone down the hole of doomed effort, I strongly suspect that many or even most of them would simply decline to try. Again, I think the problem is there is little that actually needs resolving. If there was, we would resolve it. I just got an email from Chris at GR, for example. Believe me, it would not be hard to get Chris from GR and John from Atlas and Steve Wieck and the Mongoose guys and Zinzer from AEG and Monte and others to talk on the phone and hammer out issues. There just is nothing that needs global resolution like that. I dont think it is that people have seen collaborative projects fall apart (which certainly they have), it is just that there is nothing that needs a global solution. An effective pitch would have to do all of the following: 1. Offer an informed explanation of why it wouldn't turn into a time sink ... 2. Offer a clear and simple explanation of the commercial advantage... 3. Offer an equally clear and simple explanation of who would be dealing with existing antagonisms... Not a bad concept, but again, this isnt really the problem. The real problem is that usually the pitch man for some universal resolution of things usually (1) has some agenda,
Re: [Ogf-l] Stealing OGC
My final say on this. If you don't like the way the license(s) work, DON'T USE them. If you don't want to loose all your sales because someone gives your OGC away for free, then DON'T RELY on OGC to sell books. Every time I read posts like this, I forgive every publisher I have ever known that does a less than perfect OGC designation. With all due respect (and what is due is up to others to decide), this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Dont rely on OGC to sell books? You didnt really just say that, did you? OGC to sell books is the whole freaking point. What, we should just regurgitate the SRD and create nothing new? If we make cool new rules and classes and items and spells and stuff for gamers to use, that stuff is going to be OGC. That is what gamers WANT. For most books (aside from adventures and settings) it is the OGC that sells books--the new rules, new class info, new spells, new monsters, etc. You tell me how to make new spells and monsters and classes and stuff like that without it being OGC. How? Those are the books that sell and that is the content people want to buy. Well over 80% of the main books are OGC Content type books--Malhavoc's books with new classes and spells like Eldritch Might, our Tome of Horrors with monsters, Mongoose's Class Books, etc. What a moronic statement. We use the OGL because that is the license available. I would prefer if WotC just grant me a straight royalty free license to say Dungeons and Dragons and refer to the books and use monster names, etc. But they didnt. They gave us the OGL and d20 STL. You cant couple the I want to change the license argument with the if you dont like it dont use it argument. You are advocating that the only issue regarding use is the legal issue--does one have the right to reuse it. Choices dont exist in vaccuums. That is why there are communities. That is why there are ethical issues. There is always what you can do and what you should do. The dont like it dont use it is a can argument, because it assumes that if you use the license you MUST be willing to bear the burden of people doing anything they can with the content. And while this is true to a degree, you may also consider the prevailing ethical norms: what persons should do with the content. A successful community of cooperative persons has two options: (1) a tightly regulated system where every possible move and issue is set out ahead of time and has a rule for every situation, so that there is no disparity between can and should or (2) an ethical understanding of what should be and a dedication to uphold those principles, which in a sense fills in the gaps that may exist in the regulations. This community has, in general, been a good and supportive community who have considered the ethical aspect, which works for everyone. I refrain from doing what I can because doing what I should serves everyone, and thus myself. I refuse to adopt a world view where I must only consider what people can do. I adopt a view where I can consider what people should do. And given that, people should be respectful of use of content that others created. But I am getting off my point, which is that this who experiment hopefully exists to expand OGC. If that is true, then your comment dont rely on OGC to sell books is counter to the whole point. The setting material is supposed to sell the books, not rules expansions or lists of stats. Do you have any clue what books sell? I'm starting to think some people here want to talk about d20 but dont have the first clue what products are available. If you cant discuss the actual market this is hardly a profitable discussion. Rules expansions and stats (monster stats, spell stats, etc) are what sells. Tome of Horrors. Book of Eldritch Might. Etc. A weak or contradictory setting bolstered only by good OGC, is useless for anything but the OGC, think about it. I thought about it. Now what do you want me to do. Unbelievable. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Clark...
