Re: [Ogf-l] Ryan, reply-to problem
This could just be a problem with your mail client. I use Firefox myself and for those people you mentioned (and a few others I've noticed), it sends a copy both to the reply-to entry (ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org) and the original sender. I've not seen any situation though where it does not send to the list itself, unless it was a list wide setting. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ryan, can you check the list's settings. I am accidentally sending out posts to Tim and Clark directly instead of to the list. This happens not infrequently with various people. It's a result of the reply-to headers being setup incorrectly somehow, since I'm just hitting Reply 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] Work=OGC+PI+nothing else?
Regardless, the license specifically says it should be the copyright notice from your OGC which is included in the section 15. I never actually noticed it in the license (or atleast no one has emphasised it that much), but I do see where it says that the copyright notice is intended to reflect the OGC, and not to whole product itself. On the other hand, because the license specifically mentions that the copyright notice is to reflect the OGC in a product that it is actually unnecessary to state something which is clear. Since everyone knows that the copyright notice is attached to OGC, therefore it is unnecessary to include Open Game Content from... at the start of every s15 entry. If the OGC declaration is clear enough, that is enough to identify what the copyright notice applies to. Don't disagree with that solely because you're stuck on your interpretation. Arguably this would mean that what's listed in Section 15 does not include your PI, but I attribute this to extremely sloppy draftsmanship in the license which at times treats PI as a subset of OGC and at times says explicitly that OGC and PI are totally separate. Re: some of the products you have named, some of those companies have vague OGC/PI declarations to begin with, and aren't even following the clearly identified OGC portion of the license, so I wouldn't hold those up. Most of the companies I did mention, specify (or clearly identify) what is and is not OGC. Only Mongoose in that list is vague on the OGC (ie all game mechanics and content derivitive of OGC or the SRD). Many companies do use a laundry list of terms that makes it look like they simply took the PI section of the OGL and reprinted it. Malhavoc actually specifies which chapters are OGC, but doesn't even identify the everything else as PI. The rest of the content is either left vague or presumed to be that third type of content. There was one product I reviewed that threw their OGC and PI declaration in the s15. There were even a number of products which didn't even put a copyright notice in s15 for their OGC. Also, of the ones you named, did you look at their section 15 entries. Some, probably used Spike's declaration style (OGC from Book X). I know several companies who used to do that, and again, that is at least partially consistent with my reading which says: Only Mongoose from the products I have seen have used that in their s15. I don't know of how many others out there also specify it. Industry trends are generally only used to interpret vague clauses and not to interpret things which are explicit. Now arguably #2 above is a little vague given the way OGC and PI are clumsily handled in the license. But #1 above is actually quite explicit. The problem in this case is that because many people do their OGC/PI declarations and s15's differently than everyone else, when something conflicts with the letter of the contract, you do have to take a look at what industry trends tend to be. Essentially, if you're trying to figure out how to interpret the terms of the OGL, and you believe it means A, while others in practical usage believe it means B, while still others believe C, and then there is even some who believe it should be D, but no one has tried using your A, should you still use A. The fact that the OGL is likely never to go to court literally makes your A purely academic, and not representative of how others interpret the license. -- Scott http://www.sbroadbent.com. News, Reviews, Gaming! ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Thematic Elements
Is it just me, or does anyone else find this incredibly vague as a PI designation? All thematic elements are PI and everything else is OGC. I agree. Personally, if I was deriving off a product that used that PI/OGC declaration, I'd more or less ignore it. If you don't want to tell me what elements of your product are PI, then I guess it's by default OGC. I'm not a mind reader, and if it's up to me, I may take a very specific/narrow view of how much the thematic element PI covers, while the writer might take a more broader over encompassing opinion (to the extent where you can't actually separate the OGC from the PI). For instance, if drow appeared in a product and were declared product identity, I'd presume that atleast the name was off-limits (it was actually named), and define the thematic element of a drow as being Tall, Dark and Handsome. So, I use the same aspects of the drow, but make them Fat White Midgets, and call them Word. My Word worship a spider goddess, live underground, and hate their elven cousins. They have a vulnerability to the sun, etc. I'm of the opinion that the OGL applies to the words of a concept, rather than a concept that is expressed by those words. Others are of the opposite opinion. I'm also of the opinion that if something declared as PI doesn't actually appear