> 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.
I'd love to--but that'd be "amatur lawyering."
How about "all rules should be open, and any content that's not based on
someone else's content can be closed." Best I can do... and something to
slip into the "Spirit" section.
> 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.
I think that's a good reason to put the "all rules be open, but your content
be closed" idea (or something simliar) into the "Spirit" section of the OGL.
> I hope it's as clear cut as you suppose. But if not, OGL should make it
> clearer.
"Me too."
> 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.
Yep. And the plot (Bandits meet girl, fall in love with girl, wage war for
girl's love and the heroes come in to sort it all out) behind that can be
distilled out, applied to different characters and different settings, and
played out all over again. (I believe.)
> 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.
I know, I know... great theory, but I don't think anyone's going to spend
two weeks if there's a free solution already.
> 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.
Yep.
> 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.
Yep. I bet a good thousand folk at GenCon (or more) are going to be
wondering that when the D20STL and the OGL are approved...
DM
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