Though I live in Vegas, I probably wont be at GAMA since I am in a 4 week murder trial that just started. I may be able to pop in Thursday beacause the judge might not be on the bench that day. But it is up in the air. You wont be able to corner me. email me directly. Clark --- Mynex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yup, yup, got the word he is there... couple people forwarded my message on, and I've got a monkey going there tomorrow and try to corner him for me... Thanks to those of you who passed the message on! Much appreciated! W. Robert Reed III Mynex - #1 Evil Monkey - Code Monkey Publishing Co-Founder - El Mono Calvo Malvado -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of The Sigil Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 1:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Ogf-l] Clark... Clark is probably at the GAMA Trade show in Las Vegas (most print publishers are); I would assume he has e-mail access there, but he may not - if you don't hear from him for a few days, that's probably why. --The Sigil Clark if youre reading this please contact me as soon as feasible in email (Ive also sent an email to youre yahoo email, but yahoo sometimes eats CMP mail). If anyone can get a hold of Clark (and he doesnt see this sometime in the next few hours) please get a hold of him for me. Thank you. W. Robert Reed III _ Get business advice and resources to improve your work life, from bCentral. http://special.msn.com/bcentral/loudclear.armx ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.622 / Virus Database: 400 - Release Date: 3/13/2004 ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Advantages of a new version of the OGL
Experienced Publishers: 1) A OGL guide can be used to settle once and for all ambiguities like the white out theory vs. the forbidden terms theory. Actual publishers arent confused. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Compatibility Declarations OGL Scope
dont forget the d20 stl, if you use it, may also impose restrictions on you. clark --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some have argued that the OGL is scoped only to cover the declared OGC and PI combined, that this is the definition of work. If that's the case, what prevents the author from making compatibility declarations (outside of the safe harbor, using any fair use of trademarks, etc. that may exist outside of the OGL) in sections designated neither as OGC nor as PI? Part of your answer may or may not implicate the question of whether you are responsible for all PI declarations in your section 15 or just those you copy directly from. So, for example, if you copy your game info from Mongoose's OGL Player's Handbook, and if you are only responsible for the PI declarations listed in that volume (not the others listed in the Section 15), and if the OGL is scoped (as some claim) to define the covered work only as the sum of the OGC and PI, then you could get away with compatibility declarations all over the place if they were allowable by normal trademark and/or copyright law. Such declarations might then allow you to make declarations of compatibility with Dungeons Dragons, etc. while still allowing character creation rules (i.e., they would allow you to work outside of the d20 license). There seems to be an internal contradiction in the notion that the license covers a book cover to cover against compatibility declarations, etc., and the notion that the work covered means that you can cherry pick what parts of your book are and are not covered by the license. This is further compounded by the point of view that PI declarations only hold weight over people who copy directly from an original source, rather than deriving information indirectly via some third party product. Is it my imagination, or are people using the term work in 2 or 3 different ways depending on the rights in question, instead of assuming that the term work, in the context of a single copy of the license, has similar meanings throughout. Ideally, it would be great to have 3 types of content plus prohibitions against compatibility, plus protections against PI infringement past one generation of copying, however, some of these things seem like they just must be mutually exclusive of each other. I am pretty sure that this problem was not intended when the license was drafted. And I desperately want to see that there is a way to resolve these anomalies without a redraft of the license. I just haven't been swayed that all these things can be true simultaneously. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Product Identity does not mean Everything that's not OGC
PI isn't OGC, and neither is it a sub-set of OGC. But it is within OGC. If PI is outside of OGC then there was no need to PI it. So its like the eye of a hurricaine. It is the still part that is not the storm, but it is within the storm. If it was outside the storm, it wouldnt be the eye anymore. Just a little imprecise picture to help understand the three types of content. Clearly the main people discussing this are doing so on a higher than normal level so maybe I shouldnt have used the simplistic subset idea. Sorry for causing confusion. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: Product Identity does not mean Everything that's not OGC
One interpretation of the license (the one favoured by Ryan Dancey, among others) is that the license only applies to the Open Content within a book, not that which isn't a part of the Open Content. Only when the PI meanders into the OGC areas would the power of the OGL be required (and even able) to protect those terms. And it is those persons who have that interpretation who often say that PI is a subset of OGC. Again, this is most likely just an imprecise way to refer to the idea--meaning outside of OGC there can be no PI. I'm not sure I agree with that reading, and I myself have PI'd stuff that isnt in OGC. But I do understand the interpretation. Thanks for the clear summary, Spike. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
