"Faustus von Goethe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [Doug Meerschaert REPLIED]
> >Hardly. NOTHING prevents someone from ignoring the OGL
(make that "nothing but what the OGL provides")
> [FAUST REPLIES]
> Doug, that is exactly what I am considering doing if it gets much more
> restrictive, as many folks already have, BUT I *want* the OGF to work, so I
> continue assuming that it will. That is the issue - if you add a bunch of
> restrictions into the OGL that extend over and above what the law
> proscribes, the OGL will be ignored by everybody but WotC. It will become a
> "D20"-only OGL. I personally do not want this.
Hmm... I could split hairs about "over and above the law", but I won't. You
probably know what I mean, and it just clutters the list...
> Also, to add additional resrictions above the law - this is not what the
> Open Software Foundation does at all - and with each new restriction, it
> starts to look less and less like "open" and more and more like somethiing
> else.
Nope. I gotta...
The FSF (and every OTHER Open-source model) requires that a deriviitve work
itself give permission for derivitive works to be made. The law does not give
this provision. They specify the types of medium to be used, and mandate that
the source code be avaliable... neither of which are from the law.
The OGL has to embody the idea (derivitive work has to be derivitive) as clear
as can be and without shooting anyone in the foot. This trademark thing might
be just that...
> I strongly feel that an "open" license should be limited to encouraging
> openness and *defining* areas where the law might be gray - *NOT* creating
> additional restrictions that the law does not already provide.
An open license doesn't "encourage" openness, it requires it. If you release
software under the GPL, it IS open.
> > > >This is another "carrot and stick" clause.
> > >
> > > I'm missing the carrot?
> >
> >Your trademark is protected.
>
> My trademark (and yours) is alread protected by trademark law. We will not
> get any benefit from the clause as proposed.
We gain as much as we lose; fair trade. We can't go "this product is
compatible with *Dungeons and Dragons*", but no one else can go "This game is
just like _Earth 1066_!"
Yeah, a "related works" page would be nice. But it looks like something about
trademark law already prohibits that. *sigh*
DM
Looking for a game? I DM in Upstate NY, twice a month in New Hartford, NY (a
suburb of Utica)
Even better, I've got irregular games where I live, in Charlton (near Albany).
Drop me a line and we'll game!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM: PlanesdragonDM ICQ: 26106342
____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
