----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Open_Gaming] "Open" Debate
> If Wizards of the Coast uses material that is covered by the OGL, and
didn't
> completely originate within this building, we are just as bound by the
terms
> of the OGL as you are. There is no "trap door" where OGL material can
fall
> through into our hands and be rendered Closed.
>
> Ryan
This is true, and I wasn't trying to imply that such a "trap door" existed.
What I am wondering: would Open Gaming be better served by a license which
created a level playing field for everyone. As it stands, the license favors
those who own the copyright in the document that forms the base of any Open
Game system.
For instance, what if there were two license. One license would be the
"users" license and would allow a personto create derivative works of Open
material. The second license would be a "contributors" license and would
allow someone to contribute new material to the pool of Open rules.
Under the first license, everyone would enjoy the same privledges that WotC
(or any copyright holder in core material) enjoys now: you could create new
derivative rules based on that core material without making those new rules
Open. You could also similarly make use of any Open rules. If you had
material that you wanted to contribute to the Open movement, then you use
the contributors license to make it Open.
This model seems better fitted to Open Gaming because, as we all know, you
can't copyright game rules. So if someone created a new rule and didn't make
it Open, it would be a simple matter of someone else rewriting that rule and
then releasing it under the contributor's license. This model also better
protects intellectual property because there is no way that material under
the users license would accidentally become Open.
What do people think?
-kenan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
