On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Aaron & Lori Smalley wrote:
>
> "Ryan S. Dancey" wrote:
> > Unfortunately, the FUDGE License does not meet the definition of an Open
> > Game, because commercial distribution of FUDGE materials requires the prior
> > permission of a 3rd party.
>
> So what exactly is the "Definition" of an "Open Game" then? What
> Steffan is asking is that you let him know what you plan to do with
> FUDGE if you are going to use it in a "Commercial Product". It is to
> keep people from using illegal trademarks and such with FUDGE (just as
> WotC has retained the right to be able to force you to refrain from
> doing something that is illegal with the OGL and SDR), he sees nothing
> from it except keeping himself out of jail and lawsuits. So what is the
> difference?
The diffence is that you MUST have Steffan's permission to produce
anything under FUDGE; you don't need to get anyone's permission to produce
anything under the OGL. I believe Steffan has said such permission will
be freely granted for just about everything, but he does retain the right
to not grant permission; thus FUDGE is not truly an open game license. I
think Steffan has valid reasons for doing things as he does, but that
doesn't make FUDGE an open game.
alec
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
