Re: [Ogf-l] Opening Closed Games
On 6 Sep 2006 at 21:29, Exile In Paradise 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. First and foremost, you need to retain the services of a lawyer who specializes in copyright trademark issues. You are quite likely going to need one. While game rules themselves are not copyrightable, tables are NOT game rules. They may be a specific expression of a game rule, but they are not rules themselves, and are thus copyrightable. Any attempts to recreate those tables, or to create new tables that are similar in look, feel, and use could be considered the creation of a derivative work, and thus a copyright violation. It doesn't matter if you are attempting to fix a flaw in the tables or not, the end result is going to be what matters here. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
On 5 Sep 2005 at 4:24, Thomas Kyle wrote: Well, the general consensus (at least of those closest to the OGL, and several others in this discussion) is that anything in the third category of non-OGC non-PI still _isn't_ usable under the OGL, which seems to be very similar to the concept of PI (in that it can't be reused/redistributed). Correct, OGC is the only bits that are allowed to be re-used. The definition of PI was created so that there was a method of having material that was not OGC mixed in with the OGC (i.e. such as the name of an iconic character - the character's stats are OGC, but his name is PI). TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
On 5 Sep 2005 at 9:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/5/2005 1:28:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I dont buy the OGC by default argument. I don't know if by default is the appropriate word. I've only claimed that you must declare as OGC everything that you don't declare as PI. No, you actually have claimed that anything under the license is automatically (which pretty much equals the term by default) OGC, except for what is PI. At least that is what you said on the rpg.net thread. What is your interpretation of: OGC... means any work covered by the License... excluding product identity. This is where I am having problems. You are taking only a portion of the definition given and attempting to make it the only definition, ignoring the rest of the definition, and pretty much ignoring the rest of the license where the phrasing tends to counter any possible interpretation other than the one you are attempting to apply. You cannot ignore the rest of the definition, which actually comes before that small part you continually quote. This implies to me, that if there is no Product Identity that the work covered by the license is 100% OGC. I don't see any other reasonable construction of this definition. Do you? What is it? This apparently implies to you that if there is not a PI declaration, that no matter what the OGC declaration, that OGC declaration is wrong unless it is for 100% OGC. Let's take a magazine as an example of my interpretation. Using my interpretation, the whole magazine is covered by the license. The magazine declares three articles as OGC. It then declares the names of characters and place names used within the articles as PI. So what is the rest of the magazine? Under my interpretation, it is non-open (closed) content (meaning that it cannot be re-used - even through the fair use clauses available in copyright law if you are using the OGL). It doesn't have to be declared because it is not OGC, nor is it PI. It is the default state of content (caveat - content based upon the SRD or other OGC works is automatically open, and is required to be declared as such) within the covered work. Under your interpretation, it would seem that the magazine would require a separate copy of the OGL for each of the articles. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
On 5 Sep 2005 at 21:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except that to come to that conclusion you have to utterly ignore the part of the license that says: OGC means any work covered by the license excluding Product Identity Sorry, but that is NOT what it says. There is a whole lot more to that definition that that one single phrase. You want to concentrate on that phrase, and only that phrase and ignore the rest of the definition. Is the entire definition poorly worded and unclear? Yes, it is. But after reading through the entire license it is apparent that you have to declare what is OGC, you have to declare what is PI. Since the OGC definition lists what must be OGC, and also states that you can claim additional OGC before it states the part that you keep quoting, it can quite easily be said that the part you keep quoting is in error due to poor wording. The rest of the license would appear to support this. You mentioned how courts tend to rule against the drafter in regards to contracts of adhesion, yet you are not realizing that your interpretation is acutally not of benefit to the draftee (and only potentially slightly more beneficial to the drafter). If anything, your interpretation is more restrictive to a person using the license. The way I see it, the interpretation that I have would be much more beneficial to the licensee, and would be the one that a court would rule for. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
