You
ever try to negotiate a contract with WotC? It takes a LOT of patience and
a LOT of time. EVEN with presenting them a specific list of items.
They created the OGL, they have the lawyers that drafted it, therefor they ARE
the final arbitrators on it. At least until a 2.0 comes out or someone
goes to court over it. There's very little point in 'muddying' the waters
more than the license itself does for new people coming into the
industry.
That
said, I am most certainly not opposed to getting together a list of items to
address/clarify to hand over to WotC, I think I offered to do this before and
only 2 people responded in the positive. Regardless of that, anything, and
I mean _anything_ handed over to WotC is going to get run through their lawyers
and come out the other side not what was submitted.
WotC
created the license, they're only going to change it if it's in their best
interests to do so (i.e. allocate resources to do so). I'm not trying to
be negative or slam WotC, but think about it a minute, what possible incentive
does WotC have in redoing the OGL? Does it drive their sales?
Only marginally (as many discussions about public awareness of d20/OGL have
discussed). Does it make thier lives easier? Not particularly.
Even if things were clarified to cut down emails on the known issues, there's
always something else to be asked about.
The
OGL is a fine gift to the publishing industry when it came out, and yea, there's
been infractions, direct violations, and questionable uses of it, but I
think that overall it's a very long uphill fight to ammend
it.
That's
not to say I think it's pointless. I think it should be done. But
people need to be aware that all the arguments on this list about the current
OGL don't mean whit unless you're prepared to back it up in court against WotC
and I don't see anyone standing up to do that. So stop debating, just put
a list together, then clean it up, then pass it about. Get as many
people's input as possible, then submit it. worst that happens is it gets
ignored and at best, the OGL gets clarified.
W. Robert Reed III
Mynex
- #1 Evil Monkey
- Code Monkey
Publishing Co-Founder
- El Mono Calvo Malvado
-----Original Message-----In a message dated 8/2/03 8:08:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 11:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Possible Formation of Project
<<There's only one absolutely positive way to know the answer to that.>>
Ask WotC.
Let's clarify something. WotC is not the final arbiter of the OGL.
In any license there are two interpretations (one for each of the parties, in a two party license) and a potential 3rd interpretation established by a court or arbiter should the two parties' interpretations come in conflict.
WotC is not the final arbiter of things. It is a 600 lb. gorilla in the gaming industry with a team of well-paid Hasbro lawyers to back it up.
However, that doesn't mean that if the community can agree that there are vague areas in the license that need to be patched, and can agree upon a community interpretation for the license, that everyone else other than WotC can't work inside such interpretations.
In a normal licensing negotiation both parties sit down and reach an agreement. In such a circumstance there may be a single mutual interpretation for some vague items. In an open license, there is never any opportunity to negotiate the vague parts, and this tends to generate a multiplicity of interpretations more often than a standard licensing negotiation might.
The license fails utterly to smoothly handle magazines, compilations, and software. It fails in other areas too.
I for one am sick of people relying on certain WotC interpretations which clearly don't address these problem areas with anything more than handwaving. I think informed agreement among members of the community, presented to WotC in a codified format could be the basis for v. 2.0 of the license. WotC is much more likely to consider such an endeavor if:
a) it is handed to them on a plate, ready to serve up
b) a whole lot of community members have signed on to an interpretive addendum
That's my goal. I want to skeptically approach all interpretations of the license, even my own, until such time as the community can agree upon ways to interpret the vaguest parts of the license. I tend not to support any one interpretation of the most complex portions of the license. I tend to believe that there are a multiplicity of possible interpretations, and an effective safe harbor is established only between parties who agree upon those interpretations.
I think if we do some work on our own to assist in clarification then WotC will probably at least strongly consider the fruits of our labors. I don't think that WotC has been very adversarial on most points of the license, but nor have they been very willing to patch up the cracks in the dike either.
Lee
