> kevin kenan
>
> The OGL draft as it is now allows me to use someone else's work without
> compensating them in any way. I don't understand your objection.
The OGL is designed in the spirit of the free exchange of game materials
between players, just like free software is designed to give useful software
tools to computer enthusiasts without having to shell out an arm and a leg.
The 'compensation' you give is spelled out quite clearly in the OGL - in
exchange for being allowed to create derivative works of the OGL material,
you grant others to make derivative works of your OGL material. Quid pro
quo.
The OGL grants most (but not all) rights usually reserved under copyright.
What you are asking is for an OGL author to surrender every right in
exchange for a one-liner credit in your copyrighted work. There is no way I
would support this. What incentive does anyone have to create OGL material
under your proposal?
> If the OGL
> were changed the way I suggested above, I would still want the requirement
> that a copyright notice be included in the derivative work that
> states what
> Open material was used as the source and who owns the copyright in that
> material.
It isn't about credit, it's about the open exchange of intellectual
property. You've missed the point almost entirely.
> I think this is the gray area you are referring to. So if the OGL
> granted you permission to create a derivative work, then your new material
> would be protected by copyright.
Your chain of logic is correct, but nobody is going to give away their
material in the manner you suggest. Your proposal removes all motivation to
contribute to the pool of free material.
> "Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law
> prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles."
>
> We see examples of this all the time in today's RPG industry. Many game
> systems share similar rules yet aren't considered derivative
> works.
Quite true. But copyright law also has the provision I described
(derivative by way of creating a new work based upon an old one), which is
at odds with the example you describe. Both are valid law, but their
specific interpretation is the subject of considerable debate. Where is the
line? How similar is too similar? These are the true gray areas to which I
am referring.
> I think
> that Open systems should be able to create rules similar to those which
> exist in other games to the same extent that similar rules are implemented
> in different systems today. No more, no less. If someone creates new rules
> for an Open system, then the Open system should be able to create similar
> rules to the same extent as this sort of thing is practiced in
> the industry today.
I agree completely, but there is that legal baggage I mentioned above. Is
it derivative or is it merely an inevitable expression of a fundamental rule
(and thus not subject to copyright). Is it so substantially similar to a
copyrighted work that it can be assumed to be derivative and must be proven
otherwise? These are sticky issues, and they are just the sort of thing the
OGL was created to eliminate. You are free to follow your own path and base
your work on OGL material without accepting the terms of the OGL, but you
will be assuming the risks I've outlined above.
Under the OGL derivative works become a non-issue. You want a Wild West
game with a heroic flavor? Base it on the D20 SRD and it will play like
D&D. Then Joe in New York or Bob in California will see your special rules
for handguns in the Wild West and make them part of their spy thriller game,
and base their own rules on yours, without fear of whether they violated
your rights.
That is the vision of Open Gaming. Shared development of game products.
For gamer, by gamers. If you want exclusive ownership of your creations,
then develop it on your own.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
