-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
In a message dated 12/13/00 7:09:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. We aren't talking about
>>>tools, we're talking about explicitly licensed copyrighted material. If
>>>it is a 'derivative work' under copyright law, it isn't really yours, and
>>>thus you have no rights to distribute it.
>>
>>Your examples do not translate to OGL.
>Huh?
>If I write a story with the characters from Gilligan's Island, its my story.
>I own it. It is derivative. I can even distribute it. If I do so *for profit*
>I have a problem, but otherwise I'm fine. And even though they can tell me
>not to distribute it, *I* still own the story, not them.
Yes but it still isn't OGL.
Now let's use this as an example.
I create "Gilligan: The RPG"
I release it under the OGL
Sherwood Schwartz's lawyers bury me under Cease and Desist Orders
Despite releasing it under the OGL my work is NOT OGL.
I am responsible for any derivative works that are created.
I gave my game away for free but you sold your modules for my game.
I am financially responsible for your losses because I didn't have the right to use the Product Identity belonging to S.S.
Don't think that because you don't SELL your product you can't be held responsible. And just because I created the game doesn't mean I will even be allowed to use it.
There is no difference between giving it away and selling it in legal terms.
Now this shows the biggest benefit and the biggest problem of the OGL.
Benefit: You acted (in good faith) based on my release. I am responsible for your losses.
Problem: I didn't properly obtain rights to PI used in my product and released as open. I bear financial responsibility for ALL derivative products. Whether I sold or gave away my product.
Checks and balances guys
Bob