On 4 Sep 2005 at 16:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If this is the case, then there's no such thing as the third type of content and a whole bunch of stuff has been published under the OGL using an incorrect interpretation of the license. I wonder if the fact that WotC hasn't taken any steps in the past five years to correct this misinterpretation would work against the company if it tried to start enforcing this interpretation now. I view it as squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are square. 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. My interpretation is that the work contains OGC, PI, and anything else not declared by the first two. That anything else is still bound by the OGL, especially where the OGL superceeds copyright law. That anything else can include such things as public domain material (such as the names of the Norse Gods). If the entire work were considered to be OGC, except for what was declared PI, then there would be absolutely no reason to declare what is OGC, as it would be implicit that if it is not declared as PI it would be OGC. However, this interpretation fails because it is possible to incude public domain material (such as the names of Norse gods) in a work. Since the names are public domain, they cannot be declared OGC nor PI because the contributor does not own the rights to declare it as one or the other, and if a work contains only 2 types of content (OGC PI), then it would be impossible to use any public domain material within a covered work. Thus, any work which included such would be in violation of the OGL Note: Yes, I know that the specific implementation/description/representation of a Norse god would belong to the person who wrote/published it, but the name itself could not be OGC nor PI as it rests in the public domain. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
On 4 Sep 2005 at 17:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you're saying that Ryan's interpretation is correct and that Lee's interpretation is wrong. hehe... You know, I am not sure anymore Seriously, I do think that the entire product is a covered work, so I guess that yes, I am agreeing with Ryan in this instance (will wonders never cease...). However, I don't seem to recall Ryan stating whether there are only 2 types of content in a covered work or three (maybe I missed that part). I think that there are three possible types of content. OGC, PI, and anything not declared. I also think that anything not declared would fall under normal copyright law, except where superceeded by the OGL. Other than that one single phrase within the definition of Open Game Content (the one Lee uses to say that an entire covered work must be either OGC or PI), the language of the license seems to make it very clear that 1) You must declare OGC and PI, and 2) that since you must declare what portions are OGC, that infers that the whole work is not OGC. If it were, then you would not need to declare it. In hindsight, I am thinking that perhaps the license is missing a definition for something that should perhaps be called Proprietory Content (PC) that cannot be used by others and falls under normal copyright except as prohibited by other portions of the license (such as declaring compatibility), and define it as all content not declared as OGC or PI. If it had such a definition, then this discussion would not be taking place. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
On 3 Sep 2005 at 18:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OGC = COVERED WORK - PI OR COVERED WORK = OGC + PI Where I was saying Covered Work = OGC + PI + whatever is left over and not covered by the previous two terms (this would be covered by standard copyright law). As Darklord pointed out elsewhere, you cannot PI, nor OGC things that you do not own. Thus if a person used material from the public domain, you could not, according to the OGL declare that public domain material as OGC, nor as PI. To me, this says that his interpretation that everything (except what is declared PI) is OGC is incorrect. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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
On 3 Sep 2005 at 20:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem with adding the plus leftover standard copyright law stuff as part of the covered work, is that those things that are part of the covered work are not covered under standard copyright law. For instance, you are allowed to get away with some things in copyright law (mentioning other people's trademarks, or quoting short passages under fair use rules) that you aren't allowed to do within a covered work under the OGL. So we would have the following: 1) OGC 2) PI 3) Non-OGC, Non-PI Material For #3, it is neither OGC nor PI, and is covered by normal copyright law, except where it is superceded by the limitations from the OGL. Would that be a better way of phrasing it? Okay, now back to the core question. The issue being discussed is as follows: Lee has stated (and he can correct me if I get this incorrect) that in his opinion, if you apply the OGL to a work (any work), that it is automatically 100% OGC. You then need to declare what portions are PI, and declare what portions are OGC, and that the work is made up of only those two types of content. However, the way that I view it (i.e. my opinion) is that when you take a work (any work) and apply the OGL to it, that you automatically end up with two types of content. The first being that which must be declared OGC (i.e. any mechanics or other material derived from the SRD or other OGL sources (presuming that those other sources made their declarations correctly and you are using those sources properly). The second type would be content type #3 that I listed above. At this point, you would then expand the OGC declaration to include anything else you want to be OGC. You would also make your PI declaration for anything you want to mark as Product Identity. By my reasoning, the license would not include the following clause -- 8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content. -- if the whole work were considered OGL just by applying the license to the work. To put it another way, Why do you have to clearly indicate which portions of the work are OGC if the whole work is considered to be OGC just by putting it with the license? This topic was a sidebar that came out of the thread, on rpg.net, about the OGC wiki that Mike Mearls proposed, and that others have since began working on. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On 12 Aug 2005 at 10:09, Spike Y Jones wrote: Slaine, Warp Spasm, Tir Nan Og, Fomorian, Red Branch, Fir Bolg, Enech*, Cromlech. Here is an idea - for these terms, since they are public domain, include a statement of such. Example: Public Domain terms: From Celtic Mythology, the following terms were derived, list terms here This way you are officially declaring the source of your terms, which also indicates that you are NOT using anybody else's PI. I would also suggest including a bibliography of the books you used, but the OGL does not allow for that. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On 12 Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote: I don't recall bibliographies being specifically banned by the OGL. But other people's trademarks and such are, and that can very definitely include book titles, and company names. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On 12 Aug 2005 at 13:47, Spike Y Jones wrote: Here is an idea - for these terms, since they are public domain, include a statement of such. Example: Public Domain terms: From Celtic Mythology, the following terms were derived, list terms here This way you are officially declaring the source of your terms, which also indicates that you are NOT using anybody else's PI. Depending on which reading of the PI terms of the license you go with, doing this isn't necessarily going to get you anywhere. It will however be the start of a path that indicates that what somebody else declared as PI is not the source of your use of those terms. And that will help in case there is an issue over it. Simply put, and I vaguely remember this being a topic of discussion once before, if somebody declares something that is in the public domain as PI, you are allowed to go back to the public domain sources as being the point from which you derived such terms. ThePublic Domain declaration would specifically indicate that this is what was done in this instance, and specifically declares that the author/publisher was not re-using the PI declared by the other product. Think of it as a CYA measure. :) TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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?)
On 2 Mar 2005 at 8:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They threaten me, saying they'll sue me under the OGL for breach. They aren't a party, but claim to be a third party who automatically benefits from the OGL (just as, they claim, anyone in the world, be they a contributor to an OGL product or not, can be a third party beneficiary simply by declaring PI outside of an OGL-covered work). They try to sue asserting OGL rights to PI protection which I have supposedly violated. However, IIRC, third party beneficiaries of a contract must be denoted as such in the contract. Also, (again IIRC) licenses do not have third party portions. In short a license is nothing more than written permission of the owner of a bit of property allowing somebody else to use that property in exchange for considerations. In the case of the OGL, this license grants certain usage rights to material marked as open content, so long as that user abides by certain conditions set forth in the license. This license is cumulative and addative (thus open game content can be garnered from multiple sources, and you can add to it, and those sources follow the life of the content (via the Section 15 statement). Remember, a license is the granting of specific rights to a specific person under specific conditions. Thus in your example, DC cannot use the OGL, because it is not the entity who granted the rights or set the conditions of the OGL. However, If you use that quote from them within open game content (through fair use terms), you had damn well better make sure that it is not released into OGC, and that you do have the proper copyright and trademark use clauses at the beginning of the product... Hmm... I did just think of a possible way that they might use the OGL against you, but not though the PI portion. Part of the OGL is an agreement not to use trademarks and such of others without permission of the owner. Thus while they could not sue for breach of the OGL (they do not have that right, not being a party of the OGL), they can sue you and then use the OGL as evidence for their case, especially if they espouse a wider definition of WORK than you do. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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?)
Here we go.. I finally found the Groklaw link I was looking for, but before posting it, here is an except from the article... Here is a definition of 'license' from Steven H. Gifis' Law Dictionary, 2d Edition: LICENSE: A right granted which gives one permission to do something which he could not legally do absent such permission; 'leave to do a thing which the LICENSOR [the party granting the license] could prevent.' A contract, on the other hand, is defined like this: [1] a promise, or set of promises, for breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty. I Williston, Contracts Section 1. The essentials of a valid contract are 'parties competent to contract, a proper subject- matter, consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.' 286 N.W. 844, 846: 'a transaction involving two or more individuals whereby each becomes obligated to the other, with reciprocal rights to demand performance of what is promised by each respectively.' 282 P. 2d 1084, 1088. 'The total legal obligation which results from the parties' agreement as affected by law.' U.C.C. Section 1-201. For the full article go here -- http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 Party Beneficiaries?)
