Philosophical question. I don�t think any of us can answer this, actually
(other than maybe Ryan): it depends on final wording of the OGL, which I
certainly haven�t seen yet. (If it IS available, somebody point me to it,
eh?)
The purposes of the OGL include (but are not at all limited to):
1. Provide a structure for publishing Open Gaming Content upon which other
games may be built.
2. Provide a structure for publishing closed content and protecting creator
rights to it.
3. Provide a structure for combining the two in an individual document.
Now I see this as a potential bureaucratic/arbitration nightmare for
someone: Wizards most likely, or the OGF if it ever takes on true
independence. (I suspect that OGF will necessarily be closely tied to
Wizards for the foreseeable future.)
The problem I see is the difference between the spirit of the license and
the letter. The intention, clearly, is that you SHOULD open your rules and
MAY close your story. The practicality is that it�s hard to pin down what
you should open; and somebody will have to arbitrate these cases and pull
licenses where appropriate. I do NOT think this is a good idea, but it�s
inevitable. The draft OGL says only: �8. Identification: If you distribute
Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that
you are distributing are Open Game Content.� It says nothing about how to
select open from closed. So if you make some great giant mecha rules and
explicitly leave them closed, someone will surely argue that you have
violated the OGL by creating a closed work derivative of the open work. Now
prove them wrong (or right). If your mecha rules involve using the existing
stats and skill rolling rules, I think they have a case for �derivative
works� claims; but I don�t want to be the one to have to arbitrate every
such claim. Gnu and Open Source make this easy, because EVERYTHING is open.
Of course, they also make the idea commercially irrelevant. OGL is trying to
support commercial development.
The spirit is clear: rules == open, story == closed. You wouldn�t violate
it, and I wouldn�t violate it. But nothing prevents violation. And I�m
skeptical that ANY wording of section 8 will clear this up while still
preserving creator rights AND encouraging growth of the Open Content. In
essence, this is the same derivative works question that is apparently so
hard to resolve in standard copyright cases. My understanding is that the
work is usually assumed derivative until proven otherwise, as far as the
courts are concerned (remember, copyright is usually a civil matter, so
�innocent until proven guilty� is not relevant). But frankly, the worst
thing that could happen to OGL would be for these cases to go to court.
Arbitration will serve us all better.
I would love to be proven wrong. Any OGL wording that can explicitly clear
up what must be made open (while preserving ccreator rights) would be
welcome. Maybe even some wording that explicitly grants OGF some arbitrating
authority would help. But I fear nothing at all will stop this from becoming
a can of worms waiting to be opened.
Martin L. Shoemaker
Emerald Software, Inc. -- Custom Software and UML Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.EmeraldSoftwareInc.com
www.UMLBootCamp.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