But maybe I'm naïve: I just really, really haven't seen any signs of someone really wanting to cripple their OGC and prevent reuse. Listen, if I wanted to cripple OGC I could. I would do it in a bunch of ways, not just one way. So when someone singles out a license or an overbroad PI, that isnt intentional crippling, that is just a bad designation or perhaps something that could be more clear. You would know intentionally crippled OGC if you saw it. I've tried it a couple of times for fun (not in any products, just for my own amusement), just to see how I would do it--since it is so commonly alleged against large publishers. Believe me, you would know it if you saw it. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Product Identity does not mean Everything that's not OGC
Every so often, it's useful to point out that a work licensed under the Open Game License (from Wizards of the Coast -- hi, woodelf!) can have THREE types of content: * Material that is declared and released under the OGL as Open Game Content, and can be freely reused according to the terms of the OGL. * Material that falls within the declared OGC content of the work, and that thus qualifies as Open Game Content; but which the owner has further declared as Product Identity, thus denying any license to reuse under the terms of the OGL. Reuse under other terms (such as the RR reuse license) may be possible. * Material that falls outside the declared OGC portions of the work, and is thus not released under the OGL, but simply is covered under standard copyright law. For simplicity, this is sometimes called closed content. I am so glad this is more commonly understood now. I remember when we all discussed this back in the infancy of hte draft license. I got a lot of huh?s when I and several others floated this concept some years ago. The above summary is excellent. Three types (or for the really anal, two types, one of which has a subset): 1. OGL-covered content that is OGC 2. OGL-covered content that is OGC but has been designated as PI 3. Non-OGL content that is covered by standard copyright law Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Repeated Section 15 Entries
One thing that I'm wondering: if one source you borrow from was released under OGL v1.0 and another was released under OGL v1.0a, do you have to include both v1.0 and v1.0a in your own Section 15 (independent of whatever version of the license you're releasing your own book under)? I didnt. I've just used the most current version of the SRD. But that was because I didnt give it much thought, frankly. I figured I listed the SRD so that is good. But I think that is wrong, now that I give it some consideration. It is probably best to list both versions if both are used in teh various products so that reusers are aware content comes from various sources--that being the whole point of section 15. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Product Identity does not mean Everything that's not OGC
Just want to get that straight - for the record ... Clark? I think PI is meant to allow protection of content that is inextricably mixed in with OGC. Thus, if the content is not OGC, there is no need to apply PI protection to it (though some do, for various reasons, such as perhaps we are reading this wrong). So when I (or others) say subset, I dont mean it in the literal mathematical sense. But rather in the logical sense that if the content isnt even OGC then you dont have to PI it. Yes, PI is not OGC but there is (presumptively) no need to declare as PI anything that is not mixed with OGC. (Now, I have certainly PId stuff that isnt mixed with OGC, but that is another story) I think the reason this was done was to make designations easy. For example, all of chapters X, Y and Z are OGC, subject to PI below. PI: the names A, B, C, the story concept AA, the names of any and all gods. PI was made to keep us publishers happy who were worried about losting control over stuff in sections that were OGC. You could argue that PI is unnecessary. You could say that you could just do a very restrictive OGC designation and thereby protect stuff that you might want to PI. But PI is now within the license and part of the safe harbor and I think serves a purpose. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
It sounds like people should start advertising their websites in their section 15s to get a bit of web traffic out of any OGC reuse. I never have understood why people dont put more in their section 15 that is helpful to them. Now, I dont think ads or other stuff is really useful, but say a link to a website might be. I dont see section 15 as good for ads because who is kidding who, no one reads that anyway. But it could be helpful to someone who takes the time to say, hey that was cool, where did that come from? and actully looks at the section 15. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
Let's say, for instance, I'm drawing two spells from a source that includes a few RR spells and all the re-user has put is All [spell names] from Relics Rituals are used by license, how do *I* know if the two spells I'm using require me to use the Goodies License or not? Any second generation reuser that doesnt check the primary source is an idiot. You are an utter fool if you trust that the first reuser did anything right. There is no good faith reliance on another persons' mistakes clause in the license. Thus, there can not be any reasonable person who uses OGC third hand. I refuse to consider any suggestion that any impact on third generation reuse needs to be considered. If I make book 1 and company x makes book 2 that has ogc from my book 1, if you are intending to make book 3 and you intend to rely solely on the designation from book 2, you are an idiot. [when i say you i mean a person not you specifically. you have demonstrated by being here and discussing it that you are most assuredly not an idiot :)] If book 2 made a mistake and you repeat that mistake in book 3, you are not shielded from any liability. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Derivative Content and PI
