Please excuse my first post as being just a Copy/Paste -- but doesn't the
following message posted by Ryan Dancey answer the question as to how 1.(E)
should be interpretted:
>>Ryan Posted
> <snip>
> where we started, except now there is an affirmative way for
> people to avoid
> accidentially mixing their proprietary, closed content with
> the Open Game
> Content. This addresses one of the longstanding issues with
> the license -
> namely the worry that it would be confusing for people to
> figure out what
> they could and could not re-use in a product that mixed Open
> and Closed
> content. The changes to the license listed above mean that
> you have to both
> identify the Open content, and identify any Closed content as well.
> <snip>
Full text of the message, included below...
--
Michael Cortez
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan S. Dancey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2000 9:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Open_Gaming] OGF (possible) Final Draft
>
>
> From: "Brad Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree this is probably an error; and it relates to my
> response to your
> thoughts below. I do however think that the part of 1.(d)
> that says "and
> means any work covered by this License" preserves the right to include
> non-game mechanic materials as Open Game Content at the contributor's
> discretion. The wording needs help though.
>
> > It is no longer about sharing source material, but rather about
> > simply sharing game mechanics.
>
> I think this concern can be fixed by adding a handful of
> words and deleting
> one line from the license.
>
> I think a few words need to be added (in brackets, below) so
> that 1.(d)
> reads:
>
> (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes
> the methods,
> procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not
> embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the
> prior art; [any
> additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the
> Contributor]; and means any work covered by this License, including
> translations and derivative works under copyright law, but
> specifically
> excludes Product Identity.
>
> And I think a few words need to be added (in brackets, below)
> to limit the
> scope of the Product Identity so that 1.(e) reads:
>
> (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos
> and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures
> characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue,
> incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions,
> likenesses,
> formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic
> and other visual
> or audio representations; names and descriptions of
> characters, spells,
> enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special
> abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures,
> equipment, magical or
> supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic
> designs; and
> any other trademark or registered trademark [ delete: and
> which specifically
> excludes the Open Game Content;] [add: clearly identified as Product
> Identity by the owner of the Product Identity.]
>
> The practical operation of these two clauses would be this: If you
> contributed Open Game Content that had mixed within it
> material that you
> wanted to be Product Identity, you now have a structured way
> to do that.
>
> Under the pre-laywer draft of the OGL, you could have done
> >exactly the same
> thing<, by making a note that described Product Identity just as the
> post-lawyer draft of the license does, and then listed the
> material you
> wanted excluded from the Open Game Content you were distributing.
>
> Thus, this post-lawyer license, with my proposed changes,
> gets us right back
> where we started, except now there is an affirmative way for
> people to avoid
> accidentially mixing their proprietary, closed content with
> the Open Game
> Content. This addresses one of the longstanding issues with
> the license -
> namely the worry that it would be confusing for people to
> figure out what
> they could and could not re-use in a product that mixed Open
> and Closed
> content. The changes to the license listed above mean that
> you have to both
> identify the Open content, and identify any Closed content as well.
>
> > Under this new OGL everyone is creating a hybrid work
>
> A product like Chris Pramas' Death in Freeport, which
> rendered "all the Text
> Open Game Content" would remain completely open except for
> the illustrations
> and the maps.
>
> A product with a note saying "all content is Open Game
> Content" would be
> completely open. (The D20SRD will use this clause.)
>
> Another change I am going to suggest is the change of term to
> "Excluded
> Product Identity", to make it even more clear to the
> layperson what the term
> means.
>
> On a side note, I think 1(f) can be deleted because nothing
> in the license
> refers to Proprietary Trademarks.
>
> Ryan
>
> -------------
> For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
>
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
