Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Tom Caudron wrote: 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. Over the years on this list a number of points in the licenses have been found to be open to at least two different interpretations each. I don't have a score card handy to say which side the various official lawyers on this list sided on with each dispute, but I'd be surprised if they all agreed on every single point. Various publishers have picked between the interpretations (some with the help of their own lawyers, probably most without) and produced products that (one hopes) they felt were legal. Odds are some of those products are in violation of one or the other license, with the only thing saving them being the fact that WotC chooses not to prosecute minor or one-time violations. I don't feel anyone should feel secure in their license compliance simply based on the practices of other publishers or debates on these e-lists. Spike Y Jones ___ 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
Tom, Out of curiosity, who is using this Prometheus logo/license? Outside of this list I've never seen it. Chris Helton - Original Message From: Tom Caudron [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:16:43 AM Subject: 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 ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
From: Chris Helton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Out of curiosity, who is using this Prometheus logo/license? Outside of this list I've never seen it. Who all is using this, I don't know, but we've released five with OPenDie and for with Prometheus. We wouldn't want to be without it. I know there are others. Mark Oliva Webmaster, the Vintyri Project (TM) Internet: http://www.vintyri.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] 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
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
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. Then run for the hills now. Because a ton of all of this depends on who's butt is in the legal chair at WotC and how close they watch stuff. In fact, just about none of it is actually about contract law. Terms may not change, but enforcement sure does. Clark __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
Ah look. Just another example of publishers working together in enlightened self-interest. How bucolic and utopian. :) Lets all put that crack pipe away, shall we. :) Clark PS--sorry, I wasnt trying to single you guys out. You know I like both of you guys. But I thought it might be an interesting example to help those who have this dreamy illusion of enlightened publishers working together to craft the common good of the game. Heck, we cant even agree on logos. We cant even agree whether we agree on logos. We cant even agree if we are on the right list to talk about our disagreement on logos. So I guess my point is (and you guys are my unwitting pieces of evidence) that it is rather pie in the skie (or should I say Orc and Pie in the Sky) to think that we publishers can really unite in any grand way. It hasnt really worked and I dont see it working in the future. Clark again. Hey, wasnt this a PS? That got rather long... --- Mark Clover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve, you know full well my mention of negativity was in regard to your rudeness, ala - Then the thing you need to consider, Mark, is which of our goals is actually looking at what the people on the list here are talking about (basically telling me to shut up if my goals differ). Twisting it to imply I wasn't interested in constructive criticism is just another example of the very problem that drives people away from posting in the first place. As always, Mark Clover www.CreativeMountainGames.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
This is why I also don't think a collective effort would work. The best way I see a third party logo coming to carry any weight in the market is by looking at examples where this has already happened. You have a publisher with respectable market penetration build the logo for their own use and then say hey, if you guys want to use it too, here are the terms. If you don't like it, you don't use it. Superlink works because it was established by a middle rung company that already had recognizable branding. Small press is able to take advantage of that, but it certainly wouldn't be nearly as effective if every Superlink publisher was altering the logo to suit their own, specific desires, or if everyone publishing under the logo had a voice in its terms of use. There's definately a difference in the prospective success of the collective ownership model and the choose an alpha and the rest of the pack will follow model. Ah look. Just another example of publishers working together in enlightened self-interest. How bucolic and utopian. :) Lets all put that crack pipe away, shall we. :) Clark PS--sorry, I wasnt trying to single you guys out. You know I like both of you guys. But I thought it might be an interesting example to help those who have this dreamy illusion of enlightened publishers working together to craft the common good of the game. Heck, we cant even agree on logos. We cant even agree whether we agree on logos. We cant even agree if we are on the right list to talk about our disagreement on logos. So I guess my point is (and you guys are my unwitting pieces of evidence) that it is rather pie in the skie (or should I say Orc and Pie in the Sky) to think that we publishers can really unite in any grand way. It hasnt really worked and I dont see it working in the future. Clark again. Hey, wasnt this a PS? That got rather long... --- Mark Clover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve, you know full well my mention of negativity was in regard to your rudeness, ala - Then the thing you need to consider, Mark, is which of our goals is actually looking at what the people on the list here are talking about (basically telling me to shut up if my goals differ). Twisting it to imply I wasn't interested in constructive criticism is just another example of the very problem that drives people away from posting in the first place. As always, Mark Clover www.CreativeMountainGames.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l 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
