> In a message dated 8/24/2005 2:30:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > That's entirely different from saying that the OGL applies differently > to WotC when they use it. When they actually use it, they get no > special treatment simply because they drafted the license.
Correction. They don't get special treatment when they use other people's OGC. The OGL does, however, apply differently to them because they can produce d20 material without declaring anything OGC, without using the OGL and without using the d20 STL. They are the only company for whom this is so. That is my point. This fact gives them room to make agreements on the side with other companies to publish d20 material based on the latter's material without publishing it under the OGL so long as that material hasn't already been released. WotC could come to an arrangement to publish in Dragon an adventure taking part in a setting established by another company and keep the whole thing closed so long as they stuck to the other company's PI. They could slap the d20 logo on it, keep the entire thing closed and not use the OGL and it would be entirely legal. No other company could do this. > If Freeport was stripped of its d20-isms, then I could (if Green Ronin > allowed me) license Freeport. The ability to license outside of the OGL > doesn't mean that the OGL applies to you any differently when you are > using it. My point being, WotC wouldn't need to stip it of its "d20-isms." So long as they were adding all new material to an established third-party setting and sticking to that setting's PI while referrencing the latter, they'd be in the clear. You could not do this, nor could I or anyone other than WotC without switching to a gaming system in no way related to WotC's SRD. > And we were discussing this in context of a FAQ entry > Woodelf posted which applies to people who ARE using the OGL. We were, yes, until you stated that WotC cannot operate around the OGL. > This whole thing about not using the OGL is missing the key point: the > FAQ is about using the OGL, not about not using the OGL. I think knowing how one can do what you are saying cannot be done without using the OGL is just the flip side of the original point. After all, if it can be used to explain the scenario you put forth, how is it not relevant? > You can do the same thing with your materials. Mark Arsenault can, with > his own system, do the same thing with Action System. This is NOT > because WotC drafted the license. It has nothing to do with whether > they drafted the license or whether you drafted the license. That's why I've also been saying (to paraphrase) "AND because WotC originated the material the OGL operates upon." Inded, with my own system I could create my own OGL that has nothing to do with WotC's and has entirely different conditions. However, all you're doing by bring in such non-d20 derived systems is proving my point about the workarounds available to WotC. > This is irrelevant to Woodelf's original assertion about a FAQ on usage > of the OGL. This means, what answers apply not when you are avoiding > using the OGL, but when you ARE using the OGL. No, they are indeed relevant. Knowing how one situation can be so helps to understand why the other can or cannot. There is a definate connection if you are claiming that the FAQ states WotC itself has no alternate route to take from, say, you and I. > WotC historically has been a little loathe to give out official > interpretations of the OGL except for those things in their FAQ. I > could email them and see if they bite. > Commercially separable is not the only issue. > > In a book of poems, if 16 poets contribute 16 poems they own and a 17th > person puts them in a volume to be published, there are 17 works: 16 > poems with individual copyrights and the 17th work is the compilation. > That's basic copyright law. > > Such a book of poetry is a single product in that instance, but it may > represent 17 "works" (1 compilation of 16 individually copyrighted > sub-works). > > I'm using the definition of "work" from that context to think about > multi-part works (such as magazines, boxed sets with contributions from > various individuals, etc.). The issue here being that, because you're operating under a license, several points of basic copyright law are being bypassed by one's acceptance of the license's terms. I wouldn't make any assumptions on the basis of basic copyright law but would rather make WotC clarify the situation, even if only by sending them an email phrased to the effect of "Hi, I want to sell some previously released d20 and non-d20/non-OGL products in a vacuum sealed clearance bundle. From the FAQ, I'm under the impression that this makes all those products, including the non-d20/non-OGL, to become covered by the OGL? Can you let me know if I'm reading that right?" _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
