----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You decided that it would be easier to declare all spell names PI and > then give a free license to use those PI names, than it would have > been to make a complete list of all the setting-specific words in some > (but not all) of the spell names, declare just those words to be PI, > and allow all other spell names of parts of spell names to be Open > with some license arrangement for the use of those specific PI words. > > Now, if someone wants to use some spells from your book and he wants > to mix them in with the spells from some other book, if he wants to > use the PI names *he* has to be the one to make a list of all their > names or come up with some other way of clearly designating those > spell names as licensed PI, so that some third publisher down the line > will know which spells are subject to your sublicense and which > aren't. > > Faced with the choice, someone might choose to come up with a > completely Open new title instead of having to jump through a hoop, no > matter how close to the ground the hoop is held.
I do agree with you that in the long term, when OGC has been reused again and again things like limited licences for PI could cause headaches for people. They are certainly causing problems for Mr Cortez who has only to ask: "What should I do about..." in order to start a flame war. ;-) For example looking through the spells I see one called Eclipse. Given that the spell causes an eclipse I am stumped as to how you could remove this PI name from the spell and replace it! However in defence of Relics & Rituals, looking at the back of the book I see that it was published using version 1.0 of the licence and the draft version of the SRD. So we must be talking about one of the first books ever brought out. I think the real problem here is that the bad wording of the licence probably made publishers think they had to PI everything. By printing a limited licence and also inviting people to credit Relics & Rituals as the source of stuff, Clark has actually TRIED his best to get around the inadequacies of the OGL. I think he has come a bit short of the mark BUT the fact that he HAS tried means you can't really call this crippled OGC. The problem I have with this product is that I like it and I would LOVE to reuse some of it. Because I DO like it I want to do the legal thing and submit some of it a place like d20 Exchange (as opposed to shoving it on Kazza and thumbing my nose). Why do I have a problem if I like it? Simple really, the book states that the publisher wishes to open up as much content as OGC as possible while protecting the PI of the Scarred Lands. So if I want to do it in a nice way I really need to make sure I don't accidentally try uploading Scarred Lands specific stuff. Here is where I come across my problem. The book claims things like "Eclipse" as PI while featuring possible Scarred Lands stuff like the "Cabal of Black Sorcerers of Ukrudan" in text marked off as OGC. Now to my, uneducated armature eye, it looks like these two definitions are backwards. I'm sure if I emailed Clark about something in his book he would be polite and answer me, but I don't feel good HAVING to bother publishers. Especially when I imagine all the other people asking the same (to the eyes of the people that have worked with the OGL since the beginning) dumb question as everyone else. This is why I would like to see these things done in nice clear unambiguous definitions. As far as I am concerned the bad definitions in some of these books are caused by publishers reading the poorly written OGL and believing that they have to emulate that sort of legalese nonsense in order to protect their stuff. The problem is that the legalese makes it harder for armature game designers (don't forget that this is the target audience of the OGL) to understand what is going on and how they are supposed to behave. When people blame publishers for creating crippled OGC they are missing the point. WOTC actually invite bad OGC definitions in the OGL itself. It is the OGL that is crippled not the publishers content. What Relics & Rituals tried to do was a great effort to uncripple the OGL but I for one would like to see a better way of doing it. Can a publisher not instead claim all names of gods, characters, worlds, countries, lands, organisations as PI and AT the same time allow people to have OGC access to the rest of the spell names, magical item names and stuff? Would these things not be classable as "proper nouns"? Can you not legally claim "all proper nouns contained in the text are Product Identity". As we have got onto Relics & Rituals, I would have thought that in the long term interests of the Scarred Lands that it would be better if you didn't allow people to use a spell name like "Enkli's Lightning Storm" at all, but instead got them to drop the name of your god from the name. If publishers really want to help give access to spell names or magical item names that contain a PI "proper noun" in them, then perhaps they could knock up a name conversion table and stick it on their website somewhere for the OGC spotters to read. Then it would be dead easy to say that all "proper nouns" were PI and a list of alternative OGC names for things containing PI were on the website. Then when I see a great product like I can: * Read something I like, * Check the PI/OGC definition and make notes of any possible PI, * Double check the OGC uncrippling page for the book and * Quote the original book and the webpage in my section 15 Now that is a solution I would like to see that would help laymen use the OGL. Maybe it needs some work on it, but I am sure that people can stick a Plain Legal English Envelope around the crippled OGL to sort out WOTC's mess. By the way I have to say that the other thing in the front of Relics & Rituals - printing "The producer and publisher would appreciate anyone using OGC material from Relics & Rituals in other OGL works to kindly reference Relics & Rituals as the source of the material within the text of their work." is a damn fantastic way of getting around another of the things that cripples the OGL. Well done whoever it was at Sword & Sorcery that thought that one up. It is proof that something legally binding (in this case a licence to bypass the "you can't claim compatibility" part of section 7) CAN be written in VERY PLAIN English that we all can understand. I urge any publishers that do not already do the same thing to let people go beyond the OGL and use your trademark name, when they want to credit you for your work. IANAL but I can not and will not believe that someone can not create a PI definition that both protects the publishers product line, and allows effortless reuse of content. I also can not believe that someone with a legal qualification and also a degree in English could not use the lessons of 1.0 and 1.0a of the OGL to come up with a more simple to understand version that would cure these problems. David Shepherd PS Incidentally the Scarred Lands setting looks really cool and if you haven't read any of the books set in the Scarred Lands yet you should check one out or have a look at the webpage: http://www.swordsorcery.com/scarredlands _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
