Re: [OGF-L] The Mysterious Third Type of Content
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:38 PM Subject: Re: [OGF-L] The Mysterious Third Type of Content In a message dated 3/1/2005 3:25:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Note howevever that you are required to declare the OGC, thus you must, by strictures within the license, define the work as covered by the license.What you define as OGC is not the same as the work covered by the license in my mind. The license applies (i.e., is a license for) OGC, but it covers PI too. It also potentially covers things external to the covered work (in the no-compatibility declaration clause). never said it was covered by the license, said it was covered by standard copyright and trademark laws.Right. My point is that people say the license creates a third type of content, and I say that third type of content is largely (except the no compatiblity declarations "in conjunction with" bit) outside the scope of the license. Not a third type of content covered by the license.It's a relatively narrow distinction. If the third type of content is outside the scope of the licence 'except the no compatiblity declarations "in conjunction with" bit' then the licence is preventing some things in bits of a product that are not OGC or PI. Either: 1) There *is* a third content which *is*covered by standard copyright law, but additionally must obey the no compatibility "in conjunction with" bit of the OGL (and is therefore covered by some of the OGL), *or* 2) You can create a multi "work" product, declare one part to be covered by the OGL and make all sorts of compatibility declarations in the bits that are not covered by the OGL. I think that the first interpretation is the one that the licence implies and that means that the OGL should really cover an entire gaming product *including* the bits that are neither declared asOGC or PI. You can't say that the OGL works one way for mostgaming productsbut a different way for magazines. Either a third content exists all the timeor it doesn't exist at all. The no compatibility part of the licence would imply that a third content must exist (although I'm *not* saying that a third content does much). By all means tell me what the third content can and can't do (I think I'd probably agree with most of your position), but I think your multi-"work" anti-third-content position of yoursconfuses the issue to people that haven't read *US* copyright law. David ShepheardWebmasterVirtual Eclipse Science Fiction Role Playing Clubhttp://virtualeclipse.aboho.com/http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/virtualeclipselrp/ ___ 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
From: Tim Dugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 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. So can you argue fair use to make quotes from the PHB, DMG or Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting on your other 15 pages as you would be allowed to do under normal copyright law? I don't think so. I think that you have agreed to not do this by using the OGL and therefore the other 15 pages are in someway bound by the OGL as well. I can't prove this position, but it *seems* to me to be the intent of the licence. And if that *is* the way that the licence operates there *must* be a third type of content. I agree that it is a one-trick-pony type of content, probably only being bound by the compatibility bits of the licence, but I do think it exists. David Shepheard Webmaster Virtual Eclipse Science Fiction Role Playing Club http://virtualeclipse.aboho.com/ http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/virtualeclipselrp/ ___ 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
In a message dated 3/13/2005 8:04:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can't prove this position, but it *seems* to me to be the intent of the licence. And if that *is* the way that the licence operates there *must* be a third type of content. I Um. First, the only point I've debated is that there is no third type of content WITHIN a covered work. Define a covered work. Everything in the covered work is either OGC or PI. Period. That's not an opinion. It is a definition. It is not an interpretation. It is a definition. OGC means "any work covered by this license" except the parts that are PI. Now, we can argue about the definition of a "covered work". But once you have defined a "work" then the above definition says everything in that covered work is OGC or PI. You may not be able to then include content in a covered work which is not OGC or PI. But again, that just may mean that the content that isn't OGC or isn't PI may not be part of the covered work. Lee ___ 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
In a message dated 3/13/2005 8:05:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1) There *is* a third content which *is* covered by standard copyright law, but additionally must obey the no compatibility "in conjunction with" bit of the OGL (and is therefore covered by some of the OGL), Something need not even be part of the same work to be distributed in conjunction with it. If I distribute a flyer that says "I'm giving you a book that is compatible with DD" that flyer is not part of the book. It's a separate work. But I am distributing it in conjunction with the book. Don't confuse "in conjunction with" with saying that this is limited to the work covered by the license. That said, "in conjunction with" has no definition in the license, and if the license only covers the covered work, and if people can pick and choose how they slice and dice their works up, then they can choose to advertise compatibility all over the place and then just make a portion of a book covered by the OGL. 2) You can create a multi "work" product, declare one part to be covered by the OGL and make