> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bryce
> Harrington
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 2:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Let's Pause, and Take a Deep Breath...
>
>
> 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."
Put PI is a side issue in this regard. "Product Identity" and "closed
content" do not mean the same thing. "Product Identity" means content which
has been explicitly declared closed, even if it happens to appear in a
context which might otherwise imply that it is open. You can have closed
content which is not Product Identity, as long as you do not mix it within
your open content.
> > 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.
Yes. But I hope the remarks above clear up the confusion.
> 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.
The OGF has no right to make any claims about rights to use Intellectual
Property belonging to Wizards.
> Well, the insistance that one must consult a lawyer is a big indicator.
It's not insistence; it's advice. You don't have to follow it; but if you do
not and suffer consequences, don't say you weren't warned.
> 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.
Somebody must pay the price for reuse of OGC. The producers have already
paid a price to produce it, and a further price to release it. Should they
choose, they can even pay the price to make it easily reproduced. But for
the most part, the onus os on you to bear the full costs of reproducing the
material.
> 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. ;-)
May I respectfully suggest that you are interpreting it too narrowly? There
are no legal restrictions that prevent you from modifying or distributing
OGC. The fact that you must pay time or money on the effort in doing so is
not a legal concern.
> 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. ;-)
Please be careful. Smiley notwithstanding, this is a slap in the face to
Wizards, Ryan, and the Open Game contributors who have freely shared their
works with the world. There is nothing "illegitimate" about it, and you have
no shackles.
Martin L. Shoemaker
Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com
http://www.UMLBootCamp.com
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