in the OGC, that PI declaration means nothing. Anyone else want to chime in on this? Feel free to shoot me down if I'm off base. I just feel that the inclusion of such statements almost guarantees that you have to get in touch with the original author to figure out what is and isn't OGC. Yep, and if you actually have to ask someone else what is OGC in a product, then the person declaring the OGC/PI has failed in his task. I bring this up because it is a fast growing trend in the industry. I'm seeing more and more books just taking a huge section of the PI definition, deleting a few phrases, and declaring a lot of that stuff as PI without being more specific about it. What tends to occur is when one person screws up the declarations, and a product becomes popular, people use that as a guide on how to do it. After all, if it is selling, they must have done it right. Then there are those who take the shortcut of not bothering to understand the license, and just print the text from the OGL PI declaration to be safe. Of course, we'll likely hear in this thread that: Consumers don't care about OGC and PI, only the very small minority who happen to be on this mailing list (and even only those who actually give a care about it at all) so it doesn't matter. It's more work than it's worth just to please those 2 people of the 1.5 million who play DD monthly, and if you really need to know, you can just ask us. ;) -- Scott Fantages Studios: http://www.fantages Studios Darkfire, Wrestle ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: Releasing a new system under the OGL
Well, the Freedom of Contract seems to be more restricted in some EU countries compared to the US. As I have said before, the provisions made in the second sentence of section 7 have no legal validity in Sweden - period. This has nothing to do with thinking that the trade-off is not worth it - the Licensor is simply not able to make those demands. This will not invalidate the OGL - the section 12 is also not valid in Sweden. Before this discussion goes further, it might be a good idea to post (or at the very least, provide a link to) the relevant sections of Sweden's Trademark Act. I've tried doing a brief search, but haven't had much luck coming across it specifically. It might help if we could read what you're trying to claim, as it might be possible you might be misinterpreting it. What sections does it say (or imply) that it is unlawful that a contract can prevent someone from making a claim of compatibility. Hmm, I was under the impression that games could be patented in the US, but if thats not true then I was obviously wrong. I ran a query at http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html once and came up with quite a few hits (more than 10 000) when searching for games so I honestly thought games could be patended in the US. Patent is the protection of a product or process. While you can't patent a game in general, a patent might apply to specific processes within a game. For instance, in M:tg, one part of the patent (and notably the most commonly cited example): (ii) designating the one or more game components being brought into play by rotating the one or more game components from an original orientation to a second orientation..]. .[. For those who want to read more on it, search for: RE37,957 (Trading card game method of play) at the above mentioned link. To note, doing a search as broad as the term games will get you some very unrelated results. I post at the end of this message the first 10 results that came up when I did a search for games at the above mentioned link. But then if games cannot be patented how could one license the game mechanics? By copyright. Copyright protects the presentation and expression of an idea. You could write a game that is mechanically identically to DD, but you would have to write it in your own words. Use your own expressions, writing style, etc. The biggest benefit of using the OGL is that you already have access to a large portion of text. This reduces the time and effort required to express the mechanics of the game or product you are writing, and so that you can focus on the Unique areas of your creative vision. You also cut out the development time that would be spent playtesting and balancing, if you wrote your own game from scratch. Eh, the main reason I believe OGL might have trouble in the EU are because of the regulations on trademark use in section 7. I have also made the comment that some jurisdictions in the EU have special rules for how contracts dealing with the transferral of copyrights are to be formed. When someone issues an OGL in the EU he/she will do so under his own law - not US law. While it probably would do me good to read up a bit on US copyright law it wouldnt help me with an analysis of OGLs legal status in Sweden, only knowledge of Swedish law will help me do that. It's very hard to argue (and even play devil's advocate) whether Sweden's Trademark or Copyright Acts actually make it unlawful for a contract to restrict a person's right. As others have argued, the OGL is voluntary. You can choose to use the OGL, or choose not to. IF you do, you: 1. Gain access to a massive library of Content that can be cut/paste royalty free. A Benefit. 2. Are unable to exercise a right you could normally exercise. A Disadvantage. Basically, you agree to ignore your granted right to claim compatibility with a trademark for the ability to freely use a large amount of content at no cost. For those that feel the benefit (of a large amount of content freely available) outweighs the disadvantage (of being unable to refer to trademarks), the OGL is a good choice for them. For those that feel the disadvantage outweigh the benefit, your choice is to simply not use the OGL. If you choose to use the OGL and produce a product, and then claim compatibility with the d20 System (without using the d20stl), WotC can revoke your ability to use the license. The fact that you're not forced to use the OGL, but voluntarily choose to use it to gain access to a library of content would probably be one of WotCs defining arguments in the overall revocation of your use to use the OGL with the product. You're then stuck with a product that is now a copyright infringement. In the end, you're not obligated to produce product using the OGL. As for the similarity of US and EU copyright laws. Its true that the laws can *appear* to be similar but the foundation behind the laws are