On 28 Feb 2005 at 19:38, Chris Helton wrote: The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity. This is the key phrase here - The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content. As Spikey points out, outside of the OGL, Product Identity does not have a true legal context. The emphasis should be put on You agree not to use any product Identity as all of the rest is just icing. Okay, sure. In that case, I'll just claim that all fonts are my Product Identity, and thus nobody could ever print anything ever again. heheh Seriously though, the license, in context to itself, describes what IT (the OGL) considers to be Product Identity. And please note that it describes PI as being part of or included in Open Game Content. It lumps together many things normally under very different laws (trademarks and copyrights) as a single item for the express purpose of taking and marking certain items within a product of Open Game Content as off-limits. If a person is not using the OGL, then they cannot claim Product Identity because they have no Open Game Content in which to mark things off-limits. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 Party Beneficiaries?)
On 1 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Thi: Aren't you really just talking about plagarism and/or using someone else's work without their permission which would be bad even without the OGL's influence? No, I was talking about fair use. Copying a one sentence quote from a book and attributing it properly is not theft. It's fair use. PI overrides fair use. Also the no compatibility declarations clause overrides fair use. Yes, using the OGL removes the Fair Use of copyright law. That is part of the exchange. Now, I could, in a non-OGL book, do small quotes and such from other products (whether those products are under the OGL or not), and be under the Fair Use clause of copyright law. However, if I were doing an OGL book, then by accepting the OGL, I am bound by its strictures, which include giving up Fair Use of other products (whether those products are OGL or NOT). It is part of the exchange of rights in the license. the user of the licence gives up certain things, in this case certain normal rights granted by copyright, in exchange for greater usage of material not nomrally allowed to be used under copyright law. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Do you have to declare Product Identity
On 1 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re: [OGF-L] Do you have to declare Product Identi: WotC released about 75% of their PHB and MM as OGC. Correction. WotC has not released any of those three products with any form of OGC. What they have done is created a System Reference Document (based on those products), and released the SRD as 100% OGC. There is a difference. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 Party Beneficiaries?)
On 1 Mar 2005 Chris scribbled a note about Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Thi: PI overrides fair use. Also the no compatibility declarations clause overrides fair use. Um...no. You can't override a law with a contract or a license. There are legal precedence for this. Not quite correct. You can override Fair Use rights IF you accept a contract or license where you give up those rights in exchange for something else. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 Party Beneficiaries?)
possible types of content in an OGL book. The first is Open Game Content, which must be declared clearly. Second is PI, which also should (but is not required to be declared). However, note that if something is NOT declared as PI or OGC, then it falls into the third category, Normal Usage. If it is not OGC and not PI, then it is normal copyrighted or trademarked material, as the cast may be. Also, just as a side note. Say smoebody uses Mongooses PI without permission. Green Ronin, nor any other company except one, can enforce the guy using Mongoose's PI to resolve the situation or take it to court. Other companies can tell him he is in breach, but unless he is in breach of their material, they cannot do anything to him. The one exception mentioned above is WotC, who owns the license and can therefore yank it from anybody for any valid reason. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
On 1 Mar 2005 Weldon scribbled a note about RE: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (Thir: The argument isn't that the material is not covered by the license. The argument is that the terms of the license to reuse open content only applies to content that is clearly identified as open (which is what the license says). PI is content that is explicitly excluded from OGC because otherwise the OGC designation would include it. There is an implication of a third type of content that is not designated as OGC or PI and is therefore non-open. Aha... Here is possibly a good way to look at it... begin product unlabled content / begin Open Content PI material (within the open content /close open content unlabled content / /end product The whole purpose behind PI is to be able to exclude material from sections marked as Open Content, plain and simple. Anything not marked as Open Content or as PI, falls back to be covered by standard copyright and trademark laws. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] The Mysterious Third Type of Content