It's my understanding that derivative material would include, IMO, a Shadow Weapon where a Shadow Weapon is a name being based on the name Shadow from the SRD, There is mistake number one. The name doesnt come from the SRD. It uses a word that also happens to be in the SRD. and is further suggested to be a derivative name if the rule mechanics of the Shadow Weapon are based on the rules mechanics embodied in the SRD/OGC description of a shadow's abilities, thus rendering the name Shadow Weapon as derivative of an OGC name Shadow combined with a generic name that is in common usage through the SRD such as weapon. Again, same mistake. The word weapon may in fact be in the SRD but that doesnt mean any use of the word must be derivative of its presence in the SRD. Part of your argument is correct. Certainly the rule mechanics portion of the spell must be open as it relies on rule content derived from the SRD. Can I declare Stone Mace (as an object) as PI (and have it considered a valid declaration) where the element, stone, and the weapon, a mace, are commonly used within the current game mechanics and if I base my Stone Mace on the commonly understood concepts as expressed in prereleased OGC of that element and that weapon? Sure. Why you would want to, I dont know. But you could. Can I declare Running in Space (as a Feat) as PI (and have it considered a valid declaration) where the description of that Feat borrows portions of the description of the Run Feat and borrows from the description of the game mechanic Space? Of course you can. That proper name could be PI. Can I declare Doubled Armor Class (as a game mechanic) as PI (and have it considered a valid declaration) where Armor Class means the same as it does in the SRD and where Doubled simply describes the process of simply doubling the number (in any case) of an Armor Class? If that was a feat name or an ability name of some type, I think yes. If you were just using the term to describe a condition, no. At what point is a PI declaration untenable because of its level of derivation? I dont see a mechanism in the license for challenging whether or not a PI designation is untenable. In other words, quit sweating the small stuff, son. At what point is a combination of OGC terms and/or generic terms with other OGC terms and/or generic terms, simply not sufficiently independent of their source material, where that source material is OGC, to be defendable as a PI declaration? Again, there is no mechanism to consider the defensibility of PI designations. Now, I do appreciate the discussion in an abstract sense. But I think you are getting caught up here. Just because some content uses material from the SRD doesnt mean the name attached to that content is by necessity derivative. The rules are, sure. But not the name. I view the name of a thing as not stemming from the SRD, even if that name includes a word that is also in the SRD. So, does your understanding of derivative material differ from mine? Yes, see above. so that we can further the discussion and perhaps seek a solution. I dont have a need for further discussion. I dont have a problem with it needing a solution. Let me offer a suggestion. Some educators claim there are three levels of understanding. Glib understanding, where you grasp the basic principles and are comfortable with that. Intermediate Understanding, where you see more complex issues but have a tendency to get lost in them because you dont see the whole. And then true understanding. Educators often say, if you cant get to true understanding, dont go past glib understanding because you will just get confused. I think, perhaps, you are at Intermediate Understanding. You have seen an interesting issue--the validity of PI designations that may involve derivative use of SRD material. I dont think you are seeing the forest for the trees though. but I believe that such declarations should error to the side of being too specific rather than blandly encompassing, lest the overall concept and defensibility of PI suffer and potentially render that aspect of the Open Game License useless (in a legal dispute). I think, in the end, this is the problem you are having. You are letting your view of what things should be affect your view of how they are. Dont worry about the overall concept and defensibility of PI. Surely there is wisdom in protecting the defined terms of the OGL to greater enhance the strength of the whole? None that I can see. I would urge anyone who has used blanket statements that declare as PI anything that is not clearly defendable as PI to renounce their own claims to that PI, and I believe that would be in the best interest of the log term strength of the OGL, the best interests of the community, and interests of the community's individual concepts they *can* clearly defend. This is just stupid. OK, you know what, you have
Re: [Ogf-l] Crippled Section 15 Notice
You'd still be in breach of the license; morally right, but legally wrong. Morally right? Really...that's debatable. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Section 15 Issues
I cant believe this is causing a headache. Come on, people. Be problem solvers for god's sake, not gripers. The license requires you to duplice their section 15 exactly. That's that. Do it. BUT there is nothing that says you can't add some stuff parenthetically afterwards. For example, here could be your section 15: Your product, copyright You, author You. Offending Product Name, and the above designated Product Identity are Copyright, Year, Publisher. OK, so the above entry is the part that causes you problems. Why not just add this beneath it: [Note, the above entry was required to be reproduced exactly pursuant to paragraph XXX of the Open Game License; however, its reference and the above designated Product Identity refers to the Product Identity designated in Offending Product Name, not THIS product, and does not in any way alter the designation of Product Identity in THIS work nor does it alter the ownership of the content of this work.] How about that for a solution? And you dont have to alter their entry (which we all agree is lame) to achieve your goal. Clark --- jdomsalla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, an