>From: Rogers Cadenhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>At 04:01 PM 9/8/00 GMT, "Faustus von Goethe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >This is not a valid point. Under US copyright law, ANYTHING you write
> >yourself is protected. It does not matter if it is in a fan-based
> >publication or not.
>
>Both TSR and WOTC have taken an expansive view of their rights in
>regard to derivative work at times, claiming that they could be
>considered the owner of this work under copyright law. While many
>people think this would never hold up in court, and I'm in that group,
So am I. I agree.
But - to move to the OGL a FAN product MUST
1. Remove all other non-OGL copyright material.
2. Remove all references to others' trademarks.
To "extract" FAN copyright material from a FAN based work, the FAN must:
1. remove all non-open copyright material.
2. Remove all references to others' trademarks.
There is fundamentally no differences in the protections for the original
writer, with the REALITY that the "permission" granted in the OGL cannot be
retracted by the writer, whil the "permission to use" that a writer grants
under the "online use policy" can be retracted by the writer at any time.
With the further REALITY that the OGL grants a whloe class of copyright-like
prohibitions to something call "Proprietary Content" that copyright and
trademark law doesn't even begin to touch on.
I continue to stand by my statement:
"A D&D fan who wishes to distribute not-for-profit material is much better
served by using the "Online Use Policy" than they are using the OGL."
In FACT, I will add:
"The D&D FAN is *very* poorly served by the OGL in general, as it will only
lead to them being CONFUSED by whether a D20 product is for them."
>it detracts from the online policy because there's nothing in it
>assuring people of their ownership rights. The OGL/D20 plan represents
>the first effort by D&D's publisher to explicitly allow people to
>publish derivative work and have clear legal claim on their work.
This is ONLY a significant advantage if you want to profit from the work AND
you don't mind *NOT* being able to use ALL of the trademarks AND
"proprietary content" that made you a FAN in the first place.
>Personally, I think that's a huge advantage for the OGL/D20 plan.
I don;t see any advantage for the FAN, and i see a host of strong
disadvantages. The only advantages I have been able to see are for those
who are developing for profit and/or who aren't "FANs".
> >THAT is a very valid point, but is invalid as it relates to the point I
>am
> >making (fan-based + free distribution) UNLESS you hypothesize a FAN that
>is
> >so enamored that he wants to PAY to have his stuff printed out and given
> >away. I'm not saying this will not happen, but I am going to insist on
> >approaching the idea with a great deal of skepticism.
>
>The Internet isn't the only medium in which amateur work is
>published -- there are also fanzines, APAs, and other small-press
>efforts produced with no intention of making any money.
Paper based fanzines are almost always supported by the publisher of the IP
as a marketing tool - like the RPGA & Dungeon(tm) and Dragon(tm) are
supported by WotC. As of yet, there are no such for D20/OGL works. There
may be in the future, but remember, THEY COULD NOT PUBLISH CLOSED MATERIAL
No closed material and *ALL* of the advantages of the OGL evaporate.
> >Uhhh. Do you know something I don't know? Considering the number of fan
> >sites, I would say that the interest in FAN MATERIAL is (literally
>hundreds
> >of times) greater than the interest in open source material.
>
>The articles in Salon and Slashdot, and the existence of this active
>list, are all the proof you need of high interest in open source gaming.
Point of Opiniion: The OGL has summarily been ripped to shreds on SlashDot
because it is so UNLIKE the Open Software Movement. This is evidence of
DIS-interest, not interest.
But you prove my point (IMHO) as my point (as I said) was that interest in
FAN material is vastly greater than interest in the OGL. For every article
about the OGL there have been literally hundreds that encourage
TRADEMARK-BASED fans. Something that simply cannot be accomodated by the
OGL, but ONLY by FAN sites.
> >Not valid. No, They arent. The OGF is a completely separate
>organization
> >from WotC. Don't you read the OGF web page?
>
>As you acknowledge, the back cover of the Player's Handbook has a D20
>System trademark on it, and it appears in other places as well. The
>participation of WOTC is the reason that D20 has been covered in
>Slashdot, Salon and other places. How can you possibly make the claim that
>WOTC is not supporting D20 in any way? That's ludicrous.
I did not make that claim. I made the claim that WotC support for the OGL
is infinitesimal compared to their support for their own FAN network and
their own FAN-based products. What is "ludicrous" is for you to try to
refute that point (particularly by deleting the text of my claim, then
misquoting me).
I don't think you can rationally argue that I am incorrect in stating that
WotC has promoted FAN-based material significantly more than they have
promoted the OGL.
Faust
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