On 1 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re: [OGF-L] The Mysterious Third Type of Content: Open Game Content... means ANY WORK COVERED BY THIS LICENSE... but specifically excludes Product Identity. The definition of the work has a bizarre redundancy in it -- everything listed in that definition except PI and the phrase any work covered by this license is a logical subset of any work covered by this license. As soon as the entire work minus the PI is OGC then the rest of that sentence is not null, it's just redundant. Notice that WORK is not fully defined though. Any materiel released under the license in a given product is the WORK. For example, if I had 10 paragraphs (ok, really big paragraphs) in a 100 page product, then for the purpose of the license, those 10 paragraphs equals the WORK, nothing else within the product does. Now, out of those ten paragraphs, I could then declare that the name Mitzi (from the spell Mitzi's Meatball of Death) as PI. While the entire spell (which is part of those 10 paragraphs) is OGC, that one single word, which I declared as PI is not. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] The Mysterious Third Type of Content
On 1 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re: [OGF-L] The Mysterious Third Type of Content: In that definition (parts that I trimmed) it made reference to U.S. copyright law, thereby drawing in the term of art work in the lexicon of the contract without redefining it in any substantive way. When you apply this license to a Work the work becomes OGC except the parts that are PI, because any work covered by the license is OGC. The part of a product that you declare as Open Game Content is the Work referenced as only what you declare as OGC is covered by the license. I have a 16 page product. I declare 1 page as OGC. As far as the license is concerned, that 1 page IS the WORK as is mentioned within the license. That, and anything you declare as PI. All other material in the product, that is not listed as either, falls under normal copyright laws. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (ThirdPartyBeneficiaries?)
On 1 Mar 2005 avatar scribbled a note about Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare ProductIdentity (Thir: What I don't see is the difference between Closed because its PI and Closed because it falls under Copyright Law. Closed is closed, you can't use it. Beyond that, because your 16 page PDF is a single 'work', the OGL covers that entire work weather you want it to or not. On the other hand, if it was a webpage, that single page is a document in and of itself and could be considered a 'work' within the whole of the webpage. In which case I can see only that single page being covered by the OGL while the rest of the website falls under normal copyright law. PI is closed content WITHIN something marked as Open Game Content. Other content outside of that OGC declaration is not covered by the license, and there for normally closed as per copyright and trademark lasws. No, the OGL does not cover my 16 page pdf whether I want it to or not. It only covers what material that I declare as open content, and the material declared as PI (that is within the open content) and nothing more. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] PI status for works NOT in your section 15
On 1 Mar 2005 at 16:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That wouldn't free you from copyright or trademark infringement, just that the PI of the SRD is irrelevant to you if you haven't listed the SRD in your section 15. Unless you are doing a product for Action! (which also uses the OGL - or any other system using the OGL, excepting the d20 System), it is impossible to do a product (using the d20 system) without listing the SRD in your section 15. That is the System Reference Document from which all other products using the (game engine developed by wotc) is a derivative of. If you do not list that in your section 15, then you are in violation of the OGL itself. Remember, the Section 15 is meant to show where your non-original OGC came from. And the SRD is where everything originally came from, at least for the core mechanics. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] PI status for works NOT in your section 15
On 1 Mar 2005 at 18:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/1/2005 5:47:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unless you are doing a product for Action! (which also uses the OGL - or any other system using the OGL, excepting the d20 System), it is impossible to do a product (using the d20 system) without listing the SRD in your section 15. That is the System Reference Document from which all other products using the (game engine developed by wotc) is a derivative of. You can easily do it. Design your own game. Or use FUDGE. LowDie. Action! There are 3 open systems plus anything you design on your own that doesn't require the SRD. Go back and read the first sentence I wrote... hehe especially the part in the parenthesis. If you do not list that in your section 15, then you are in violation of the OGL itself. Not for your own games (that aren't based on the SRD) and not for those 3 games. And the SRD is where everything originally came from, at least for the core mechanics. No, it's where all d20-based stuff comes from. It's not where everything comes from. Your company, for example, has plenty of things that it could release without the SRD, Tim. Please note that I did take into account that there are other systems using the OGL, and that I was excluding them from my comments. Also, I have absolutely no idea what the situation would be if you were doing something for Action! with the OGL and wanted to use something declared by another company as PI (using the OGL for the d20 system), but my gut instinct says no, because both use the OGL, and thus both would be bound by it, no matter that you are using different system ref docs. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 Party Beneficiaries?)