issue that is incredibly minor, and I think I know the answer... If I draw from a source using version 1.0 of the license, need I list it alongside 1.0a in Section 15? It's been suggested otherwise, the basis being that we're supposed to reproduce the *exact text* of the sources copyright. My feeling is that the use any version of the license sets the standard as to be the one I am actually using myself, and examples I already know of follow suit. Second, and more troubling... A source I'm drawing from has the following S15 entry: [Product Name] and the above designated Product Identity are Copyright [Year], [Publisher]. [Names removed to protect the guilty...] Now, is it just me, or is there a problem with putting this line into my material? After all, the above designated Product Identity is going to be *my* Product Identity, and I don't see this line doing anything except causing issues. Yes, I have sent emails. No, I have not gotten a reply. Now I'm half-tempted to hit all the publisher forums I know (ENWorld, Mortality, WotC d20 page, etc.) and just post a public announcement that I'm removing the stupid part for obvious reasons. As a free download, I can change it at a moment's notice should the offending parties ever get an inkling to contact me, although the fact that I *know* I'd be doing it has held my hand back on the issue, so to speak. Thoughts and opinions on this? ~Jimmy Domsalla qtgg.icehex.net ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
Lets not forget, in Relics Rituals we had some serious PI we were concerned about protecting, such as the specific names of the gods and setting info that are in many of the spell names. I wanted a nice, simple, clear way to allow people to use the content, but I still had a clear reason to PI some of the spells. I had two choices: Just PI the gods names and setting info in the spell names and then provide a very specific license for each of those. That seemed too complicated and might hinder reuse. So I chose option 2. PI all the names and provide a blanket license for all spell names. That is easier and simpler for everyone. I actually went out of my way to make reuse EASIER for everyone. Criticize it if you want, but that is why I did it. And, frankly, I didnt even have to do that. Only on the internet can you be criticized for giving away stuff you dont have to give away. As for the suggestion that we could have made it all OGC, sure and WotC could give away the name DD too. That is a lame criticism. The setting names and god names are important pieces of intellectual property to the Scarred Lands setting. If you want to criticize me for protecting that, go ahead. But it will expose you as having an agenda and having no concept of business. It pisses me off to hear whiny criticism of something I went out of my way to do nicely for everyone. That doesnt mean I cant take criticism. I can. If you have a better way that meets all the needs, suggest it to me. I am happy to change to find a better way to do things. But just griping that it isnt all open is moronic. Clark --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/17/2004 1:37:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How is a PIed name with reuse any better at this than a freely-reusable OGCed name? I agree that accurate attribution of reused content is great for the consumer *and* the original producer, but i don't see how the PIed name helps the matter. Generally there's a quid pro quo. You wouldn't get attribution rights without a license. The vendor chooses to PI his spell names. He does so to get some extra credits in your book and/or to provide additional protections for his work. Through the same license he gives you rights to refer more explicitly to his PI (to note which is his PI and which isn't). That could help people track down which source is licensing which exact spells. That's useful. Quid pro quo. Hardly immoral. It's an entirely fair exchange. Everyone down the line gets the benefit of knowing exactly where certain creatures or spells comes from (since the OGL by itself makes that tough info to come by). Yes, of course they could just give you the rights and ask nothing in return. But that's altruism. Just because quid pro quo arrangements aren't purely altruistic doesn't make Clark and others suddenly license violators or immoral. Yes, with an OGCed name, they can just change it. Well, they can give a spell a new name even if the name is PIed, too. Right. I'm not debating that. I'm the one challenging people who are de facto attacking Clark and others claiming that this usage is either: a) not in compliance with the license b) crippling to the OGC c) somehow immoral The very fact that it's trivial to rename a spell is why this usage is not crippling to most OGC. Lee ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
Yes, that is essentially what we did. We then did not designate the spell names as open content (remember, this is way back when PI was a new concept, I would do it slightly differently today). But I did several different drafts of several ways to license the content and the easiest and clearest way was to just say you have a license to use all spell names essentially. I wanted there to be as few questions as possible. I couldnt find (at the time) a more workable solution. And believe me, I tried. clark --- Doug Meerschaert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clark Peterson wrote: As for the suggestion that we could have made it all OGC, The only suggestion worthwhile is that you PI what's important--the names of your gods et al--and OGC everything else. Won't a claim of Ildur as PI also keep the name out of Ildur's Smite or Bane of Ildur? In fact, (I don't have my copy with me)--isn't that what you did? DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