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: Releasing a new system under the OGL
Other than the fact that the OGL expressly forbids you from doing what you talk about! Actually, the OGL doesn't forbid it, but depending on the content in the document, you may not be able to release the same content under the multiple licenses. For instance, content derived from the SRD would have to be (and only could be) covered under the OGL, since the OGL is the only license that the SRD has been released under. One document with two licenses, with both licenses covering the same content, not fine! Clause 2 expressly forbids that: No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License. That is only true if (as the publisher) you require that in order for some content to be used that you must abide by both licenses. What is being brought up, on the other hand, is where the released content can be reused (at the reusers option) with one license, or the other. For instance, if Steve Jackson Games suddenly decided to release the next edition of GURPS under the OGL, as well as a license of their own creation (a SJGL for instance), someone could take the content that was released, and they could either use the OGL in their product, use the SJGL, or even both the OGL and the SJGL if they so wanted to. -- Scott Fantages Studios: http://www.fantages-studios.com Publisher of The Darkfire Campaign Setting ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] How to go about releasing a system under the OGL
The question I have is what specifically I have to do in order to release it under the Open Gaming Licence - is it simply a matter of copy and pasting the legal text into the RTF? What parts of it do I need to change? Simply attach the text of the OGL somewhere (usually the end of the document), and then add your own entry to s.15. For instance: 15 COPYRIGHT NOTICE Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc. My Game Copyright 2004, My Name. Simply change My Game to the name of the product, and My Name to either your name or the company who it'll be published under. Also how best would it be to distribute the game, I was thinking of approaching RPGNow.com to have it available as a free download on their site. Has anyone had any experiences with RPGNow, or any other suggestions? Though I haven't been to RPGnow in a while, RPGnow generally frowns upon any product uploaded that costs less than $5 (the minimum amount a customer can checkout). I know when I used RPGmall, they charged the customer a $0.10 fee (to pay for the bandwidth and to discourage using them as a file dump) for any free product the customer put into their shopping cart. I presume RPGnow would have a similar policy. -- Scott Fantages Studios: http://www.fantages-studios.com Publisher of The Darkfire Campaign Setting ___ 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
Adding my own comments to the discussion. PI was made to keep us publishers happy who were worried about losting control over stuff in sections that were OGC. More to the point, one reason for PI was to make the work more aesthetically pleasing. A couple suggestions to mark what was OGC from what was not OGC, was to put OGC within a box, mark it in a different color (ie red content is OGC, Black content is non-OGC), use different fonts (ie Courier for OGC, Times New Roman for non-OGC), etc. By allowing names (and other important content) to be protected as PI, it allowed that content to appear within sections of OGC without worry that it would become OGC. I know when I was working on one product that I received comments why there was so many gray shaded boxes throughout one chapter. In that particular instance the stat block (the OGC) was in a shaded box, while the name and flavor text were outside of a box. I remember when I first started working on material (3.5 to 4 years ago) for a previous setting of mine, that I felt I needed to justify what content I was declaring was PI. In many cases this meant proper names that would inevitably at some point appear in a section of OGC. For anything else I didn't want to be released as OGC, it was as simple as not including it in a section of OGC. At the time, the general consensus was that PI followed the white-out method. There has been a growing trend (and evidence (*) from WotC) towards a forbidden terms method of PI. At this point I've really been considering developing my current campaign setting to being rules generic (much like HarnWorld has been for the past 20 or so years), and simply not bothering with the OGL. (*) Virtually none of the terms declared as product identity in the last SRD releases have appeared anywhere within the SRD. -- Scott Fantages Studios: http://www.fantages-studios.com Publisher of The Darkfire Campaign Setting ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI in summary...
