You'll have to ask the webmaster, Ryan Dancey.
I've let the OGF site go quiescent in the past several years as it seemed
that its purpose had been well served - other than these mailing lists I
felt that between Wizards own site, and the many publishers creating open
gaming content, that the
From: "Paul W. King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The entire site, or just that sub-directory?
In my opinion, the court will look at the way the information is presented.
If you have a directory with files in it that contain OGL material, the
files themselves are OGL, but the directory is not. This
From: "woodelf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So, a magazine that has a single OGC-containing article coudn't use
trademarks anywhere in the magazine to indicate compatibility or
co-adaptability. It couldn't have an article in that issue about "New
Races for ShadowRun(tm)"?
That's a correct interpreta
From: "Tim Dugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 de
From: "Clark Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Can I say the "work" is just chapters 2 and 4? Or, in
your view, does the "work" mean the whole book?
The intent of the license is that it apply to all chapters.
This is a required interpretation. Otherwise, it would be possible to put
the things th
I've having a hard time remember what's restricted under
D20, but allowable for straight OGL stuff.
The OGL places no restrictions on your use of Open Game Content other than
that the OGL be bound to it and included in your distribution.
Note that Beholders and Mind Flayers are not Open Game
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If you want to believe otherwise, well, enjoy your willful ignorance and
doom on you.
I think that's enough from you for today. Take a time-out.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
But with whom did the final decision rest? If they accepted opinions, it
was still up to them to make that final choice.
My god. It's a flashback post from March of 2000. We appear to have a WotC
conspiracist back in the mix, ladies and gentlemen! Somehow (please
In my opinion, you'd do well to do some research
into how copyright law defines "work" before continuing this chain of
logic.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/o
From: "Spike Y Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Unfortunately, one of the two main readings of the PI terms of the
OGL is that you, by borrowing *any* OGC from some other publisher,
agree not to use *any* terms that he claims as PI, whether you could
source those from elsewhere or not.
Neither, I no
> Personally I have a mind to simply ignore the PI declaration as it
applies to these terms, which
> have obviously been in use before the Slaine comic or the game,
but I wanted to ask for thoughts
> on the matter.
If you are confident that the terms themselves are
in the public domain, and
From: "Eleanor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For many years I was opposed to the GNU licenses on the grounds that
works can be put in the public domain, but mulling on the points that
Stallman makes I've come to be a slightly-reluctant supporter of the
system.
Stallman's Free Software movement seeks
It does not appear that Wizards has filed a trademark for D20 Future. They
did so for D20 Modern, but not for D20 Future.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
I wish the CC license system was not designed around such a complex
licensing strategy. That's an echo of part of what Dvorak is trying (albeit
badly) to say in his article. Its so confusing that a pretty intelligent
guy, who has been in the IP wars as long as I've been an adult, had
unanswer
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1838244,00.asp
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
All my comments assume no license between the trademark holder and the
publisher in question.
My opinions may differ from the specific copyright holders in question,
especially WotC.
The use of trademarks in general is not something I'm addressing here,
as these questions basically involve the OG
Let us imagine a continuum.
On one end is Rock, Paper, Scissors.
This is a game, and we all agree it could not be copyright.
On the other end is "MacBeth"
This is a play, and we all agree it is completely copyrightable as a
complete work (were it written today, of course).
Certain games, espec
On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 10:35 -0400, Bryant Durrell wrote:
> > Not a commercial product.
>
> Most common fallacy of copyright
My point was that >commercially< nobody cloned Joust, while there are
hundreds of commercial clones of BattleZone, PacMan, etc. My thesis is
that there are no >commercial<
From: "Bryant Durrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Glypha III.
http://freshmeat.net/projects/glypha-iii/
Not a commercial product.
> Does this distinction between "complex game" and "simple game" have any
legal precedent?
There is a lot of precedent in copyright law to examine the amount of
"creativity" t
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 18:55 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Define "complex" games, please.
A game which mixes original, non-obvious, creative content along with
instructions for play in a way that makes it hard to separate the
material into clear categories of work.
> Do you think video games
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 17:21 -0400, Martin L. Shoemaker wrote:
> Iʼm not saying youʼre wrong, merely that every authority I had ever
> heard on the subject said that the non-copyrightability of game rules
> was a copyright office position statement which had never been tested
> in court. Now Iʼm co
On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 20:12 -0400, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
> But it's been understood on this list for a few years
by some people who may or may not be wrong - perhaps completely wrong
> that the OGL was
> possibly unnecessary, as game rules aren't covered by copyright.
Ryan
__
Some of you may have seen the note on Fark today about the lawsuit
involving sampling. In this case featuring Master P and a rap tune from
the forgotten '90s:
(http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1490830/20040908/index.jhtml%3fheadlines=true)
a Judge decided that a sample of music, no matter how s
On Sun, 2004-06-06 at 07:22, Ian Hewitt wrote:
> Could anyone direct me to an OGL/d20 lawyer specifically?