The problem is that many of the spell names (the vast majority in the case of what's been submitted to me) -- are extremely generic names. Names that given the function of the spell, are really the best, most natural, names for what those spells do. I agree with that problem. That means we did a good job naming the spells. :) But you have a license to use the spell names. Given the license, what is the seemingly desperate need to make an OGC name? The license doesnt prohibit your use in any way, other than that you cant designate it as pure OCG. It only hinders (if you can even call it that) distribution in a theoretical way, not in any practical way. Just use the spell and then say all spell names from Relics and Rituals are used pursuant to a limited license contained therein. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
Seems to me that the nose of the original creator OUGHT to be tweaked. He clearly does not want to abide by the terms of the OGL which is to allow things to be reused. I didnt catch who wrote this. I'm here. Tweak away. But my guess is you dont know what the hell you are talking about and/or havent been on this list very long. Clearly doesnt want to abide by the terms of the OGL. Unbelievable. I dont know who wrote this, but you need to do your homework. I'll end here before I use nasty language. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
I guess I shouldnt get so mad. It is the same everything should be open and everyone who doesnt agree is evil and is violating the license nonsense that crops up from time to time. What particularly offends me are the people who are so quick to ascribe to me some evil intent who 1. dont know me and 2. havent been around for the history of the development of the license like many of us have and 3. arent familiar with my history of advocating openness and fair play in the community. Whether they are new people who havent done their homework or long time muckrakers, it is still annoying. Clark --- M Jason Parent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having used Clark's Product Identity under that same free license in the past (as well as the nearly identical free 'goodies' license from AEG in the rokugan books), I have to agree that this system is great in that it allows you to use the PI with permission in specific fashions, OR just change the name and use it as OGC. I have done both in products, and have even mixed the application (some of the spells were referenced by their actual names with the additional license, some had their names changed to suit the style of the product better). IMO, this is a big to-do over what I consider to have been a very good (and free) deal and offer from Clark and AEG in their products. -Original Message- Lets not forget, in Relics Rituals we had some serious PI we were concerned about protecting, such as the specific names of the gods and setting info that are in many of the spell names. I wanted a nice, simple, clear way to allow people to use the content, but I still had a clear reason to PI some of the spells. I had two choices: Just PI the gods names and setting info in the spell names and then provide a very specific license for each of those. That seemed too complicated and might hinder reuse. So I chose option 2. PI all the names and provide a blanket license for all spell names. That is easier and simpler for everyone. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
But i don't accept hey, it's legal as blanket protection for doing anything--sometimes, what is legal is not moral. I agree. As for the generosity of free PI-reuse, and wanting attribution That isnt why I PI'd stuff in RR. I PI'd it because we wanted to protect important setting content. If you want to see how I handle attribution, when that is importnat to me, see how we did Tome of Horrors where we wanted to credit each individual original author. So dont set up and knock down the straw man of attribution when that wasnt the reason behind why we did RR's license. Because when you're forced to change the name, you're undermining one of the virtues of open-content development: credit where credit is due. That is only one of the virtues and nothing stops you from crediting the source. That is a lame argument. Attribution is as much the issue for the re-user as for the original author. For example, lets say there was Clark's Cool Spell and I PI'd the name and the content was OGC. You could rename it to Karl's Cool Spell and use the same OGC content for it. Here is where your argument falls apart. According to you, now attribution is ruined. No it isnt. You could easily put in your legal section: [Name of Book that has Clark's Cool Spell], section 15 info. Name of Your product, section 15 info. Note: Karl's Cool Spell is based on Open Game Content found in [Name of book that has the spell], originally written by Clark Peterson. So you can still attribute sources if YOU THE REUSER want to do so. For example, I just did a product where my author used 5 or 6 rather obscure internet OGC sources. They had bad section 15 designations. So, though I was forced to use their section 15 by the license, I also added a section called: OGC in this Book where I said This book uses Open Game Content from some unique sources that deserve further designation. Then I went on to list them. Just because the license requires you to mimic the section 15 doesnt mean you cant further elaborate. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
But i don't accept hey, it's legal as blanket protection for doing anything--sometimes, what is legal is not moral. I agree. As for the generosity of free PI-reuse, and wanting attribution That isnt why I PI'd stuff in RR. I PI'd it because we wanted to protect important setting content. If you want to see how I handle attribution, when that is importnat to me, see how we did Tome of Horrors where we wanted to credit each individual original author. So dont set up and knock down the straw man of attribution when that wasnt the reason behind why we did RR's license. Because when you're forced to change the name, you're undermining one of the virtues of open-content development: credit where credit is due. That is only one of the virtues and nothing stops you from crediting the source. That is a lame argument. Attribution is as much the issue for the re-user as for the original author. For example, lets say there was Clark's Cool Spell and I PI'd