-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Faustus von
Goethe
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 1:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Open_Gaming] CALL FOR REVISION TO THE OGL
Greetings All:
I have come to the conclusion that there >IS< a bit of legalese in the OGL
that really needs fixing. My conclusions are based on the following
comment, and on (approximatesly) 60 or so befuddled private mails from
people about product identity.
[SOMEBODY SAID, CONCERNING PI]
>It looks
>to me like *all* of the spell names in the PHB and *all* of the monster
>names in the MM are by default technically off-limits (at least as far as
>they are associated with their stats), since these are all product identity
>under paragraph 1(e) of the OGL, and WotC has not officially (publicly)
>released any of them as "open content".
This is (far and away) the most misunderstood clause of the OGL, and the one
that is causing me (in my FAQ author hat) the most headaches.
In the OGL definition of PI, the lengthy description of what CAN be PI is
stated BEFORE the actual definition of what IS PI, it *really* comes off (on
first reading) that the phrase:
OGL 1(e) - "(e) "Product Identity" means . . . "
is providing a comprehensive DEFINITION of product identity. I.E. Product
Identity is *everything* in ANY work (even a fully open one) that can
possibly be considered:
. . . product and product line names, logos and identifying marks
including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories,
storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents,
language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses,
formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and
other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of
characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas,
likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments,
creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or
effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other
trademark or registered trademark . . ."
Now, as all of us "in the KNOW" are aware - product identity ACTUALLY is
elucidated by the END of that monumental block of gobbldygook, and is summed
up as the material:
. . . clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of
the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the
Open Game Content."
This is causing us NO END of problems. I fully believe that AT LEAST HALF
of the people on the list are under this misconception, and think that still
more people have been driven away by this notion. I believe the license
could very well be slightly changed and add a GREAT DEAL of clarity in the
process. Here is a proposal for a revised OGL 1(e):
(e) "Product Identity" means the parts of an "open" work clearly
identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product
Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content.
The only content that can be so defined as product identity are
product and product line names, logos and identifying marks
including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories,
storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents,
language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses,
formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and
other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of
characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas,
likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments,
creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or
effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other
trademark or registered trademark. No previously open content can
be redefined as Product Identity.
I really think this expresses the intent of the license in a much clearer
and less ambiguous fashion, and will result in SIGNIFICANTLY less confusion
from first-time readers.
Thanks:
Faust
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