I recommend Brian Lewis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo
On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 05:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am new to this mailing list and hope that you can help me with some
> problems i have with the Open Gaming License concerning Software or
> rather computer games using Open Game Content.
My advice: Don't.
> I don't know how to properly se
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 09:57, Damian wrote:
> On Monday 17 May 2004 12:22 pm, Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
> > http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/05/14/freedom-0
>
> Except that the d20 System sounds like Movable Type, and the OGL sounds like
> wordpress.
That is the exact re
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/05/14/freedom-0
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 15:15, Clark Peterson wrote:
> Unbelievable.
Ditto.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 09:58, woodelf wrote:
> Ditto, in hte US: it is impossible to patent game rules according to
> the law (and despite the fact that it has happened at least once).
That's an incorrect statement. There are lots of game patents. Many
are patents on the >mechanics of the game
On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 11:49, Fred wrote:
> What is required of a person to use this spell?
The character must have traveled to Mount Olympus and won the favor of
Zeus.
> What does it cost to cast it?
Nothing.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTE
On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 13:50, Reginald Cablayan wrote:
> But would such rules MUST be declared OGC, Ryan? A lot of people here
> believed the OGL (if applied to a Body of Work or Product) forces game
> designer to declare any and all rules mechanics, regardless of source, to be
> Open Game Content.
On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 11:12, Fred wrote:
> On the other hand, I can't see how one could make a new system for magic THAT
> WAS DESIGNED TO BE USED WITH THE MSRD and not be derivative of it.
Spell Effect: "The Power to Cloud The Mind" allows the caster to
implant any simple idea in the mind of an
On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 11:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And you feel that you can then PI them?
Unless they contained elements I considered "product identity" I would
not PI them.
I could certainly PI the names of the "spells" I created, and if I
thought I had created a "system" with brand equi
On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 10:14, Fred wrote:
> On the other hand, I can't see how one could make a new system for magic that
> was designed to be used with the MSRD and not be derivative of it.
You could certainly do a new magic system (that is, a system for
determining what, when, and how often a use
On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 18:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think I've heard Ryan and Clark both say that you can't PI rules.
Not me.
The only parts of any work that must be OGC are the parts that are
derivative of OGC. You can certainly make rules that are not derivative
of OGC. The Traveller
On Fri, 2004-04-09 at 07:51, Fred wrote:
> Is it, in fact, closed content? It seems to me that it would be impossible to
> justifiably declare a feat to be closed content.
The copyright holders of the material that was used to create the
derivative material could sue to enforce the OGL, which ha
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 18:43, Mike Dymond wrote:
> My advice, get a lawyer.
This is good advice.
> My recomendation would be to have your own license drawn up.
This is not.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundati
On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 07:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does "use" in this context mean "read", "use in a game", etc.?
No. That's why it is a defined term.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/lis
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 11:27, Spike Y Jones wrote:
> Google-searching for Rolling Thunder Post-Mortem gets you an
> especially informative hit.
Wow.
I don't remember writing any of that. Time sure does fly.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECT
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 06:04, David Bolack wrote:
> Rolling Thunder.
Rolling Thunder failed.
That said, I don't consider it a mistake, nor do I think we were wrong
at the time we attempted it. Rolling Thunder addressed two perceived
problems with the trading card game business(*). Both of those
On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 23:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't know if this a debate for this list
It's not. Please move this discussion to www.fixgama.org.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/li
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 12:50, Jamie wrote:
> Why is this?
Wizards and Lucasfilm have a separate agreement for cross-licensing
unrelated to the OGL or the d20 STL.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailm
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 16:51, Reginald Cablayan wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ryan Dancey one of the authors of the
> OGL?
Why yes, I did write it. I also wrote: the System Reference Document,
the D20 Trademark License, the FAQ explaining how it all worked
together, and I host the O
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 13:49, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
> Now, I have to go before a judge, possibly in Washington, and argue my
> case. And the cost of the lawyer will likely eat up any profits I
> gained from my adventure.
There are two halves to the so-called safe harbor. In the scenario you
Boy, that's true.
I hope the GPL actually gets some caselaw behind it - it will be
beneficial to the OGL - especially if they delve into any of the
implications of derivative works and runtime linking.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
htt
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 10:14, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
> Did I miss some grand announcement? Did someone issue a decree that the
> OGF (not WotC, the OGF!) will only endorse a few formats of the SRD?
I suspect that they're relying on the previous era under the
"gentleperson's agreement" where the
By request of the publisher, the new Anime d20 System Reference Document
is now available for download on the OGF site.
In a few weeks I'll be adding the d20 3.5 SRD an the d20 Modern SRD as
well.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ma
On Sun, 2003-08-10 at 15:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Personally, I don't think those restrictions are worth WotC's time
> anymore
Me neither, but I suspect our opinions are diametrically opposed to the
current decisionmakers.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailin
On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 21:15, woodelf wrote:
> If it comes to a court battle, do courts generally side with the
> letter of a contract, or the spirit?