On 28 Feb 2005 at 21:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, there's nothing saying explicitly that PI has to be declared by anyone in particular. I was thinking that you had to be a party to the contract to declare PI, but then I asked myself this question: can a third party beneficiary declare PI without actually being a party to the contract or an assignee. This discussion festered up in the wake of an observation about whether you are bound by the PI in the SRD if you don't quote OGC from the SRD and include it in your Section 15. Thoughts? Comments? Not exactly sure what you are saying (an example would have been nice - hehe), but I will respond to what I think you are saying. IMO, it is implicit that the person putting material under the license is the one intended and required to declare what is and what isn't Product Identity. IIRC (it has been a while since I looked at the OGL), declaring product identity IS a part of the license, therefore the person who originally licenses the material (i.e. puts it under the OGL) is the one who declares the product identity. Remember, part of the OGL is that once declared as OGL, another person cannot come along and make it non-open again. This means that if I put the entire text of a product that I call Critical Combat under the OGL. You cannot come along later, use the section on herbs, and declare the herb names as product identity. They are already declared as open, and cannot be closed again. Doing so, or attempting to do so would be a breach of the license itself. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] d20 bubble burst and other repercussions
On 19 Feb 2005 at 14:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doesn't the loss of the Stargate license have less to do with the current state of the d20 market and more to do with the acquisition of MGM by Sony? Any word on a possible Star Wars sourcebook when Episode III hits? George V. from Eden has posted online that the purchase of MGM by Sony has not affected his licenses. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] d20 bubble burst and other repercussions
On 19 Feb 2005 at 14:47, Steven Trustrum wrote: Personally, I doubt that either MGM or Sony has been keeping track of what goes on in the d20 market enough for that to have had anything to do with the change. More likely than not, it came down to Eden being able to provide more money upfront than AEG considering licensing agreements don't have anything to do with actual sales. All of d20 could be tanking for all MGM and Sony cared, so long as the licensing fee was what they wanted. Eden has posted several times that MGM/Sony approached them to resubmit their licensing proposal for Stargate back in August of last year. Since most licenses last for 5 year as a standard, chances are that AEG lost the license because it was unable to meet some sort of criteria within the licensing agreement. Now George V. did make another statement the other day (cannot remember where I saw it though), where he basically said that while Eden has a new licensed product coming in 2005, it is NOT Stargate. However, the way that he phrased that post, he did not deny that Eden had the license now. This has made me think that it is possible that Eden does have the license, and that it will most likely release its own Stargate game in 2006. --- Pure speculation on my part, nothing more TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Creative Commons alternate copyright system
On 16 Oct 2004 Mike scribbled a note about [Ogf-l] Creative Commons alternate copyright syst: I thought that the following article might be of interest to those on this list. It sounds very similar to the system founded under the OGL. I wonder then how they plan to overcome many of the accountability and referencing issues that are discussed so frequently on this board. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2004-10-12-creative-commo ns_x .htm The Creative Commons licence is a generic license that has been around for a good while (a few years at least). I am not sure what you mean by how they plan to get around certain issues. Who is they? ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] d20 as Product identity
Just saw that the legal document has been updated so that it now says d20 (when used as a trademark) instead of just d20 TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] SRD released (apparantly)
On 22 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] SRD released (apparantly): I'd say that it's a pretty smart thing to do. If you have a wide reaching PI declaration that covers a lot of your important PI then you can use that PI declaration again and again and it'll protect you from inadvertently leaving out a PI declaration on one of your important characters, phrases, or marks. Now here is a thought. What is to stop somebody from using BOTH the 3.0 SRD and the 3.5 SRD (i.e. claiming them in the Section 15 of their OGL). Since d20 was apparently not PI in the 3.0 SRD, this would appear to allow them to use it. How would using two sources, with conflicting PI work anyways? --- Additionally, I have been thinking about the post that asked how you close something after you open it. I think that he has a point here. d20 as an individual term/phrase has been opened. That has then spread through a number of other OGL products. WOTC cannot decide to close it later on. They can decide to use their own PI in non-open products, but I really do not think that they can close something once they have opened it. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Closing OGC
On 22 Jul 2003 Brad scribbled a note about RE: [Ogf-l] Closing OGC: You're missing the solution that WotC obviously intends for folks to follow regarding the d20 issue - the d20 STL constitutes a separate agreement to use the term. But they cannot now claim it as PI when it was released as open previously. From their FAQ: Q: If I identify something as Product Identity that was previously distributed as Open Game Content, does the material become Product Identity? A: No. Once content has been distributed as Open Game Content, it cannot become Product Identity, even if you are the original creator of the content. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] d20 as Product Identity...
