|
I think "licensing" may be a bit much, or (more to
the point) should only be half of it.
What might be more feasible is something of a
"certified" status. For instance, a group of Contributors (Fictional
Title: Open Gaming Union) develop a list of standards that they view as an
"ideal" OGL-interpretation (not the only possible reading, but clearly not in
violation of it). They develop a logo that can be put on a product *if*
that product is within their guidelines.
At this time, there is a "cross-product" license
that is available to (but not forced on) those works that are certified by the
"OGU".
Thus, products can use the logo to advertise their
"OGC friendliness" and, if they wish, benefit from that friendliness further by
allowing more detailed accreditation to their work within a work containing
material derived from it (assuming that it is *also* certified and has adopted
the license).
Of course, this would have the same drawback as
other attempts to make a logo/cooperative amongst the Open Gaming community,
being that until a "big name" uses it, how much popularity it would achieve is
likely going to be limited.
Another option would be to allow product reviewers
use a similar logo to "stamp" reviews written for products that meet the
criteria; this would put the idea of certification into the mainstream and
*possibly* build an interest/desire in certified material from the customer
fan-base.
Anyhow, a few random ideas stemming from this
thread of discussion...
I don't know that it would per se jeopardize thousands of dollars if they didn't use the license. The interpretation would be wholly non-binding on parties not using such a license. Regarding parties who don't use a clarifying license, a judge would likely listen to briefs, common industry practices, etc. The only thing a clarifying license would say is that the current license has some gray areas. I think that's patently clear to anyone who gives it a single pass through. You have to "own PI"? So how are people PI'ing uncopyrightable and unpatented rules? What standard of "ownership" is being applied? A clarifying license could at least create consistent interpretations for parties who used such a meta-license. The legal downside of such a clarifying license is that it could potentially estop you from raising alternate interpretations and contrary claims in a court of law. The upside, is that the likelihood that you'd go to court with another vendor using a clarifying license over some gray area would be very, very low. Now, one can argue that people aren't going to court now. People aren't going to court now, not because there aren't disagreements over licensing issues that should be resolved really in some fashion, but because it's unclear how the chips would fall in court. Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l __________ NOD32 1.629 (20040220) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System. http://www.nod32.com |
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
