> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rogers
> Cadenhead
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 11:47 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Open_Gaming] Plain Engrish License
>
>
> At 04:10 AM 3/30/2001 -0500, "Martin L. Shoemaker"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ah, but the questions of the form, "I'm new here. Can I...?" demand the
> >obligatory advice to seek counsel, just so the new folks understand this
is
> >serious business.
>
> All that accomplished was to scare off a new list member who had some of
the
> same misconceptions many of us did about this being an open-source
> movement instead of a D&D developer's network.
He wasn't scared off. He left in a snit with his smug, superior attitude
intact and his prejudices unmoved, despite very polite efforts by folks to
explain why his misconceptions -- though understandable -- were not
realistic from a legal perspective. I say good riddance: not because I don't
want to hear his ideas -- I do, the community benefits from every new
viewpoint -- but because he continued to be smug and superior when he was
treated mostly with politeness and open-mindedness. I suspect there are a
lot of people on this list who share his perspective; but they don't take
every opportunity to point out how the rest of us are either craven cowards
or litigious monsters.
And remember: we used Plain English to explain our points to him, and he
used Plain English to say that he didn't see our points at all; but we
failed to communicate. That by itself proves the point: Plain English
doesn't communicate precisely.
And frankly, some people need to be scared: not scared off, but scared
enough to enter into this with their eyes wide open. The sooner they shake
their misconceptions, the less risk they will incur unintentionally.
> I think the people who need legal advice before using the OGL and D20
already
> know that, because they have been publishing and dealing with intellectual
property
> issues independent of OGL/D20.
I respectfully disagree. The questions that are raised prove that new people
are coming along all the time: new people who need the basic situation laid
out anew, to judge by their questions. And Basic Situation 1 is: if your
work has any value and you want to protect it, your single best move is to
consult a competent attorney; and if you want to use the works of others and
be absolutely certain you have no legal liabilities, your single best move
is to consult a competent attorney.
> As for the rest of us -- small publishers, web-only hobbyists and the
like -- if we
> make a good faith effort to comply with the license, I don't think we're
risking a lot
> by leaving lawyers out of the mix. (We're certainly risking less than the
companies
> that are already publishing OGL/D20 material without a final draft of the
licenses --
> behavior that can't be thrilling their lawyers.)
And you are welcome to take that risk if you want. I have. But that doesn't
make it responsible to advise others to take that risk. The responsible
thing is to advise them first off that there are legal ramifications here
that only their attorney can advise them on. THEN answer their questions to
the best of your understanding.
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
