> Jaimi McEntire
>
> 3) If you add new content, it is neither PI nor open content, and
> does not fall under the terms of this agreement. You are of course
> able to declare it open,
Ok, one more time. 1(d):
"Open Game Content" means <snip> any work covered by this License, including
translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically
excludes Product Identity.
"any work" is all-encompassing. OGC is everything that isn't PI. It's
right there in black and white.
> Please notice all the "If you are contributing..." in the text. This
> clearly shows you do not have to contribute all your content. Indeed,
> in the case of licensed things you may not be able to contribute them.
> as evidenced by number 5.
Certainly you are within your rights to withhold anything that is eligible
to be PI, but part of the exchange of value in the OGL is that you will
contribute anything that isn't PI as OGC. If you have material that doesn't
qualify to be PI and you don't want it to become OGC, then don't use this
license.
> #8 clearly shows this as well. Far from being redundant bookkeeping,
> it is a very important clause that shows you do not have to make
> everything open.
It does show that. It demands that it must be possible to distinguish
between OGC and 'everything else'. Other sections of the license determine
that 'everything else' must be PI.
> There seems to be a set of people who want to turn the OGL into a
> game version of the GPL, and force us to relinquish everything if
> we dare to use anything open -- sort of a forced public-domain.
> However, the text just does not say this. I'm not wanting to dredge
> up the old "users are losers" thread, but it's more important for
> people to use the open content, whether or not they contribute,
> then it is to force people to contribute.
I can see how it might look that way, but that is not my position. I was
very pleased with the early d20 releases which contributed virtually nothing
new to OGC, but at the same time made very good use of OGC and were some
very nice pieces in their own right.
The fact of the matter is that game mechanics are not protected by copyright
law, but they can still be disputed. The OGL seeks to create a safe haven
whereby all game mechanics can be shared freely without fear of legal
challenge. OGC will not prevent a suit for infringement, but it makes it
MUCH harder to win one. PI on the other hand, is protected under normal
copyright law. In order for the 'safe haven' concept to work, all material
which does not enjoy copyright protection must be OGC, otherwise basing your
work on OGC is no safer than basing it on the PHB. That is why your game
mechanics are forced to be open if (and only if) you use the OGL - because
they are already under copyright law.
Now, if you want to protect something that isn't PI and isn't game mechanics
(like software), then we need to push to get the definition of PI expanded.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
