And what is your revision wishlist for the Open Gaming License?
Clearer definition of what can be PI'd and why -- specifically wrangling with the ownership issue. Clearing up how and why themes and poses can be PI'd and under what standard of ownership. Whether rules can be PI'd. Whether individual phrases can be PI'd. Generally whether PI is to be considered "white out", "forbidden terms" or both. In some cases it seems like "forbidden terms" (marketing, etc.). In some cases it seems like "white out". These cases would all be answered if "ownership" were defined and anything on the PI list were struck that didn't jive with that definition.
A license that can make it clear what happens when you PI an uncopyrightable name (like a spell name) but open a spell description. Can the two be reconnected, thumbing one's nose at the PI because it's uncopyrightable? Right now, only spell names which are trademarks or collections of spell names (which are then copyrightable as a collection) receive protection under traditional IP law. You can't copyright a spell name. Can you PI a spell name, or just a collection of names?
Maybe (haven't thought about this enough) clearer licensing language that overtly allows for three types of content within a covered product because it licenses "materials" instead of "works", that way people don't have to go back and argue with a judge over whether the smattering of OGC and PI they've chosen can constitute a work under copyright law.
A license that makes it clear if PI provides explicit protections, above and beyond the marketing and reference ones, that the same content would not be entitled to under traditional IP law. In other words, is PI effectively merely "unlicensed" material with a couple added restrictions or does it add substantive protections.
Possible language that allows for footnoting or other attribution without jumping through hoops. Right now that stuff might be possible by having end notes and then explicitly leaving your end notes outside the scope of the OGL. Even then one wonders whether that is advertising compatibility, etc. What's a rule doing in your game from product X if that rule isn't compatible with product X? Make certain attribution systems legal if that doesn't compromise other PI interests related to marketing, etc.
Language that explicitly addresses the licenses scope of interaction with compiled works.
Language that allows for certain kinds of software licensing and makes it clear how this works.
Removal of certain redundancies if they are unnecesary.
Revision of the definition of "Use" because it is defined in context of the term "OGC", but is referred to in the phrase "You may not Use Product Identity".
Clarification or deletion of the phrase that suggests this license covers only OGC.
Clarification of the term "compile" in the derivative works section (to determine whether it means compilation in a magazine, compilation in software, or both).
Replacement of the term "portation" with something similar but more widely used.
Specific language allowing a person to declare something as PI if he has the blessing of its owner, instead of requiring that the owner declare things as PI.
Clarifying language so that you know whether you are responsible for PI only of the person you directly borrowed from, or whether you are responsible for the PI of all persons listed in your Section 15.
Language about liability in a derivation chain if a predecessor in the chain fails to clean out PI he was supposed to.
Possible clarification about what types of cures are acceptable in the cure period. Can you post a revised PI/OGC or copyright section on your website or do you have to burn all the books? You could leave this to the court, but language dealing with common violations would be warranted.
Language that is more specific about the scope of the phrase "in conjunction with".
Maybe (and this seems like more of a heache than it's worth) limit the use of _new_ content released under OGL 2.0 to be used only with licenses OGL 2.0 and later. And to disallow two different versions of the OGL in the same book, etc. To encourage people to switch to the license. If they have a little OGC from 2.0 they can't use it under OGL 1.0a. Maybe, as needed, change the name of OGC to something slightly different if there's a problem with this otherwise, and include a grandfathering clause for old OGC. Again, maybe a headache.
Either deletion of the provisions against advertising compatibility with PI that's not a trademark, or the addition of provisions to prevent pre-advertising of products as compatible with PI, only to then slap the OGL on something after you've already advertised it.
A specific line that makes it clear about whether the OGL is to be deemed as OGC, PI, or an OGC-containing property, since it's listed in everyone's section 15, and things would be a lot less confusing if it was a covered content type or explicitly not listed in people's section 15.
Clarification allowing for the deletion of redundant section 15 entries, and allowing for simple organizing of them explicitly, ditching the language about "exactly" reproducing entire Section 15s for something that is more consistent with what people do in practice.
Language making it clearer who has the rights to enforce what under the OGL. Do you have the _right_ to demand a clarification? Does WotC have the right to enforce things which are largely issues between other parties? I'm not asking for an entire civil procedure manual in here. I'm recommending a little more clarity about who shall have legal standing to bring suit for what, _if_ that can be handled simply.
Some of those would be merely nice, some would be almost mandatory on a clean-up. All, taken as a whole, would probably reduce the number of questions down from zillions to dozens, and would take a lot of the gray areas out of the equation.
Language which discourages the notion that crappy OGC declarations like "all thematic elements" is acceptable, by reforming those areas of the language. Those declarations are often really unclear, but who's to challenge the clarity, because they are no less clear in an OGC declaration than they are in a license. There are too many "terms of art" that have, at best, fuzzy definitions in the license. They are reused in OGC declarations as a result, making it a pain in the butt to sometimes know exactly which words are and are not licensed in a work. The license itself encourages this behavior.
And some of those may actually, given greater thought, be more of headache-manufacturers than solutions. They may raise more legal questions than they answer. In which case, they should be dropped from the list.
Nevertheless, these are things that nag me, and I've seen so many debates either I or others have had over these things, I think that they are worth at least considering for clean-up. I bet laymen would have a lot easier time understanding the license too with these things cleaned up appropriately.
I've heard time and again that people think that other non-OGL licenses are much easier to intuit for laymen. That's not a real requirement for me, as long as the language is unambiguous (and I prefer unambiguous to "easy for laymen to read"), but if both are possible, both should be pursued.
So, that's a start for my wish list. Like I said, some I would ditch in all likelihood after more time to consider the question as some are probably bad ideas. But as a kneejerk response, there you go.
While it's useful to be able to play devil's advocate to see how things might shakedown in a courtroom, I'd much rather have a clearer license so that how things will turn out would be much more obvious to all parties involved in any litigation.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
