On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
>This is another "carrot and stick" clause. The idea behind this clause is
While I do not disagree with the motivation to do this, does
this clause belong in the OGL? I know that is the only place
you can put it as it is currently conceived. I want to ask would
this clause really serve other contributors of open content?
The only trademark owner who desires such protection (that
I can think of) is WotC.
Previously agendas that served only WotC were achieved in the
D20STL. In my opinion, the OGL really did serve the gaming
community. It would be a shame and maybe shortsighted to start
making such clauses in the OGL. I also think if someone wants
to use the D20 trademark or the D&D trademark without entering
into the required agreement, they would also take care not to enter
into the such a clause (by obscuring/rewriting open content they need).
>Brian also would like to take a crack at cracking the nut of "game rules" as
>a definable intellectual property. He's going to try and draft some clear
>language that will make it very easy to keep the game mechanics separate
>from story-character IP, and get rid of some of the ambiguity in the
>existing license.
Super. Even if he is unable to accomplish his goal, just having
more thoughts on the matter can help us all understand the issue
more clearly. Once the D20SRD is released, I also suggest adding
some concrete example usages (both acceptable and unacceptable)
into the OGL website.
Cheers,
--Kal
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
