> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 9:17 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] Plain Engrish License
>
>
>
> Okay, is it just me, or does it seem that litigation is the second most
> commonly used term on this list? OGL, then litigation, then d20, then the
> rest of the Queen's English.
I fear it's just you. Your anti-lawyer bias is making you hypersensitive to
the term. The only time "litigation" becomes a prominent term is when
someone needs to have very careful "Plain English" explanations that these
are legal licenses with legal ramifications.
> Has the RPG industry become
> so completely and totally saturated by the will to sue the crap out of
> anyone that tries to make a buck? We're all here quaking in our boots
> waiting for the axe to fall, or are lording over the other companies of
the
> world, waiting to swing the axe?
No, not unless you choose to see it that way. The OGL is all about opening
up valuable intellectual properties so that litigation will not be an issue.
But that means there must be rules for avoiding litigation while still
protecting the rights of creators. And that means those that do not follow
the rules ARE at increased risk of litigation, relatively speaking.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Open
> Sourcing supposed to be about eliminating the need for endless legal
> wrangling?
Sorry, but you are wrong: Open Gaming is not Open Source. Please rid
yourself of that misconception. They are very different business models.
Open Source functions as a business model by way of back-end payments for
value-added services. In Open Gaming, there are as yet no proven viable
back-end value-added services (not until that grand day when Gamemasters can
charge for their services). So the business model must ensure revenue for
creators on the front end.
> Information Is Free (or is that Fee?) and all that
> jazz?
Information is never free. Don't believe that myth. Information is one of
the costliest commodities on the planet, requiring the use of our most
powerful tools: our brains. NO information arises free from the air. It ALL
requires human effort. And that means it has value, and must be purchased
with value. Now value can mean many things beyond money: self satisfaction,
accolades from the community, etc. But "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free
Lunch" is still true, in Open Source and in Open Gaming. SOMEBODY is paying
for the information.
> And if
> that isn't what the OGL is about, WotC's intentions aside, then I guess I
> may as well sign off this list, because I want no part of it.
If you must leave, I wish you well in your journeys. That's definitely NOT
what OGL is about. You have been misinformed.
But stick around. Just because there are rules here doesn't mean there's not
lots of fun and lots of opportunities!
> > There's a reason technical language evolved -- it's unambiguous, at
> > least as far as the courts are concerned (well, up to a point).
>
> Yes, so that a select crowd of individuals, i.e. lawyers, could make their
> living interpreting the law for the likes of you and me. Thank you, oh
> great Lawyers of the World, for charging me the equivalent of 1/4 of a
press
> run to de-Babelize the complex intricacies of a 1-page document.
You are welcome to assume the risks yourself and not consult a lawyer. As
Justice Blackmun said, "If there is any truth to the old proverb that 'one
who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client,' the Court � now bestows a
constitutional right on one to make a fool of himself."
But it is lousy for any of us to mislead any newcomers about the legal
seriousness of this endeavor.
> What crap.
> I can write a technical manual (and do!) for software that analyzes the IR
> spectra of chemical samples so that a kid with a high-school diploma can
run
> the machine and the software with maybe 8 hours of training.
This is a poor analogy. Now write the manual for building the machine. Write
the design specs for the software. And write them both in Plain English in
such a way that the same kid can implement them. Heck, write them both in
Plain English in such a way that a skilled professional can implement them.
I don't believe you can write the instructions for building a spectroscope
or for writing its software without getting deep into jargon.
The OGL, the STL, and the SRD are not about playing the games. They're about
creating the games. That's a world of difference.
(I'll also bet, based on my experience with technical manuals, that you had
to have a glossary of some kind to explain the jargon to that kid...)
> But when it
> comes to the OGL, let's make sure it's as obscure as possible, because
hey!
> I might be able to one day use the OGL to knock the crap out of some
> would-be competitors who try and eke a living out the RPG market using my
> system. Hooray!
No. Let's make it as legally precise as possible so that, as long as I
comply with it, there is no way my competitors will be able to knock the
crap out of me for trying to eke a living out of the RPG market using parts
of their system. Hooray!
Oh, and don't count on ekeing a living out of the RPG market. Some will, but
many won't. I'll bet most D20 producers are nowhere close to quitting their
day jobs. If you're writing tech manuals, you're probably making more than
you'll make in RPGs for a long time. If you're also writing the software,
I'll virtually guarantee it (unless you're a very successful RPG publisher
or a very underpaid programmer). That shouldn't discourage you: if you have
talent and drive, you can beat the odds. But anyone with visions of riches
has yet another hard lesson to learn.
> Horsehockey, son. Just like a tech manual for a piece of hardware or
> software - a tech manual for the OGL can be written.
But IT WILL NOT HAVE PRECISE, DEFENSIBLE LEGAL MEANINGS. The OGL itself
does. If you want a "Plain English tech manual" for the OGL, read the Q&A at
the end of the license (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html), as
was suggested. That's a good start. But the Q&A is not legally binding, nor
is your nor my unique interpretation of it. The OGL itself is.
And again, you are welcome to create your own Plain English license if you
like, and promote its use on this list. And in fact, if the license meets
the OGF's criteria for an Open Game license:
1. The license must allow game rules and materials that use game rules to be
freely copied, modified and distributed.
2. The license must ensure that material distributed using the license
cannot have those permissions restricted in the future.
then the Foundation (i.e., Ryan Dancey) will likely add your license to
their list of Known Open Gaming Licenses
(http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/licenses.html). If that's not open
enough for you, then I don't know that any license would satisfy you.
> And thank you for mocking and marginalizing my concerns.
>
> Bravo.
* "crap"
* "the abolition of the lawyer class in America"
* "Open Your Games but Watch Your Ass?"
* "host of priests"
* "chicken entrails"
When you open with mockery and with marginalization of the legal issues, you
should expect a little of the same in response. For the most part, people
responded mildly, not mockingly. Lizard has a bit of an "in your face"
persona, so it's not surprising he responded in kind.
Martin L. Shoemaker
Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com
http://www.UMLBootCamp.com
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