I can't remember if it was here or on OGF-D20-l, but i pointed out to just such a comment that it may not matter what WotC believes, if it is in conflict with the license. It was one of these two lists. Unlike the D20STL, they can't change it at a whim, so the actual written meaning matters, not just what WotC wishes it meant. I concur that that is apparently what WotC wishes PI to be. I suspect they haven't a legal leg to stand on (no--that's hyperbole; but i do think they're wrong, based on the opinions of those on this list with legal training, which, coupled with the general legal standard of interpreting a poorly-written contract against the authoring party, makes it pretty likely they'd lose should it come to court). What WotC wishes it to mean does matter as it could take years for a case to actually get to trial. I'm not sure what the legal system is like in the US, but here in Canada you can wait a long time before getting anywhere. Hey Clark, while I know you just do criminal cases, what would be a good estimate as to the length of time an average civil case would go from Start to finish. An example: You produce a product which used some of the terms declared as PI, and WotC takes offence to it. You were notified of a breach of the OGL and required to cure. You decide not to cure, because you feel WotC is incorrect. WotC decides to start proceedings and one of the first things they do is get an injunction preventing you from continuing to sell your product. During this period it could take a while for the case to get to a point where each side understands the issues, and the evidence. Your lawyer (assuming you hire one, unless you choose to represent yourself) will need to research the subject, and deal with the opposing party. Chances are this period may take a while, and WotC could simply withdraw their case, or leave it to rot, leaving you with a big lawyers bill, and not much for legal precendent. You could take it as a moral victory, but was it worth it. As an example, one case I heard about, a MVA that occured in '99, is only getting to the discovery stage in the litigation. Discovery is where you reveal the evidence of your case that you will be relying on, and the parties can decide whether they wish to continue or settle. Obviously, the Canadian legal system is designed to encourage the parties to settle, rather than having a judge make a decision. Even after you have had discovery, there is an opportunity for the parties to get together and speak with a judge (one which won't be the judge at the trial) to get his/her honest opinion. By this point, each side knows exactly what the other parties case is about, and have received an opinion from a judge as though the judge were to handle it at trial. It's like playing poker with your hand revealed. If either party is too stubborn to admit that they don't have a chance, and the case goes to trial, the stubborn party could very well end up paying the winning side's legal costs. I can say with some confidence that not a single term in the PI declaratino attached to the revised D20SRD actually appears in the work. (i recently finished a PDF of it, and proofed it as i went, so i'm fairly certain i would've noticed any of those terms if they had been in there). So much for PI being the white-out method. Anyone have a 3rd suggestion (other than a forbidden terms list, but similar to the white-out method) what PI could be interpreted as? -- Scott Fantages Studios: http://www.fantages-studios.com Publisher of Wrestle, F100 and The Rya'mier Campaign Setting ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI in summary...
What is PI? We don't know. It's either stuff you're forbidden from using, or stuff that is functionally not in the source when reusing. Something I brought up before: Based on the 3.5 SRD I believe WotC interprets PI as being terms that are forbidden from any work that derives off of the work that claims the terms as PI. The term in question does not even have to exist in a section of OGC, or even appear in the work at all. In the past, WotC didn't need to have an interpretation as to what PI was because the SRD was solely intended to provide to publishers all content that was OGC from WotC. When Ryan was still with WotC, he probably convinced them that PI wasn't necessary to protect their interests (after all, 3rd parties could only reference off the SRD). As time passed, staff began to get cut, and the management cycled, the new people in charge believed that PI was necessary. Since they couldn't add PI to the existing SRD (at the time), they decided to implement it with the release of the 3.5 SRD. After all, I haven't noticed many of the following terms actually appear in the 3.5 files. I just noticed Carrion Crawler is on the list (mostly because I had run an adventure including one), and Carrion Crawler doesn't actually appear in the 3.5 SRD (while it was in 3.0). The following is identified as PI in the 3.5 SRD: Dungeons Dragons, DD, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, d20 (when used as a trademark), Forgotten Realms, Faerûn, character names (including those used in the names of spells or items), places, Red Wizard of Thay, Heroic Domains of Ysgard, Ever-Changing Chaos of Limbo, Windswept Depths of Pandemonium, Infinite Layers of the Abyss, Tarterian Depths of Carceri, Gray Waste of Hades, Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, Nine Hells of Baator, Infernal Battlefield of Acheron, Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia, Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, Twin Paradises of Bytopia, Blessed Fields of Elysium, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Olympian Glades of Arborea, Concordant Domain of the Outlands, Sigil, Lady of Pain, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar'ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti. -- Scott Fantages Studios: http://www.fantages-studios.com Publisher of Wrestle, F100 and The Rya'mier Campaign Setting ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