the name and the content was OGC. You could rename it to Karl's Cool Spell and use the same OGC content for it. Here is where your argument falls apart. According to you, now attribution is ruined. No it isnt. You could easily put in your legal section: [Name of Book that has Clark's Cool Spell], section 15 info. Name of Your product, section 15 info. Note: Karl's Cool Spell is based on Open Game Content found in [Name of book that has the spell], originally written by Clark Peterson. So you can still attribute sources if YOU THE REUSER want to do so. For example, I just did a product where my author used 5 or 6 rather obscure internet OGC sources. They had bad section 15 designations. So, though I was forced to use their section 15 by the license, I also added a section called: OGC in this Book where I said This book uses Open Game Content from some unique sources that deserve further designation. Then I went on to list them. Just because the license requires you to mimic the section 15 doesnt mean you cant further elaborate. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
Anything else might be a copyright violation. It's far from clear-cut, where RPG mechanics are concerned. Not that it's a good idea--just that it's not clearly illegal. Spoken like a true intellectual in an ivory tower. Let's put it this way--its clearly illegal enough to people who actually have to decide whether or not to do it that NODBODY IS DOING IT. To repeat, for guys sitting in their rooms debating it with nothing on the line, it is up in the air and a grey area needing to be resolved by the courts. For people actually putting time and money into a project, it is clear enough. He is partially right, I will concede. There is at least some argument that DD is more like poker and thus the game rules arent copyrightable. I wouldnt bet on that, though, and neither is anyone else currently. Hey, maybe woodelf would like to infringe on WotC's copyrights and he could serve as the test case! That way we could all find out! Or, maybe, when he puts his money where his mouth is he too will concede that it is just enough clearly illegal that it isnt worth trying. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
In a way, what you've done is shifted the burden of typing all the PI terms into a clump off of your shoulders and onto the shoulders of the reuser. Now, if someone wants to use some spells from your book and he wants to mix them in with the spells from some other book, if he wants to use the PI names *he* has to be the one to make a list of all their names or come up with some other way of clearly designating those spell names as licensed PI, so that some third publisher down the line will know which spells are subject to your sublicense and which aren't. Incorrect. All they need do is say All spells from Relics and Rituals are used by license. Faced with the choice, someone might choose to come up with a completely Open new title instead of having to jump through a hoop, no matter how close to the ground the hoop is held. Spike Y Jones Sure. They could choose that. If putting a line that says all spells from Relics and Rituals are used by license is a hurdle to someone, I dont know how that person gets through the day. Frankly, I dont see how a person like that is able to turn on their computer to post a gripe about said alleged hurdle. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Derivitive Content and PI
As it stands, though, I do not believe a Shadow Weapon PI designation would be valid. Nice belief, but wrong. The license allows it. You also, IMHO and in the opinion of those who have thought about the matter and actually published, is that the name itself is your particular expression of the thing. For instance, no one would claim serious protection of the name snow ape (an example we have used before). But you have to consider the content. Snow Ape from Big Book of Monsters by Clark Peterson means just that, even if the name is just snow ape. If you made your own snow ape, that is not a PI violation. If it is your own version. But if you used my name snow ape along with the exact stats of my snow ape, it is. Because snow ape in my book means as it is herein expressed. Sort of like the name Orcus. Orcus is a public domain concept and name. But orcus as a goat headed death wand wielding horned bat winged demon is TSR's expression of Orcus (which I might add that I use by permission, lest that discussion start up). So you cant violate things by making your own orcus. but you can if you do thier (or my) version of it. Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
woodelf- One day I just want to hear you say, you know, Clark has thought alot about this and basically has found a way around most problems and I have come to conclude that he is actually genuinely interested in giving away content that he didnt have to give away. :) Clark --- woodelf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 14:51 -0800 2/17/04, Clark Peterson wrote: As for the generosity of free PI-reuse, and wanting attribution That isnt why I PI'd stuff in RR. I PI'd it because we wanted to protect important setting content. If you want to see how I handle attribution, when that is importnat to me, see how we did Tome of Horrors where we wanted to credit each individual original author. So dont set up and knock down the straw man of attribution when that wasnt the reason behind why we did RR's license. i'd actually completely lost track that an RR widget was the original source of this discussion, and thought we were only talking in the abstract, about the advantages and disadvantages and results of PI-with-license for widget names. In any case, I didn't mean to construct a strawman. Maybe i simply misunderstand your motives for PIing things and then licensing them, or maybe it's justa semantic issue and i'm using the wrong words, so let me state what i *thought* was the situation: --Certain names/terms/etc. are valuable to you, as they are tied to significant unique creative expression, specifically the Scarred Lands setting --You don't want to unintentionally give those