From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Faustus von
Goethe
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 10:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Open_Gaming] Final Text of Approved Open Gaming License
<< This misconception might have something to do with the fact that the OPEN
GAME LICENSE is:
1. Supposedly developed by the OPEN GAME FOUNDATION.
(DIRECT quotes from Dancey on this.) >>
Since Ryan is the OGF, this is at least partially correct; but since
Wizards's lawyers did the bulk of the work and Wizards owns the license --
AND since Ryan is an employee of Wizards and (presumably) pursuing this
partly on their time -- I think it's fair to say that the OGL is primarily
developed by Wizards. And I'll take your word on the direct quotes from
Ryan. But how recent are those? OGL and OGF today are not what they were
when Ryan conceived them. So part of the confusion may simply be that folks
are not up to date with things.
<< 2. Distributed by the foundation. >>
Yep.
<< 3. Appears *only* on the foundation's web site. >>
Technically, nope: Korath and I both have it on our sites for our games, as
of yesterday. Possibly there are other locations of which I do not know. But
as far as the general public knows, this statement is close enough to true.
<< 4. Appears *nowhere* on the LICENSE *owners* websites. >>
Yep. To be fair, though: it was JUST released; and the Wizards web is slow
to be updated by most commercial standards. (Want to cause a fuss? Just ask
some Alternity fans what the price of the Alternity books are. To move the
slow-moving inventory, the prices were "officially" dropped months ago. But
as of last week, it was still almost impossible to find the new prices
anywhere -- INCLUDING the Wizards web site.) If the OGL is still not found
anywhere on their site in two weeks or so, I'll agree that they're
contributing to the confusion more than they need to in this regard.
<< 5. Is not IDENTIFIED as separate from the foundation on the FOUNDATION's
website. >>
I guess I don't get this one. The license on the site is clearly owned by
Wizards. The site itself discusses the OGL as one of many possible open
licenses. It seems to me like this is clear identification.
<< 6. Is DISCUSSED on the foundations mail list AS THOUGH it were the
foundation's license. >>
Yep.
<< 7. Is publicly TREATED by the officer of the foundation as though the
FOUNDATION owns it. >>
I see Ryan treating it as though the foundation distributes it. All the time
and effort he has taken in discussing the affairs of Wizards' legal team and
their efforts to protect the IP left me pretty clear that Ryan sees the OGL
and the OGF as separate.
<< 8. Is presented (currently) as the only substantive PRODUCT of the
foundation. >>
Yep. Although this statement no longer appears on the web site, it has been
made in the past, and continues to be repeated by those who read it.
<< 9. Is in fact the ONLY GAME LICENSE mentioned on the foundations web
site. >>
Yep. Though they do welcome any license that supports their principles.
<< 10. Ownership is >never< disclaimed by the foundation. >>
Yep. But again, why should it be? Ownership is very clearly claimed by
Wizards, and OGF is clearly stated to NOT be Wizards.
<< 11. Has a strikingly similar NAME as the foundation. >>
Yep.
So by my scoring, it's 7 out of 11 leaning toward confusion; more if I allow
partial points. You make a good case for confusion here, I feel.
<< In FACT >everything< about the foundation LOOKS as though it has been
intentionaly set up to encourage the ERROR on the part of the casual reader
that the foundation sponsors and controls the license. >>
But this, I feel, is completely unjustified. I just cannot see any sign of
intentional deceit here whatsoever.
Martin L. Shoemaker
Emerald Software, Inc. -- Custom Software and UML Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.EmeraldSoftwareInc.com
www.UMLBootCamp.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
