Re: [Ogf-l] Opening Closed Games
Robert said, but what about data tables that are purely formula based that have no use outside of the application of the rule that references the table. You are correct that the underlying formula cannot be copyrighted. You can reverse engineer the tables legally still (even in the US), but as you said yourself, be prepared to fend off a lawsuit. Rightly or wrongly, the original game designer may try to get his way in court no matter whose side law and precedent are on. -Tom Caudron ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
Clark said, Terms may not change, but enforcement sure does. The Prometheus project violates no part of the OGL of which I am aware, which was the implied claim of the original email to which I was replying. In the context of that comment, I have to stand by my claim. Future kings in the Halls of WotC may not like the OGL and the d20SRD, but the terms of the license are what they are. There exists no term violations to enforce. In other words, if Prometheus violates some arcane misunderstood term of the OGL, so do the rest of you (as nothing Prometheus does is unknown in whole or in part in many other works) and we have all based our respective products/projects on a misunderstanding of the OGL---which would be unfortunate. I tend to believe that amongst all the various lawyers all of us have spoken with, at least one of them would have raised the red flag if the terms of the OGL were somehow dangerously mercurial or if there were enforcement leeway on those terms that made them so. Notwithstanding an out-of-the-blue unfounded claim from WotC (something outlandish like the SCO/Linux lawsuit claims), I do not believe, nor do I think you believe, that WotC has the ability to enforce the OGL in a /wildly/ different manner than that which we understand and expect. Now the d20STL is another matter entirely, and that is the very point that caused me to move to an alternative to that logo/license. Tom Caudron ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
Yeah, I agree that is the danger of any license. But discounting the sort of out-of-the-blue legal upset that could derail us all (and is unlikely in the extreme), I guess all I'm trying to say is that Prometheus is not particularly at risk above other d20srd-based works, which was the original implication I was addressing. Tom Caudron Administrator of the Prometheus Project http://www.PrometheusGaming.com On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 08:10 -0700, Steven Trustrum wrote: I tend to believe that amongst all the various lawyers all of us have spoken with, at least one of them would have raised the red flag if the terms of the OGL were somehow dangerously mercurial or if there were enforcement leeway on those terms that made them so. No matter how many lawyers one personally consults on the OGL (I've contacted two myself for different reasons), or how many speak up on lists such as this, I've learned there's still always a lawyer out there who brings up an entirely new way of looking at the license. Some are pretty outlandish and still, at this late date, continue to hold to the sort of paranoia not seen since the OGL's first days. Steven Trustrum President Misfit Studios http://www.misfit-studios.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
Mark Clover said, I'm going to point out that there are different WotC people in charge of whether or not it matters than there were then and there likely will be different people in charge at some point in the future than there are now. 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. Mark Clover said, I'm going to point out that you are, by your own admission, looking for a compatibility indicator and I'm going to posit that you mean compatibility with the d20 System, a compatibility indicator to be an alternative to the d20 system logo. The Prometheus license indicates compatibility with the Prometheus Reference Documents. It is a purposeful by-product of the terms of the OGL and the d20 SRD that the Prometheus Reference Documents are compatible with the Revised Third Edition of Dungeons and Dragons. Neither the license nor references documents say that. Before people go too far in engaging in speculation about the Prometheus license and game system, I encourage all of you to review what it claims to do and what it does: http://www.PrometheusGaming.com I understand the confusion. There have been some wild claims about the Prometheus project from the very beginning. It appears that the project often promotes extreme reactions from industry folk. Some love the idea, some hate. Judging by the comments on this list, very few are truly indifferent. Claims to the contrary notwithstanding, the feedback here speaks for itself in that regard. Mark Clover asked, This doesn't seem to have made much, if any, headway in the last five/six(?) years. Is there a reason you can think of why this hasn't been adopted by all potential adopters in that time? I think there is a clear reason: Bigger publishers are comfortable with the status quo (perhaps rightly so) and small publishers aren't always aware of the options and also often try to emulate the bigger publishers. The Prometheus Logo and License are a sort of air bag for the industry. If WotC chooses to close up 4E, and revoke the d20STL for 3E and Revised 3E, Prometheus will still be around offering alternatives. Until WotC does that, there are some who think they won't. Not saying they will, but I tend to err on the side of distrust when it comes to large corporations. If you trust Hasbro, then you are correct in saying you don't /need/ the Prometheus project. Mark Clover said, I think I might be able to understand things much better if I could hear someone as familiar with the licensing you champion detail why it has not been as successful as it could be. I agree that any option has shortcomings. the d20STL has shortcomings as well. The question is really a matter of whose shortcomings you want to accept. For me (and I'm biased on the subject---see my signature at the bottom), I prefer the shortcomings of the Prometheus project over those of the d20STL. I love the work Ryan Dancey did on the OGL. I am not a big fan of the d20STL, however. Any license that I would base a company on cannot be a license that can be altered and or revoked on the whim of the licensor. That causes me to worry more than I'd like. :) Tom Caudron Administrator for the Prometheus Project http://www.PrometheusGaming.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