away, due to error or a legal re-reading of the WotC OGL and the nature of open/closed content, or any other such thing, so you mark those items as PI, to make it crystal-clear that others can't reuse them --You create a bunch of spells with PI elements in their names. As per the 2nd point, you don't want to just give them away, or open up the PI to arbitrary reuse. --However, you want people to be able use those names with those spells, so you put in an explicit license that boils down to you can use the name of the spell, even though it's not OGC, but only to identify that specific spell. [i hope i got that right, since i don't have the book in question to double-check.] Is that correct? If so, isn't one of the motives for allowing people to reuse the your spell names so that the name sticks with the spell? And isn't the point of that basically free advertising for your setting? Which doesn't work unless they provide some sort of association to your works--i.e., roundabout attribution. If that's not the case, i guess i don't understand why you'd give away the PI-containing names at all (well, and not just make them OGC--my conclusion is predicated on you valuing your IP elements which you designate as PI, as you've said repeatedly). Because when you're forced to change the name, you're undermining one of the virtues of open-content development: credit where credit is due. That is only one of the virtues and nothing stops you from crediting the source. That is a lame argument. Attribution is as much the issue for the re-user as for the original author. For example, lets say there was Clark's Cool Spell and I PI'd the name and the content was OGC. You could rename it to Karl's Cool Spell and use the same OGC content for it. Here is where your argument falls apart. According to you, now attribution is ruined. No it isnt. You could easily put in your legal section: [Name of Book that has Clark's Cool Spell], section 15 info. Name of Your product, section 15 info. Note: Karl's Cool Spell is based on Open Game Content found in [Name of book that has the spell], originally written by Clark Peterson. Hmmm...good technique. I guess i was letting the you can't attribute things properly, because of trademark/PI restrictions argument dissuade me from even looking for a way around the limitations of attribution, so i hadn't really thought very hard about it. Thouh i'm not sure that what you're suggesting would always work--see below. So you can still attribute sources if YOU THE REUSER want to do so. For example, I just did a product where my author used 5 or 6 rather obscure internet OGC sources. They had bad section 15 designations. So, though I was forced to use their section 15 by the license, I also added a section called: OGC in this Book where I said This book uses Open Game Content from some unique sources that deserve further designation. Then I went on to list them. Just because the license requires you to mimic the section 15 doesnt mean you cant further elaborate. Don't you either need special permission, or violate the WotC OGL, given that most company names are trademarks? Or do you just use the name of the work, and rely on readers to locate the product, should they be interested? Or, for that matter
RE: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
In part because of the relative ease of using the WotC OGL, and the relatively minor costs associated with it. There were a fair number of people doing it when it was the only way to have compatibility with DD. True. And TSR was pretty aggressive against most of them. I dont really know why Palladium weathered the storm. Well, point of order, i have no interest in infringing on copyrights--that is, i'm not gonna start copying verbatim text. I know. I was baiting you and setting up my own straw man so taht I could respond in the next paragraph. Actually, i'm just enough of an idealist, and just gutsy/stupid enough, that i may yet do it. No you wont. I'd've been a *lot* more comfortable doing it before the WotC OGL and D20SRD, however, because i suspect that if it were to go to court today, the number of people using the license would be trotted out as evidence that all these people implicitly accept/agree to WotC's claims of ownership. I am going to agree with you and make a statement you probably didnt expect: I think that one of the unstated reasons for the OGL is to prevent the test case from ever occuring. I think WotC's lawyers were scared enough that the case could be made that rules are not copyrightable that they agreed to the OGL concept to create a safe harbor so that it would never really be challenged. I have no proof of that. Ryan has NEVER indicated that was true. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am a lawyer and that is exactly what I would do if I had intellectual property that i was worried was under siege--create a way for people to do what they can possibly lawfully do anyway and take away any right they have to claim otherwise. Because that is basically what the license is, when you really look at it. What does WotC really get? You dont rip off DD and they dont have to sue you and you claim to right to it. Genius, actually. (Man, where is DM when I need him for a good conspiracy). Clark = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] d20/OGL Infractions by Fast Forward
Yeah, their OGC designation was not very good. They didnt do it right. They even credited the Creature Collection to Necromancer Games, when instead it was SSS. But that was a bit confusing because it is copyrighted to me. So I can understand that one. Clark --- Tir Gwaith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Not having seen the book in question, I'm assuming that the MM2 wasn't mentioned in the Section 15 of the product at all. I could easily be mistaken.) You couldn't tell if it was. MM2 has only the OGL v.1.0 in its Sec. 15. Doesn't even list itself, which bothers me more than a little Andrew McDougall a.k.a. Tir Gwaith ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l = http://www.necromancergames.com 3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
