Re: [Ogf-l] OGC contamination?
On 9/5/06 8:04 PM, "Vicki Potter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I maintain that, since the fluff text will be published again by the original > publisher, that company can publish it without having to do so under the Open > Game License. You are correct. All the non-derivative work they created can be re-licensed as many times as they wish, under as many licensing regimes as they choose to use. Ryan ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] OGC contamination?
Beginning with the obligiatory IANAL. I can't see any reasons why this can't be published as a 100% closed product. The OGL only applies to reuse of the original published product. I would say you are correct, and the original publisher has the right to "rerelease" their original fluff text (which presumably they own the copyright to) as 100% closed content without the OGL attached. They can't withdraw the OGL on the original publication, but they can republish without it as long as they are not using any OGC from anyone else in the republication. The OGL applies only to their original release of their text - if they want to go and reuse the same text and not release it under the OGL, they are entitled to do that - in the same way that Wizards of the Coast can publish the D&D rules in OGL form and then (because they own 100% of the original copyright to it) publish them again in a 100% closed rulebook. The only factor that would prevent this product being 100% closed is if the original company were using OGL sources to write their fluff text - this is the bit to be careful about - do they (for example) reference any monsters from OGL material which could not have been sourced from anywhere else (in other words, monsters invented by another company and then "borrowed" through use of the OGL). If their fluff is absolultely, truly 100% their own and could have been legally published in a standalone format without an attached OGL, then as long as they retained the original copyright I would say they have the legal rights to republish it. The OGL is a licence for a specific release of work, and not equivalent to releasing something into the public domain (something you cannot take back for subsequent releases). Or to put it in a far simpler sentence - I concur with what you have stated below :) - Matt Matt Thomason DancingDryad.com > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ogf-l- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vicki Potter > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 4:04 AM > To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org > Subject: [Ogf-l] OGC contamination? > > I maintain that, since the fluff text will be published again by the > original publisher, that company can publish it without having to do so > under the Open Game License. In other words, the text published with our > licensed system would be 'closed', even though identical text published > elsewhere would be 'open.' That being the case, the OGL would appear > nowhere in the product and thus none of the material, including the > licensed mechanics, would be Open. > ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] OGC contamination?
You have a right to specify what, specifically, is open game content and what is not open game content. An easy way to handle this, for example, would be to put game stats (closed content) in grey boxes and narrative (open content) without boxes. Then you simply state that "all material in this product is contributed to open content except for material enclosed in grey boxes." Viola. Done.Mark --Mark WilkinsonTower Ravens[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sep 5, 2006, at 9:04 PM, Vicki Potter wrote: Hi. I have an issue I hope folks can help with. We have a new modern horror game out with its own system. A company that has done a few horror supplements for d20 Modern is interested in reworking some for our proprietary system. However, those supplements were originally published as Open Game Content, as in "Everything in this product is Open Game Content." Some people in our company are concerned that re-publishing the fluff text with our mechanics will result in our mechanic becoming 'contaminated' and becoming Open Game Content. I maintain that, since the fluff text will be published again by the original publisher, that company can publish it without having to do so under the Open Game License. In other words, the text published with our licensed system would be 'closed', even though identical text published elsewhere would be 'open.' That being the case, the OGL would appear nowhere in the product and thus none of the material, including the licensed mechanics, would be Open. One alternative that's been suggested would be for the publisher to make some small changes to the text and then publish it with the licensed mechanics. That exact text would never have been Open in the first place, so it should not be an issue. However, if OGC can contaminate other material, then even one sentence that was not changed could still be considered OGC and possibly result in problems. I would rather not take this approach if it can be avoided. Some of our people are having a hard time with this, and I would appreciate any corroboration or correction. Thanks. Vicki Potter Editorial Minion Tabletop Adventures www.tabletopadventures.com___Ogf-l mailing listOgf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.orghttp://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] OGC contamination?
On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 22:04 -0500, Vicki Potter wrote: > Open Game Content." Some people in our company are concerned that > re-publishing the fluff text with our mechanics will result in our > mechanic becoming 'contaminated' and becoming Open Game Content. It is solely dependant upon what *each* of these products defined as OGC. -- David Bolack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] OGC contamination?
Hi. I have an issue I hope folks can help with. We have a new modern horror game out with its own system. A company that has done a few horror supplements for d20 Modern is interested in reworking some for our proprietary system. However, those supplements were originally published as Open Game Content, as in "Everything in this product is Open Game Content." Some people in our company are concerned that re-publishing the fluff text with our mechanics will result in our mechanic becoming 'contaminated' and becoming Open Game Content. I maintain that, since the fluff text will be published again by the original publisher, that company can publish it without having to do so under the Open Game License. In other words, the text published with our licensed system would be 'closed', even though identical text published elsewhere would be 'open.' That being the case, the OGL would appear nowhere in the product and thus none of the material, including the licensed mechanics, would be Open. One alternative that's been suggested would be for the publisher to make some small changes to the text and then publish it with the licensed mechanics. That exact text would never have been Open in the first place, so it should not be an issue. However, if OGC can contaminate other material, then even one sentence that was not changed could still be considered OGC and possibly result in problems. I would rather not take this approach if it can be avoided. Some of our people are having a hard time with this, and I would appreciate any corroboration or correction. Thanks. Vicki Potter Editorial Minion Tabletop Adventures www.tabletopadventures.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
