[Open_Gaming] Gilligan's Dilema

[Githianki]

My original post was not about creating content dervived from another source as the Gilligan adventure posts posited. I was claiming that ownership of an original adventure designed for use with a set of rules published by someone else is my property to with as I please.  Furthermore my assertion was that content created with the use of tools created by someone else does not entitle that someone to ownership of my work unless that agreement was reached prior to my purchase of the tools or by other agreement (ie. work product or such).  Trademark d20 issues aside, where does the idea that making adventures (for use with D&D or any other system) requires a license or permission, come from?  If the content is original (no trademarks or copyright settings are used) why can't you sell your own work?  The fact that you lay out your material accor! ! ! ding to rules which you bought and which exist to tell you how to play a certain way and which anyone else can buy, doesn't automatically invalidate your ownnership of your work.  Nor do I see anything (or a similar situation except via a EULA) which dictates you cannot sell your creations.   The problem is that if you subscribe to the theory that no claims can be made against your original work created with a set of rules in mind, then why should you give up the ability to cite compatibility with such rules as you see fit? Publishing scenarios: A. I release into the public domain. B. I release under copyright and trademark laws. C. I release OGC and PI under the OGL. a. Anyone can use or profit from it. b. Anyone can violate and be sued by me, or secure my permission/license. c. Anyone can violate and be sued by me, or secure my permission/license. But under c.a suit only applies if there is a violation to my trademarks and PI (which may or may not have been protectable under copyright and trademark laws, but are now by declaration and contract). Otherwise, the OGC is essentially like public domain and the rest is like B.  OGC is not (basically) public domain only when a violation has occurred and that can only happen in regard to trademarks and PI.  The net effect is that I have gained nothing over A or B except the loss of the ability to freely make compatibility claims myself, restrictrictions on how I may use my own material, restrictions on work released in conjunction with my own work (the magazine case?),  and the power to shelter some things I might not be able to defend otherwise.   So why the OGL? The argument from Wizards are as follows: The OGL places restrictions on the claims of compatibility you can make for works you contribute, but offers a way of protecting various publishers assertions of their IP (by allowing you to restrict the use of your IP in conjunction with material you would otherwise released public domain). We are told this is necessary because of the litigious nature of publishers, but the OGL doesn't prevent violations it only helps to prosecute them. In fact, because of complicated coverage rules the OGL can increase the chances you might violate the license and be sued. The OGL doesn't offer protection from violations of your material nor does it protect you from violating other people's rights but it does restrict your ability to market yourself and reference other people's work fairly. We are also told this is the only way we can legally gain "access" to the publishing market for SRD compatible products because that is the only way those rules will be released.  Which gives us: 1) Having access to a bigger market is a good thing. 2) The largest gamer population plays under the SRD rules. 3) The only way to legally access this market is through the SRD. 4) SRD will only be released under the OGL, so to have access to what the SRD offers you must subscribe to the OGL. Anyone see how this fails as a good line of reasoning to adopt the OGL for your releases? Because the rules as encompassed by the SRD could be "accessed" anyway, making products for them would be legal, and claiming compatibility with them would be legal. Also, if you used the OGL you would lose in some measure the ability to capitalize on the very strength of choosing to adopt the SRD rules in the first place, since you can't make compatibility claims with the larger group of games that share the rules without extra permissions.  Adopting the OGL does not equal automatic access to a lager market, only restricted access.      Wizards has upped the ante by providing a marketing vehicle in the form of the d20STL+G because the OGL on its own is hardly compelling (even with the SRD).  With this you can gain back some marketing power but the restrictions are tightened up and benefit is added to Wizards market position by basically requiring that the PHB be purchased from them (under the d20STL+G version of the SRD).  While this is certainly fine for them and acts as a huge carrot (d20 brand recognition can offset the restrictions) it doesn't justify the OGL for other games. Conclusion, the OGL doesn't work in a vacuum, and under the SRD/d20 scheme it has a solid baseline use only because of the existing market, but for other games or situations (magazines) it is far too restrictive. The system underneath the SRD could probably be the basis of products without using the OGL so it offers dubious benefit there.  Throw in the practical annoyances like including copies and you have another problem. Apparently, the only legal way to have anything to do with the SRD system (and a huge market that Wizards feels they "own" by virtue of being the publisher of the set of rules most used by that market) is to adopt the OGL thereby giving up the ability to say you are compatible with those rules, even though you may be generally compatible with them. You can erase some of this barrier by adopting the d20STL+G which grants some marketability and which signifies compatibility to a more defined SRD system, but you must concede control over some crucial parts of the system to Wizards.   In the end though, I fail to see why anyone should give up rights to claim compatibility for the simple reason that if the  rules are not protected except in specific presentation/expression, and you own your own work created according to those rules, then what gain do you have by publishing under the OGL?  Either way you can still be sued for the same types of problems, namely trademark and copyright violations.  Under it you gain protection only if you don't violate the terms which are even more restrictive so your exposure is greater not less.  Your gain is that you might have an easier time prosecuting your own claims, but you give up some marketability for this. d20/OGL=Yea. OGL+any other game material=Nea. What do you all think? -Alex Silva