> Ryan S. Dancey
>
ERROR:
1.(d)�Open Game Content� <snip> specifically excludes Product Identity.
7. <snip> The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content <snip>
You can't use Product Identity in Open Game Content, because Product
Identity is specifically excluded from Open Game Content.
And now, my (long) thoughts about the license- those who aren't interested
should avoid this section.
First, I'll concede the Trademark argument, and allow that the OGL could
succeed and still prohibit the use of unlicensed Trademarks in works that
contain Open Content. I don't think it's necessary, but it isn't worth
arguing over any further. I have deeper, more serious reservations about
this version of the license.
I first got involved with Open Gaming several months ago. I was very
excited about the entire concept, and jumped right in to create a product
that would help spread the word about Open Gaming products. The OGL was a
novel and innovative way for gamers to create and share source material, and
share them with each other in either a wholly open or partially
open/partially close fashion. No differentiation was made between game
mechanics and setting because those two concepts are very hard to separate.
Instead, visual marking was the key to indicate what was open and what was
closed, completely sidestepping the IP issues which were hard to handle for
laymen and lawyers alike. People who hadn't looked at the gaming industry
since their school days were getting excited about the possibilities this
license held. It was likened to Open Source software because of how freely
information could be exchanged and modified between authors, and the
comparison was a good one.
But once it was submitted to WotC's legal department the OGL became
something else.
It is no longer about sharing source material, but rather about simply
sharing game mechanics. It has shifted its focus from sidestepping the
shortcomings in the law to trying to create a legal definition of game
mechanics by defining them in terms of Product Identity. Such a definition
is an admirable goal, but it has an unwanted side effect. Because game
mechanics are not eligible for copyright protection, once the definition is
established the license becomes moot - anyone can take the mechanics and not
abide by the license, and the legal groundwork to defend this activity will
have been laid down by the OGL itself.
Under this new OGL everyone is creating a hybrid work, so the works
themselves must be treated as if they were unlicensed copyrighted documents
(which they are) and be handled accordingly. Works can no longer be shared
between friends, and cannot be collected in shareware or freeware archives
of documents without the written consent of the copyright holders. There
will be no public domain monster books or spells, and no collaborative works
at all unless they are governed by a separate license. It seems that
protectionism has taken over as the primary goal of the OGL, rather than the
sharing of creative ideas. Indeed, source material is now expressly
prohibited from becoming Open Gaming Content. I think this is a change for
the worse, and I don't see how this even comes close to meeting the lofty
goals that Ryan original championed with the OGF.
This version of the license also changes the way the d20 SRD can be used,
because the Spells and Creatures (which are supposed to be part of that
document) are specifically excluded from being Open Game Content. That
means the only way to use most of the content in the d20 SRD is through d20
STL - a license that is only suitable for use with WotC products.
This version of the OGL can no longer be compared with Open Source software
because you can no longer share source material under this license - only
game mechanics (which could be shared anyway, now that the license defines
them). It is now much more like an application program interface that
defines the rules about how products interact with each other, but leaves
the products themselves the exclusive property of their creators. WotC has
not created the Open Source equivalent for the gaming industry - WotC has
created its own kind of Windows API, and like Microsoft it has reserved the
rights to control that API exclusively for itself. Congratulations.
I wonder what Slashdot and the other press would think of this new license?
I think they would be disappointed but unsurprised with the final results.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
