> kevin kenan
>
> I would be much happier if the license simply allowed a person to
> produce & sell derivative works based on Open rules. I envision
> that an Open rule system would have a core document that detailed
> the rules (I imagine the D20SRD will be an example of this). The
> license would allow me to create a derivative work based on that
> core document without requiring my derivative work to be Open in any way.
Hey, who wouldn't? I'd like to get free milk from a cow, too, but it isn't
going to happen anytime soon. What you're talking about is taking someone
else's work and using it without compensating them in any way. Why on earth
would anyone want you to do that?
> The way I (a non-lawyer) read the copyright laws, the original
> owner retains the rights to the derivative parts of a derivative
> work while the author of the new, original parts owns the rights
> to his work.
This is a gray area in copyright law, and even lawyers don't agree on what
it means. In most cases where the court rules that the work is derivative,
it means that the work as a whole does not qualify for copyright protection.
The courts don't usually rule on which portions are derivative and which
portions are not.
> The only thing lost is the assurance that new, innovative rules
> would also become Open. Rules, though, can not be copyrighted.
Ah, but if you take someone else's book of non-copyrightable rules and
rewrite them, then you have created a derivative work, because you based
your version of the rules on their book. Rules cannot be copyrighted, but
the source is still protected. If you make a work that is substantially
similar to a copyrighted work even if that similarity is only the rules, AND
you had an opportunity to make use of the copyrighted work when creating
your own, then the burden of proof falls to you to prove that your work is
independent and not derivative.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
