On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Ryan S. Dancey wrote:
> > Since PI is such a key selling point for the OGF
>
> Sorry - you lost me there.
FAQ # A.05
"According to Mr. Dancey... the GNU Documentation License
does not allow for documents that are part free and part copyright.
This is a key concept that the Open Gaming Foundation believes to be
critical to the success of this effort."
> The OGF could care less about PI. From the perspective of the OGF, the OGF
> would be happy if PI just went away an stopped distracting people from the
> purity of 100% Open Game Content.
Heh, then you get into circular logic with the "Why not use the GNU FDL"
again. It really appears to me, as an outsider, that the OGF is all
about balancing between preserving IP while still being able to share
a little bit among commercial game producers.
> Remember: Product Identity is what pubishers say it is. I did not tell you
> that you should consider all the content in published D&D books to be
> Product Identity. I said you should consider it to be copyright and
> trademarked unless your lawyer tells you otherwise.
Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong, but... Isn't the purpose of the OGL
to help me *avoid* running afoul of copyright law? Now, I don't think
people plan to actually use or derive directly from D&D materials, since
they are (ironically) not OGL documents, however they contain a lot of
copyrighted/trademarked/PI/IP/whatever terms that would be dangerous to
make reuse of, whether commercially or not. I'm sorry, but this really
seems like a key service I would liked to have seen from the OGF and am
severely disappointed to learn that it doesn't actually help in this
regard.
> > Finally, is it correct to say that the OGF is interested *only* in
> > promoting non-fan, non-hobby game developers?
>
> I don't know why you'd think so.
Well, the insistance that one must consult a lawyer is a big indicator.
Most fan/hobby game developers don't have lawyers. So that subtly
implies, "Go away unless you have a lawyer." Also, the remark that
scanning in and OCR'ing a product is "effectively cost-less" is
certainly true for a businessperson, but Joe Average that is doing this
development strictly as a hobby, it poses a disincentive for him to even
bother.
Anyway, I'm not trying to make a point... I just wanted to test how
ameniable the OGF is to non-corporate participation in development. I
see that "freely modifiable and distributable" is interpreted fairly
broadly here. ;-)
Hehe, it's kinda interesting to see how the legalese nicely meshes to
make it seem like on the surface this is a legitimate free game thing,
based on the GNU principles, yet as you dig down, it really appears to
be little different than the standard commercial approach. Like getting
the key to your shackles and being able to move about your cell freely. ;-)
> > What would your advice to them be, given that they most likely lack
> > the ability or desire to seek out legal advice?
>
> Use the contents of the SRD, which is 100% Open Game Content, and avoid the
> rest of the D&D content.
>
> The SRD is a living document. Over time, it will grow to encompass more
> than just the core 3e rulebooks. Like all living things, that growth will
> take time, consume resources, have ocassional setbacks, and will require
> attention and love to flourish.
Do you envision that this living document will include PI material or
will it be strictly non-PI? If the latter, then who will produce the
non-PI'd material? Are the D&D products scheduled to be released under
this? Or 3rd party materials? Or should we expect hobbists to provide
them?
Sorry for so many questions... I'm trying to get a grapple about what
the OGF and its community actually provides and will provide in the
future. I'm finding it difficult to get my hands around it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Harrington bryce @ neptune.net bryceharrington @ yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