In general, ambiguity in a contract is usually construed against the
drafter.
Note: Things that may appear ambiguous to the layperson often are
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 16:40, David Bolack wrote:
> My reasonable man's presumption is "d20 (when used a trademark)" means any
> usage where "d20" is effectively shorthand or an abbreviation for "d20
> System." -- which is a registered trademark. This certainly doesn't seem
> out of line.
That
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 14:09, Bryan Gillispie wrote:
> This touches on a debate from a few weeks ago. Let's say company ABC
> releases a magic item called "Holy Handpick" and PI's the name and
> company XYZ releases a magic item called "holy handpick" but as 100%
> OGC, no PI. Could I source the nam
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 13:48, Mikael wrote:
> If I DO include content in my derived work that is identical to any
> declared PI in the work I derive from, I need to be able to point to
> another source, outside of the work I've derived from.
You need to be careful.
It is possible that the 3rd par
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 12:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why? If ownership is not at issue (the only restriction on PI other
> than that it be on the laundry list is that it be "owned" somehow) I
> don't know why.
You seem insistent on using this term "ownership" for some reason. It
is really no
On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 10:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How are you and Ryan drawing up your definition of "ownership" of PI
> to include "enhancement over the prior art" and novelty?
Issue One:
I have not, and am not using the words "ownership" or "novelty".
Neither term is applicable.
Issue
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 14:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I can hardly claim myself that "d20" is neither a concept nor an
> expression using language. Can you?
Yes. It is neither.
> Would you care to enumerate for us, the kind of ownership and other
> requirements, etc. might be required to PI
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 17:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Then how are concepts ever protected under the OGL as PI?
If I was Arthur C. Clarke, and the year was 1940, and I, out of my own
imagination and knowledge of celestial mechanics, enunciated the
"concept" of geosynchronous satellites and expl
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 17:02, Spike Y Jones wrote:
> A mouthful,
> which is probably why he shortened it to "from the public domain."
Exactly.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 16:12, Martin L. Shoemaker wrote:
> I agree with that as a goal, but language to that effect doesn't appear in
> the license. Is it your belief -- recognizing that you're not in the
> business of providing legal advice -- that a court would read this intent
> into the wording
WotC doesn't own, and cannot successfully enforce a product identity
claim on the term "d20". That's why they didn't try to trademark
"d20" in the first place. The OGL specifically enumerates what a
company can claim as Product Identity, and "die types" are not on the
list. The list of "Product
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 14:20, Smith, Andrew wrote:
> Let's just blame that on burnout from working on the
> SRD for a month straight.
Speaking from personal experience, I say "Excellent work well done!"
Drinks at GenCon (if you'll be there) on me.
Ryan
_
On Sun, 2003-07-20 at 22:39, Martin L. Shoemaker wrote:
> And by comparison, on Amazon.com, the D&D Players Handbook is currently
> ranked 15 in sales (DMG is 16, MM is 19).
The day it shipped, the 3.0 PHB hit #3, behind a Harry Potter book and a
Tom Clancy novel.
:)
Ryan
On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 22:42, David Bolack wrote:
> The logo currently distributed is unacceptably distorted at a 1 inch size,
> which isn't exactly an unreasonable enlargement.
Try this one:
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/d20.jpg
Ryan
___
Ogf-
> Hypothetical: Lime-Green Ronin publishes Mercenaries of Seaport as
> 100 percent open text. The company intended to do this, but the only
> written documentation of this intent is the book itself.
I think they're probably unlikely to be able to make a compelling case
that the material was rele
> From: Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> How can that be? The person who placed that material there must be
> authorized by Wizards to enter into contracts on their behalf, or else
> Wizards could simply turn around and say _nothing_ is Open Content.
You have to look at the intent.
Wizards i
> From: Tim Dugger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I am sorry, but I have only been paying half-way attention to this
> thread. Now, I thought that Wizards was the one who used the term in
> their own SRD. If that is the case, then they cannot claim that an
> employee made a mistake and recall it
> From: Martin L. Shoemaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> GOOD point! So in other words, Wizards in the form of the d20
> SRD is in
> violation of the OGL issued by Wizards;
No.
In other words, the person who placed that content in a file that was
licensed with the OGL was not authorized by Wiz
> From: Martin L. Shoemaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Other than by the good will of the community, CAN it be
> corrected?
Yes. Nobody was authorized by Wizards of the Coast to license "Dungeon
Master" as Open Game Content.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing
> From: Joe Mucchiello [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Well, it's probably a mistake but from srdPsionicCreatures.rtf:
That's an oversight that should be corrected ASAP.
Ryan
___
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/ma
I think that there are a number of issues that make the situation with
SCO slightly different from the situation with regards to the OGL.
First, as has been noted, the OGL has a "cure period" while the GPL does
not. That creates a window in which offending content can be addressed
safely, before
69 matches
Mail list logo
