Thanks for your comments.
> "Here's an example. You create and publish online the Dominion of Curzon.
> You give a complete account of Curzon's history, geography, peoples,
> religions, customs, and so on. You give stats for leading Curzonian Games
> Master Characters. All that is fine. Your work is Compatible only: it is
> based on DR but does not reproduce or modify DR.
>
> Then you create new Beasts, complete with stats, that inhabit Curzon's
> woodlands. These are modifications to Dominion Rules; they are an 'addition
> to...the substance and/or structure of Dominion Rules' (see the definition
> of Modification in Section 2). You also create new Priestcraft Skills to
> suit Curzon's religions."
>
> I have no problem understaing the Priestcraft skills bit. The other two
> parts confuse me though.
>
> How can statting out an NPC and statting out a monster be treated
> differently by the license?
The wording here is slightly misleading and needs correction. Where it says
'you create new Beasts' what is meant is not that you stat out a beast
already existing in Dominion Rules; rather, what is meant is that you create
a new beast altogether. For instance, if DR contains rules for a beast
called a Unicorn, and you stat out a unicorn, that is NOT a Modification.
But if you create a flying unicorn called a Pegicorn, that beast does not
exist in DR as it now stands and is therefore a new beast. The Pegicorn is a
Modification and therefore is subject to the Open Source provisions of the
Licence.
> (When I first read the "compatible works" clause, I thought you were
> proposing a way to write a totally rule-free work and then cross-identify it
> with the Dominion Rules concept; like a novel. But the FAQ seems to
> indicate that you expect people to create materials like "Kingdom of
> Kalamar" from Kenzer & Co. - that is, a product that includes some portions
> of the Dominion Rules game systems...)
Yes that's right.
> Third concern: Is a "Modification" defined narrowly enough to include game
> rules and materials that use game rules, and exclude non-game materials?
>
>> From the DRL 1.0:
>
> (Definitions)
> ""Modifications" means any addition to, deletion from, correction of,
> translation of, and/or other change to, the substance and/or structure of
> Dominion Rules."
>
> It is very dicey. "Substance" is a dangerous word.
We are satisfied that this definition of Modification captures game content
rather than non-game IP.
> Let's go to the FAQ.
>
> "2. What do you mean by 'Modification'?
>
> Any change you make to the Dominion Rules roleplaying system is a
> modification. Examples include:
>
> * Changing any rule (for example, changing the rule that a roll of 12
> always fails).
> * Expanding on existing rules by adding new Attributes, Skills, weapons,
> armour, Spells, races, beasts, etc.
> * Adding new rules not currently covered in DR, such as treasures and
> magical items, miniature battle rules, psionics, or character classes.
> * Translating Dominion Rules from English into another language."
>
> And here you have the heart of the problem. Bullet point #2 indicates that
> Dominion Games believes that DRL will infect any portion of your IP that you
> use Dominion Rules to describe, to the extent that those rules are used in
> the description of that IP.
I disagree with this interpretation of bullet point 2. The point here is
that Modifications are changes to the rules of the game, not non-game IP. Of
course this is a difficult distinction, but I think the DRL draws it about
as clearly as one can hope to do.
> In fact, the FAQ to the contrary, I think Modifications would include NPCs
> if they are given game stats as well - in fact, I think Modifications
> include >anything< you give game stats to.
Again, I disagree. I don't think the language of the DRL supports that
reading.
> Now, an even more troublesome bit: Outside of Modifications, you are not
> granting anyone the right to use your content when you contribute something
> using the DRL 1.0. Even if you want to.
>
> So >non< Modification content is not covered by the permissions granted by
> the License, and could not be used by other people without separate
> permissions.
The DRL is only meant to provide coverleft for Dominion Rules, ie for the
gaming system. If you want to create material that isn't DR or Modifications
to DR, or isn't compatible with DR, you'll have to find another licence to
release it under. I don't see a problem with this. This isn't the licence to
end all licences. It's just Dominion Games' licence.
> Adding a whole new rule subsystem, provided that it did not alter or use an
> existing subsystem, would not be a Modification,
That is wrong. Here you are reading Modification too narrowly. Here again is
the definition of Modification:
> ""Modifications" means any addition to, deletion from, correction of,
> translation of, and/or other change to, the substance and/or structure of
> Dominion Rules."
Your example would constitute an addition to and/or other change to the
substance and/or structure of DR.
> Since there is no requirement in the language of the License to specify what
> the contributor considers Modifications to be, there is no way for a 3rd
> party to safely extract the DRL'd content and re-use it.
I see your point here. I'm eager to hear from others on this.
> This seems to be a structural problem that Dominion might want to fix, since
> part of the envisoned Dominion concept are worlds created by other people
> that are copied, modified and distributed by the joint development
> community. As it stands now, there's no way to use the DRL to accomplish
> that safely.
That's not entirely true. Developers can use the Compatible Works provision
to protect IP from Section 5 of the licence, then release Modifications
separately. That stated, your point above, about making the separation more
obvious, is a good one.
Mike Bourland
______________________________________
Michael Bourland
Dominion Games http://www.dominiongames.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
