> In a message dated 8/24/2005 12:12:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Not true. The PHB has nothing to do with the OGL. The OGL is a > licensing agreement. They don't need a licensing agreement to use > their own content. > That's my point. The PHB contains information in the SRD but it gets around having to use the OGL because WotC is the owner of both the license and original materials. No company other than WotC could publish the work that is the PHB.
> They need a licensing agreement to borrow content (like they did in > Unearthed Arcana). Yes, they do need the license to borrow content -- IIRC they include it in Dragon magazines where OGC is used. However, if they print a Freeport article, for instance, that doesn't contain OGC then they don't need to put the OGL in the Dragon magazine. As the owners of the OGL, they could gain permission or a license from Green Ronin to use Freeport entirely outside of the realm of the OGL. The fact that Freeport material has appeared under the OGL wouldn't prevent this so long as none of said material appeared in that Dragon magazine. > This is NOT because the OGL can't reach WotC, but because they are > contractin g via a separate license to use something or because they are > using their own materials. WotC has no special exceptions to the OGL > except that they don't need it to use their own content (an exception > everyone has for their own stuff), since they don't need to license > content to themselves. Also, as I pointed out, they are also able to work around the OGL in ways that no other company can. They can indeed publish materials related to other materials that are OGC without opening up the former, so long as they come to a secondary agreement and don't use previously released OGC. They could publish endless articles that would, due to brand recognition, seem to be using existing OGC but could actually be entirely closed in this fashion. > For example, take Action System (which is not based on the d20 SRD). > OK, without the OGL, WotC theoretically could license the text from > Mark Arsenault outside of the OGL. That's not an example of WotC not > being bound by the OGL because they are special. That's an example of > them not using the OGL at all and going through a different legal route > to acquire access to intellectual properties. That's the point I was making. > This is not the same as saying that WotC isn't bound by the OGL when it > is borrowing using the OGL. It's just that there are ways to borrow > stuff that doesn't involve the OGL at all. Indeed, but without having access to those deals going on behind the curtain, all we can do is assume as to whether such a deal occurred or if it is an error on WotC's part if not indicated through the usual means. And, as has been pointed out, Dragon articles with OGC do indeed have declarations within. > That's extremely different than being able to ignore the OGL simply > because you are WotC, Steve. I've not said they can ignore it ENTIRELY. In fact, I pointed out how they had to include it in Unearthed Arcana. What I AM saying is that their position as the originator of the initial materials, not to mention the company in the industry with the most cash, can work out deals aside from the OGL that we'd never know of. Assuming that such deals aren't going on and that WotC is misrepresenting itself and/or the OGL without asking them about the particulars for the sake of clarity is doing all parties involved a disservice. Easily the best way to resolve your questions is to ask WotC directly. > Magazines are works containing other works generally. For example, if a > magazine contains ads, then the artwork in each ad is a separate work > with a separate copyright that WotC doesn't own unless WotC is > advertising it's own product. Works can contain other works. There is > no restriction in the license on a "covered work" not being part of a > compilation. So, presumably you can cover a single work in a > compilation without covering the compilation. That would really depend on the wording in Dragon's talent and advertising contracts. I've seen neither, but considering how long Dragon has been around, barring evidence to the contrary it's safest to assume they have accounted for your concerns. > Some magazines (not necessarily Dragon), for example, merely compile a > bunch of articles which are owned by separate individuals. The > resulting magazine is a work unto itself, however, each article in it > may be owned by an entirely different individual and may have a > separate copyright which is unrelated to the copyright of the other > articles. But, again, unless you know the particulars concerning Dragon, we're just tossing guesses into the dark. > So, I largely see it as no practical difference at all with regards to > the OGL between a magazine and a shrink-wrapped bundle of goods as far > as what is and is not possible with the OGL. Try pulling the staples out of the magazine and offering to purchase one article out of it while leaving the rest on the shelf. A FLGS may let you get away with that in a bundle of individually printed products, but I can't see it happening with a magazine. > Because the OGL applies to covered works, and I would strongly presume > that the person using the license is choosing which work he is applying > it to. Since works can contain other works, it is entirely possible to > have a boxed set, where the box itself represents a work, where a > non-OGL fiction and background book is contained, and were an OGL'd > rulebook is contained. In that set only one of those works is a > covered work, and certainly it would be possible to establish separate > copyrights for the box, for the rulebook, and for the fiction and > background book. Ask WotC to expand on their definition of "works." If all those items you stash under the title of "works" are being sold as a single entity their definition could possibly be better described using the word "product." > The oft-discussed 3rd type of content is NOT one acknowledged by the > license. > The license says that in a covered work everything is OGC that is not > PI. > It's right there in black and white. The 3rd type of content (that not > covered by the license) exists, only if you handle the license > properly, because you define a single work that is covered by the > license, and that covered work is merely a subset (rather than the > entirety) of an enclosing volume. The OGL only directly applies to the > "covered work". You should, therefore, be able to apply the OGL to > just a single chapter of a book (if that chapter can lawfully be > considered a work), particularly if that book is a compilation. > Similarly, in a magazine you should be able to apply the OGL to an > article without applying it to the whole magazine. You have to apply > it to a "work", and so you might get in some legal gray area by > applying it to something so small, isolated, or made up of such > disconnected elements that it doesn't legally constitute a work. But that just brings us back to the point of whether or not "work" is defining the entire package because the items YOU are describign as "work" or not commercially separable. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
