> More Concern:This, and other clauses, seem to undermine the utility of
> the OGL to smaller publishers, while enhancing it for 'big names' --
> thus adding fuel to the "Open Gaming is Commie-Capitalist Plot!"
> flamage.
>
> That is, under the OGL, I can write a module which is compatible with
> D&D, using OGLed material by Cool Designer Johnathan Tweet -- but I
> cannot SAY anything more than "This module is based on the D20SRD", just
> like thousands of other modules are.
As a small publisher, this enhances, and does not reduce, utility.
Consider the situation this clause seeks to avoid:
Chris Pramas has presented the excellent "Death in Freeport." The legal
page designates the entire text as "Open Gaming Content." Thus, any and all
of it may be freely utilized by future OGL products. Some other company
could thus reprint Chris's entire text as a book unto itself, hype it, sell
a bunch, and keep all the money.
At least this clause prohibits them from taking advantage of Chris' name as
well. They can go ahead and use his materials, but unless they have his
permission (which presumably would mean making a business deal that would
compensate him for the fine work he's done), they would not be able to
advertise the product to people who are looking for Chris's work.
Thus, the clause is actually protection for independent creators and small
manufacturers who would like to have control over the use of their names.
This strikes me as a good thing.
------------------------------------------------------
John Nephew voice (651) 638-0077 fax (651) 638-0084
President, Atlas Games www.atlas-games.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
