This is another reply to Corey Reid concerning the advantages
of releasing under the OGL. My suggestion was that in practical
terms, the current OGL (with TM restriction) prevents "compatible with"
books while what it grants is already effectively available: making
clones of a system.
If the OGL is going to be effectively a more "closed" environment
than what already exists -- then I think that the pretense of "open
gaming" as a concept should be dropped and those who are interested
should simply negotiate with WotC for the terms of their liscensing D20.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Corey Reid wrote:
> I can use the SRD as a mechanism for a whole game system and spend my
> time working on setting/content stuff and not worry about inventing a
> whole game. In this scenario, I have no interest in using WotC's
> trademarks, but I'm still ahead of the "closed" situation because
> I can use their tables and their calculations.
Hm. Does anyone know what will actually be in the "open" D20
rules? I admit that my impression is that it will not be a complete,
generic, finely-tuned set of rules that will handle any setting
without tinkering -- but I guess I could be wrong.
Meanwhile, if you go with non-OGL, you can use the FUDGE or
Fuzion systems for free -- and with them you can name the system that
you are using, and appeal to players of those systems. You can also
release it without a system, like Harn did for many years, and like
Kingdoms of Kalamar is doing.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
> If I want to advertise my game as "compatible with" another game, at
> this point I'm stuck. I have to either ask for permission to use their
> trademarks, or I have to hope that they create a Trademark License
> similar to D20. If they do, however, I'm now way ahead of the "closed"
> situation. I have a game system all made for me, and I can advertise
> with a legitimate trademark that carries some market value.
Um, how is this *ahead* of the present situation? Without using
the OGL, if you get the publisher's permission to do a "compatible with"
supplement, then you can use a ready-made game system with its market.
You don't need to reprint the "open" content because people can and
have already bought the system. There are lots of game companies who
already do such liscensed products: BTRC, Gold Rush Games, Green Ronin,
etc.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
> The clause from the Apple license is great and somebody should point
> that out to Ryan. There might be a way to use that sort of language in
> the OGL. It would have to say something like, "The Publisher of Open
> Content agrees to allow use of their trademarks under the following
> conditions..."
Well, that would be interesting. However, I think that the
difference between the Apple liscense (which I posted last time) and
the OGL represents an actual difference of intent. Apple wants to
*promote* third-party compatible-with products that they have no
control over. I don't think that this is what Mr. Dancy wants.
- John
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
