From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug
Meerschaert
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 5:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] The Spirit and the Letter
<< 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. >>
Define "derivative". The courts struggle with this question often. I would
like to see a way to deal with this without having to have ugly court
battles.
<< 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. >>
Absolutely! But I'm not yet convinced that the draft OGL meets that goal. If
it does, I think it falls short on others.
<< 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...) >>
This is tricky. You cannot copyright ideas, only a particular expression of
ideas. But you can "sort of" copyright rules, because derivative works are
covered by copyright law. So stuff built on the rules is covered by the
copyright. A simple restatement of the rules would probably be derivative as
well. But again, "derivative" is legally vague, and copyright cases often
turn on an interpretation of what is and is not derivative.
<< 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! :) ) >>
I'm not sure that's how it works now. I see different interpretations in the
literature. One interpretation -- and the one that I hope does NOT apply,
because it makes OGL risky -- is that a work that is derivative in part is
defined to be derivative in total. Other documents mention a work that is
part derivative and part original. I THINK -- not at all sure -- that the
key difference is that these latter cases involve license from the rights
holder to create the derivative work. That certainly describes OGL. It would
make sense that this would be different, because someone who creates a
derivative work without permission should have fewer rights than someone who
creates one with permission.
I hope it's as clear cut as you suppose. But if not, OGL should make it
clearer.
<< > 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. >>
For plot, read "Martin's late-at-night shorthand to indicate characters,
descriptions, maps, places, etc., etc., etc.". In other words, the story, as
opposed to rules. That can certainly be copyrighted.
<< 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. >>
OK, hold the conversation while I spend two weeks inventing some really
clever and useful rules that are non-vague and unique and clearly expressed,
so we can use them as an example of what I mean: rules that are valuable and
good, but not in the least tied to anything that has gone before in D20.
Sorry. I'm trying to keep the examples short, because the examples are not
the point: the principles they illustrate are the point. And the principle
here is: it will be tricky to find a working definition of "derivative" that
protects my plot, compels me to open my mecha piloting rules (since ANY
reasonable definition of "derivative" covers these), and provides guidance
for the tough calls.
<< 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? >>
These sound right. But the draft OGL doesn't provide any guidance, and
doesn't say who decides. I think that the rights holder -- as issuer of the
license -- has that responsibility. But it would be better if this were
spelled out.
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