On 22 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] d20 as Product Identity...: Isn't this whole discussion mooted by the fact that a WotC representative was quoted about 15 or 20 posts ago as saying words to the effect of, Yeah, it's a mistake; we'll have to fix it? Actually he said something to the effect of Yeah, it is unclear, let me find out what is actually meant :) TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] understanding the D20 licensing
On 21 Jul 2003 William scribbled a note about RE: [Ogf-l] understanding the D20 licensing: Tell them it works like Linux... So does that make Hasbro the equivalent of SCO? :) TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] SRD released (apparantly)
On 21 Jul 2003 woodelf scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] SRD released (apparantly): more likely, it's because now they have a leg to stand on if they want to stop people putting d20 in the title of their non-D20STL book. And other similar things--the vast majority of those terms likely couldn't be trademarked, so they, previously, had no power to stop others using them. Also, the wording of the WotC OGL restrictions on trademark aren't nearly as strong as those on PI, so it gives them more power to keep others from using them. Except that to use d20 in the title, a company would apparently only have to use the 3.0 SRD as their base, rather than the 3.5 SRD. At least, that is what I see happening here. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario
On 15 Jun 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] Employee mistake scenario: What matters is whether the person (or persons) making the release had the authority (if they so desired) to release Dungeon Master as OGC (while still maintaining its trademarked status). Ahh!! That is the whole point. Did the individual release it, or did the company? The company posted it on their website, the company is the one who actually released it, and they most certainly had the authority. The individual worked for the company, and was acting on behalf of the company in releasing sections of the SRD. Therefore, in this capacity, he effectively was the company. Now if the employee released it on a separate website, or published it on his own, that would be different, and they could claim that he did not have the authority. But it was released by the company, on their corporate website. Therefore, since they have the authority to release any of their IP, TM, etc, it is a legal release, and the term is now OGC. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Dungeon Master in OGC
On 14 Jun 2003 DarkTouch scribbled a note about Re: [Ogf-l] Dungeon Master in OGC: You're making the mistake of looking at WotC in terms of a faceless monolith. Try breaking it down into individuals and it might make more sense to you. Wrong! WOTC, as a company, released the SRD under the OGL, not as a group of individuals, each releasing various pieces of it. As a company, it has to deal with the consequences of the actions of the employee who did this, and it was not actually a single employee who may or may not be at fault. Remember, WOTC has a process through which the sections of the SRD were reviewed (which included going past the legal department as well). Either Dungeon Master was meant to be released, or a whole bunch of people made the exact same mistake. The end result is the same, it has been released as OGC and now cannot be pulled back. Any attempts to do so will provide lots of fuel for the conspiracy theorists, as well as cause major backlashes among the companies producing d20 material. It would amount to saying that the OGL is not worth the paper it isn't printed on. That WOTC will do whatever pleases, no matter what licenses or such may be in effect. Would you want to do business with a company that would do whatever they pleased, no matter that it violates licenses and contracts and so forth? I know that I wouldn't. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] SRD question
On 6 Apr 2003 Martin scribbled a note about RE: [Ogf-l] Greetings and a question: But as of now, there is no more draft SRD material. Anybody know what happened to all the monster portions of the SRD? They are apparently no longer available on the WOTC website. They were there yesterday, but now they are missing. I can reach any portion of the SRD except for any page containing monsters (including psionic monsters) TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