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
Mark Clover wrote: I'm not convinvced. Shall we just leave it at that and agree it hasn't been testing in court and won't matter until it is? We could be at this a long time doing a dance of semantic variations and never get anywhere. I'd say no, because we know why that line was put in the OGL, and what Wizards intended to do with it. If that line wasn't in there, and it didn't mean what I know it to mean, the whole d20 trademark scheme wouldn't work, either. It's not a question of semantic variations -- it's a question of following in the footsteps of the party that drafted the license. I'm going to point out that you are, by your own admission, looking for a compaitbility 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. I'm just going to leave it at that. With the slight technicality that we meant compatability with our new documents, that may or may not have anything to do with what the d20 SRD entails, yes. 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? Yes. It's simple, really -- there's no fiscal imperative for ANY compatibility logo that isn't paired with a big producer. The biggest producer already has their own logo, and the second-tiers have, for reasons that I won't pretend to speak for, decided not to pick up Prometheus or create their own publisher-independent logo. If Mongoose, White Wolf, Green Ronin, or ENWorld decided to start pushing hard for a replacement compatibility logo, that had the same it'll never get any worse than this clause that the OGL, GPL, and PTL all have, I think you would see Prometheus quietly fade away. The lack of fiscal imperative also explains the other two shortcomings -- the PRD itself is still rough and unfinished, and only those relatively close to the program itself are really aware of it. There are still today bright-eyed young gamers wondering why isn't there a logo that means 'I'm Open!', and as often as not they'll try and start their own new logo. Which just serves to divide the market, and prevent any of these alternative logos (FGA's spawn inclusive) from ever reaching meaningful penetration. Just as an exercise, put yourself on the other side of the table and delineate the opposite viewpoint to your usual perspective. I think I did that above -- presuming that by opposite you meant the FGA's stuff isn't worth it, rather than there's no point to a logo at all. (The argument against any logo at all basically boils down to either a case of not-invented-here, an instance of I don't like your license/logo/name, or a I don't see enough value in this to put it on the back of my book. You might see one or two arguments of I like the family-focused controls on the d20 logo, but I haven't seen too many of those.) DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
Mark, I'm sorry if you took that as rude but it wasn't meant to be. It's a legitimate question that needs to be answered. The only way your concept would work is if it fits the needs of enough people and therefore gets enough top down marketing support behind it. The plan you seem to be proposing works more from a bottom up position and won't suit the needs of the majority. Again, not intended to be rude but was addressing what many others have said about why similar attempts have failed in the past. Regards, Steven Trustrum President For Life (or until the money runs out) Misfit Studios http://www.misfit-studios.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] 416-857-2433 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Clover Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 1:19 AM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo Steve, you know full well my mention of negativity was in regard to your rudeness, ala - Then the thing you need to consider, Mark, is which of our goals is actually looking at what the people on the list here are talking about (basically telling me to shut up if my goals differ). Twisting it to imply I wasn't interested in constructive criticism is just another example of the very problem that drives people away from posting in the first place. As always, Mark Clover www.CreativeMountainGames.com ___ 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
[Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
