Faustus von Goethe wrote:
> The license is the sum total of the IP that makes up the Foundation -
But the OGF is not made up of the OGL. It is made up of some web pages and
volunteer effort, right? The OGL doesn't belong to the OGF. And it seems to me
that while it would be better if it did, it doesn't matter much.
IANAL, but the OGL has been released. Anyone who uses it has a perpetual right
to continue to use it. The right to use the OGC as per the terms of the OGL is
there. I think it is too late to retrieve them. The right to follow the
license has been perpetually granted and the only thing that can remove those
rights is the noncompliance with the license. If WotC tried to remove the the
right to continue to use the OGL, they would be breaching grant explicit in the
license. At least that's how I read it.
> it is the REASON for the Foundations existence, and WotC, (not Ryan Dancey)
> owns it.
Well, I guess I'm not associated with the OGF, so I can't say for sure, but I
will speculate. The OGF is concerned with open gaming in general. Right now,
the only open gaming vector is the WotC-owned OGL. What would stop anyone from
creating their own OGL? And wouldn't it be as much a valid interest for the
OGF?
> >Which part of it is purposely misleading? There are many organizations
> >devoted
> >to the use of products made by a company and those organizations have
> >nothing to
> >do with that company.
> >I am a member of GardenSLUG (the Garden State LEGO User's
> >Group) and we are in no way managed or overseen by The LEGO Corporation. I
> >see
> >this as quite similar.
>
> Respectfully, you are incorrect.
I am assuming you mean that the analogy between GardenSLUG and the OGF is
invalid. So I'm wrong. That's fine. It has happened before, and if you could
show me how, it would be the most valuable experience of the week for me. What
is the critical difference as you see it?
> >Ryan has this OGF that's his baby and it is devoted to
> >promoting a product of a company (Wizards). But that doesn't mean that the
> >OGF
> >is run by Wizards.
>
> As long as the OGL is copyright WotC. Wizards legally "oversees and manages"
> its release.
Hasn't it been released? Since it leaves open the option for them to change it,
and the option for the users to adopt any version of the license, I see that it
reserves the right to make changes for the copyright holder exclusively. But
that's all. Right?
> Mr. Dancey does not have control of that license except to the
> extent that WotC says he does - and THAT can change at ANY time.
So what?
> I was reserving discussing this issue on the lists until the license was
> final, as I was *hoping* it would change to read "Copyright Ryan Dancey."
How would that help you? You have no more assurance that Ryan Dancey will act
in your best interest than you do that WotC will. If anything, it should be
made public domain after a while to give the copyright holders time to make
changes as bugs come up.
> >My stance is somewhat shaken by the fact that Ryan is part
> >of the management team at Wizards, but I think the logic remains.
>
> As long as the LICENSE is Copyright WotC, logically, your stance is utterly
> destroyed by this fact.
I don't think so. It still stands unchallenged that the OGF supports a product
-- the OGL, and open gaming in general, at least potentially. Its ability to
support that product is in no way impinged by the fact that it doesn't produce
(or own) that product. I'm new here but I haven't seen any claims that the OGF
would own the OGL.
> Dancey could LEAVE WotC, but he CANNOT take the OGL
> with him because WotC owns the license.
But he can take the OGF. And if he cared to, he could continue to promote open
gaming because it's a cool idea.
> Under these circumstances the notion expressed by that quote ("not managed
> by or overseen by Wizards") is ludicrous.
It isn't either. Possession (or lack thereof) of the OGL has nothing to do with
the management of the OGF.
Imagine that the 1/2 owner of your local hobby store founded a publishing
company with his brother who had no interest in the hobby business. The
publishing company was used to publish a gaming magazine and some other
unrelated stuff. Would it be wrong to claim that the hobby store did not manage
the publishing company? That seems to be directly analogous to what you are
claiming.
> But currently the ONLY thing of ANY value in the Open Gaming Foundation is
> the license, and WotC owns it - and Mr. Dancey can not take it with him if
> he leaves WotC.
When you say that the OGL is _in_ the OGF, what do you mean?
Christopher Weeks
central NJ
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