all sorts of compatibility declarations in the bits that are not covered by the OGL. That may be true. Welcome to the wonderful world of poor draftsmanship. WotC: redraft the bloody license! You can't say that the OGL works one way for most gaming products but a different way for magazines. Sure you can. It has to do with what a work is. Works can contain other works. A magazine is a collected works containing other works. "Work" is a squishy term of art, but it generally is going to be considered to be a single commercial unit. Although sometimes that can vary. One can easily say that a magazine has highly distinctive multiple works within it, with obvious boundaries between them, each of which could be separately published and which would still seem to be consistent wholes. Either a third content exists all the time or it doesn't exist at all. Dude, I have _NEVER_ said that there is not purely copyrighted material that is not OGC. I've said it doesn't exist INSIDE the covered work. It exists OUTSIDE of the covered work. And that stuff may (or may not be) bound by the "in conjunction with" clause (it's tough to say, since the license isn't well-drafted). U.S. copyright law sometimes is variable by district, and so perhaps the "clarity" that I feel exists may be affected by the bulk of the cases with which I'm familiar. I admit that this could well be true. Lee ___ 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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OGF-L] The Mysterious Third Type of Content The WotC reps, having had email conversations with me on the subject, noted that at least in the first draft of the STL they goofed and didn't write it so that it can apply readily to magazines.The downside of that. If you put a d20 logo on your work (at least under the old d20 STL) you technically couldn't mention any of WotC's products to review them, because the STL forbade you from doing so (you can only refer to select WotC products in any Work covered by the STL). While WotC may not have considered magazine reviews when they created the d20STL, it certainly would not prevent any role playing magazine from reviewing their products. As WotC own the d20STL they are allowed to let people have more rights than it allows. The could even, ifthey wanted to produce another licence that allows magazines to put the d20 Systemlogo on their front covers, mention WotC's product name in reviews *and* publish character creation rules in isolatedarticles (that do not mention WotC's products within those articles). David ShepheardWebmasterVirtual Eclipse Science Fiction Role Playing Clubhttp://virtualeclipse.aboho.com/http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/virtualeclipselrp/ ___ 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
In a message dated 3/9/2005 7:20:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: While WotC may not have considered magazine reviews when they created the d20STL, it certainly would not prevent any role playing magazine from reviewing their products. It would if you wanted to use their logos. I haven't seen the redraft of the STL, but the original STL said that in any work you had covered by the STL you agreed not to mention ANY of their products other than about 4 or 5 core rulebooks. I talked to the WotC rep. He agreed that technically that was a violation of the STL, but that it was not in WotC's interests to pursue such violations. As WotC own the d20STL they are allowed to let people have more rights than it allows. Yes, but that's different than a statement that, unless WotC grants those rights, that you can be in violation of the STL in certain magazines. Again, this is an STL rather than OGL issue, and while you may technically be in violation of the STL, WotC can grant you permission to be in violation of it. Lee ___ 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
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right, but the license says any WORK covered by the OGL is 100% OGC except the parts that are PI. Once again, would you please quote the relevant section of the OGL that states this, please? I have re-read the OGL a number of times today, during the course of this discussion and twice since you mentioned it the first time. I can find no reference to this claim. ___ 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
In a message dated 3/1/2005 3:25:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Note howevever that you are required to declare the OGC, thus you must, by strictures within the license, define the work as covered by the license. What you define as OGC is not the same as the work covered by the license in my mind. The license applies (i.e., is a license for) OGC, but it covers PI too. It also potentially covers things external to the covered work (in the no-compatibility declaration clause). never said it was covered by the license, said it was covered by standard copyright and trademark laws. Right. My point is that people say the license creates a third type of content, and I say that third type of content is largely (except the no compatiblity declarations "in conjunction with" bit) outside the scope of the license. Not a third type of content covered by the license. It's a relatively narrow distinction. ___ 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
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Open Game Content means ... ANY WORK COVERED BY THIS LICENSE... but specifically excludes Product Identity. Do you mean this section? 'Open Game Content' means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. Where exactly do you get that 100% of the work is OGC from this statement. Because there doesn't seem to be anything in the full text that says that. Of course, your broken up quote of the text doesn't say that either. ___ 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
