> I�m not talking about claiming the works of others; I�m talking about some
> creator being stingy with the rights to his own works. What if he clearly
> acknowledged the Open Content which he used, but marked his new content as
> all closed? If his new rules were really clever, it may very well
> be in his
> economic interest to try to keep them all to himself, so that his
> game sells
> better: �If you want the cool new mecha rules, you have to buy my game.�
If the rules or content are "derivitive" of the previous rules, he has to
open them or the OGL doesn't protect him from suits.
If the rules or content AREN'T derivitive, then he can keep them closed if
he wants to.
Do YOU want to take the risk of getting sued 37 times? WotC is betting that
no one else will, either.
> A stated goal of OGL is to encourage a single, growing game mechanic that
> everyone can use. Thus I contend that the spirit of the OGL is �New rules
> SHOULD be open, new story MAY be closed.� Another aspect of the spirit of
> OGL is �Take what you like, give back what you can, and we�ll all
> benefit.�
I agree.
> But nothing compels the creator to make his new rules open, so the spirit
> may be broken.
"New" rules are all fine and dandy--if he doesn't want to contribute them to
the open game, then the open game will move on without him.
Letting folk have the power to keep their original work to themselves takes
away the fear of losing all their IP by using the OGL improperly.
> And the wording of the draft OGL can be interpreted to say
> that work derivative of Open Content is automatically Open
> Content. But that
> lands us squarely in the morass of �What is derivative work?� Are the new
> rules derivative? Is the adventure itself derivative? The draft
> OGL doesn�t
> say either way.
It's a legal term, and used in the "legal" way. The situation is the exact
same one as if someone comes along and uses your rules anyway...
In fact, I'd suppose that if HE can say that HIS rules aren't derivitive,
someone else can make the same rules and say they're open, and not
derivitive of his. (I don't think you can copyright rules, anyway...)
> A traditional interpretation of derivative works would say
> that the whole thing is derivative. That�s easy to understand, but
> undermines the OGL goal of allowing a mix of open and closed
> content. Yet I
> see no OTHER way in the draft OGL to ensure that new rules are
> encouraged/compelled to be open.
CONTENT that you come up with on your own isn't derivitive; anything else
might be. Therefore, if you want some closed content, come up with it
yourself. (Hey, that's just how it works now! :) )
> Someone has to have it. Right now, it�s the courts; and
> ultimately, it will
> still be the courts. But it will not be good for OGL if disputes keep
> landing in the courtroom. If there are enough court cases, game designers
> who are trying to decide whether to use OGL will decide that it�s just not
> worth the risk. We will do well if a dispute resolution mechanism is built
> into the system. That way, only the really intransigent cases
> will end up in
> the courts.
I suggested something like this before, and got a fairly strong response
from Ryan that he wanted to keep the OGF itself SMALL. The biggest problem
was "who would pay for it?"
The OGL draft includes a 30-day window to fix alleged violations... I think
that's plenty for most things that can be settled out of court.
> I can think of some illustrative examples, but not how they might be
> translated into contract verbiage. Consider these cases:
>
> 1. A plot for an adventure. Clearly, the plot can be marked as
> closed. Doesn
> �t have to be: you could make your plot and characters all open, so that
> anyone can use them in their OGL works.
I do not beleive you can copyright a "plot." If you could, we wouldn't have
the plethora of cookie-cutter romance, sci fi and fantasy novels.
> 2. A set of mecha rules which describe how the mecha pilot
> controls the ship
> by rolling a D20 against a DC, with modifiers based on the Dex adjustment
> and on the Mecha Pilot skill. The concepts here -- rolling against a DC, a
> Dex adjustment, and a skill adjustment -- are all presumably in the D20SRD
> and thus Open Content; so a reasonable observer would conclude that the
> Mecha Pilot skill and the mecha piloting game mechanic are derivative
> mechanics and thus should be open.
Sounds good to ME. Then again, I'm just commenting on this one to be
complete...
> 3. A set of starship piloting rules which describe how a starship may jump
> through hyperspace tramlines between areas of equal stellar flux, thus
> crossing light years in instants. Never once do these rules mention the
> existing stats, task resolution rules, etc. It�s automatic:
> reach the right
> spot at the right time, turn on your drive, and �POOF! There you go. These
> rules clearly sprang from nowhere (with apologies to Niven and Pournelle),
> so it�s much harder to call them derivative. Yet the spirit of
> OGL says that
> new rules should be open.
I'd say those rules are vauge enough that you can't even try to copyright
them, even if you COULD copyright rules.
"Hyperdrive works when you get to the right point" is a concept I've seen in
at least one game, novel, AND TV show.
> Section 13 also raises a concern for small publishers.
> The cost of pulling a book,
> correcting
> it, and redistributing it may turn a marginal seller into a
> fiscal disaster.
Dang, I can't think of anything to help here... Maybe shipping stickers to
all of the distributors, posting a correction on your web site, and
informing the OGF would be adequete?
> Maybe we need
> some definition or (again) some arbitration authority to determine when a
> breach has been �cured�.
There are the courts to arbitrate, and I think that the best thing to do
might be an example of a "correct cure."
DM
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