[Steven Trustrum] Then the thing you need to consider, Mark, is which of our goals is actually looking at what the people on the list here are talking about: a feasible logo that could even attempt to fill the shoes of the d20 logo in case of the latter's retraction. Not as such. The discussion is about an OGL logo. Judging by the emails received, I'm going to go ahead and state that at least some people have interest in the one that I have already released, along with the goals it embodies. I don't believe there can be an effective replacement for the d20 logo and I don't use the d20 logo license anyway. I'd also suggest that a discussion about a replacement for the d20 logo might be better suited on the sister list (ogf-d20-l@) since that targets folks who use the d20 logo. Of course, that might have just been your winking way of telling me to agree with you or to shut up. I gotta say, though, that everytime I post to this list I invariably get a bunch of emails from people who just don't want to deal with the constant negativity and, so, never post here. Consider that, please. As always, Mark Clover www.CreativeMountainGames.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
Mark, what I'm saying isn't that it can't be used away from the d20 system, but if you think it's not going to be associated that way you're mistaken. To most people--publishers or customers--who know enough to even know what you're talking about when you say OGL, d20 is the next thought that pops into their head. If you're trying to brand away from that, you're not just working to create a new branding, but you're also going to have to undo existing branding. That makes it doubly difficult. And people here may not like to hear negativity, but I think saying wow, that logo rocks on toast and would totally kick ass as a way to communicate the OGL concept! just because people don't want to hear anything to the contrary is a total waste of everyone's time. Yours and mine. I'm offering you comments based on what I've learned after a decade of helping some of the world's largest companies with their branding and marketing while working as a market researcher, just as others bring up legal questions because there are lawyers on the list who can offer up their professional opinion. If you don't want to hear that because the feedback is negative and rains on your predisposed conclusions about what your logo is capable of (and, indeed, even how it can be functionally be distributed), then why even bring it up for discussion in an open forum to begin with? If I honestly thought your logo achieved any of the goals you set for it, or if you were putting forth the best possible way to spread it around to serve your stated needs, you can be assured you'd have heard positive feedback from me. Regards, Steven Trustrum President For Life (or until the money runs out) Misfit Studios http://www.misfit-studios.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] 416-857-2433 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Clover Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 12:21 AM To: ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org Subject: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo [Steven Trustrum] Then the thing you need to consider, Mark, is which of our goals is actually looking at what the people on the list here are talking about: a feasible logo that could even attempt to fill the shoes of the d20 logo in case of the latter's retraction. Not as such. The discussion is about an OGL logo. Judging by the emails received, I'm going to go ahead and state that at least some people have interest in the one that I have already released, along with the goals it embodies. I don't believe there can be an effective replacement for the d20 logo and I don't use the d20 logo license anyway. I'd also suggest that a discussion about a replacement for the d20 logo might be better suited on the sister list (ogf-d20-l@) since that targets folks who use the d20 logo. Of course, that might have just been your winking way of telling me to agree with you or to shut up. I gotta say, though, that everytime I post to this list I invariably get a bunch of emails from people who just don't want to deal with the constant negativity and, so, never post here. Consider that, please. As always, Mark Clover www.CreativeMountainGames.com ___ 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
[Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
[Doug Meerschaert] It's all in what you indicate compatability with. If, for example, SSS wants to say that all of their Warcraft d20 books are both compatible and co-adaptable, the OGL certainly can't say anything about it. I'm not convinvced. Shall we just leave it at that and agree it hasn't been testing in court and won't matter until it is? We could be at this a long time doing a dance of semantic variations and never get anywhere. [Doug Meerschaert] The FGA asked Wizards if they had any objections at all to either Prometheus or the OpenDie. In fact, that's why we abandoned the old Free20 name. They won't have any problem with a brand-new compatability indicator -- and even if they did, unless it infringes on one of their trademarks, I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on. 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 going to point out that you are, by your own admission, looking for a compaitbility 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. I'm just going to leave it at that. [Doug Meerschaert] (And if you're looking for a new compatability indicator, the Prometheus mark is still the one to go with. Its license is almost exactly as the FGA wrote it, and it's got a nice safe any version you want clause, to boot.) 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? Just as an exercise, put yourself on the other side of the table and delineate the opposite viewpoint to your usual perspective. 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. Surely you must be just as aware of its perceived or supposed shortcomings as you are of its touted benefits? I'm truly curious. As always, Mark Clover www.CreativeMountainGames.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
