<<Lee, I really appreciate the effort you're putting into highlighting
the flaws and issues with the license. Unsurprisingly, the first crack
at an open gaming license isn't perfect. Hopefully future licenses
will learn from the discussions we've had here.
>>
Thanks, Bryant. Anyone who has read my posts for some time will note that I am trying to shake the license from every possible angle, analyzing points that I both agree with and disagree with.
I'm doing this primarily for one reason: to get WotC to release a substantially clearer v. 2.0 of the license. I figure v. 2.0 will be much stronger with all of the minute details argued over in advance by the community.
Here's my take -- I thought: you know, you can't force people away from v. 1.0a... people who want to exploit the vague points of the license and are willing to go to court to win on some vague point could do so. However, people who want to really have an honest to goodness safe harbor can do so under a much clearer v. 2.0 of the license. I think there is _no_ real safe harbor so long as there are so many vague points to the license. The safe harbor then exists not through the OGL but through a gentlemen's agreement not to exploit vague points in the license or to enter into gray areas which may require litigation to resolve. Many bigger OGL publishers are already in the gray areas. They are outside the OGL's safe harbor and live solely in a gentlemen's agreement safe harbor.
I think there may be an alternative to v. 2.0. If WotC refuses to author a version 2.0 of the OGL community members may agree to draft a license addendum. The addendum would not replace or further restrict the licensing of OGC (which would violate the license), but would instead be a secondary agreement which people could optionally choose to print with the OGL. This addendum would list a preferred interpretation of the OGL.
Here's how it would work. Bryant produces a product with the OGL and the addendum. He cannot force me to use the addendum. However, if he uses the addendum and I use his OGC, then I, at my option, can also put the addendum in my work. Bryant and I have known each other for years, but were Bryant a stranger to me, we would be kept out of court and arbitration by the addendum in many cases -- it would be a binding document establishing our personal interpretation of the OGL. There would be no point in going to court over areas covered in the addendum in many cases, because we would have agreed upon the interpretations in advance.
So, that's my end goal -- a community addendum OR v. 2.0. One or the other.
Because Bryant knows me he may well have caught on to the fact that the point of my inquiries is to:
a) raise community awareness over potential problem areas with the license
b) encourage the creation of a community interpretive addendum or v. 2.0 of the license
Anyone else who thinks I am "trolling" or tilting at windmills clearly doesn't understand my motives in the slightest.
Anyone who is interested in either:
a) signing on to a letter to WotC to encourage the release of version 2.0 of the license
OR
b) creating a community addendum of interpretation
Drop me a line offlist. If there's more than a handful of us, I can setup a Yahoo group to discuss matters. If WotC doesn't sign on to the interpretations then they might still be at odds with us on some issues, but there could be a real safe harbor established between any authors and publishers who chose to use the addendum.
Lee
