whooohoo.. I found my way to make my fortune on d20 and never actually have
to make a single product.. I will just hunt for violations, then 'mock up'
something based on the violation, leak it to the party who actually is
protected, let them threaten me, and then sue the guy who didn't know
better.. Man, this is gonna be easy.
<grin>
-R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Faustus von Goethe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] I'm Game
> >Heh, the important things to note in the message below are:
> >a) Faust wins.. again.
>
> I could only wish - although the prospect of suing Doug for his $0.37
sounds
> rather appetizing.
>
> ACTUALLY, here is what is on my mind most of all lately, and this
> conversation keeps reminding me of it:
>
> >So it becomes sue-your-pants-off when you have been notified of a
violation
> >and failed to correct it in 30 days.
>
> [FAUST REPLIES]
> Not just. My particular IP attorney assures me that "Downstream
Liability"
> is where "sue-your-pants-off" becomes a very real possibility in Open
> Gaming.
>
> This is the one significant risk that the license does not (cannot?) cover
> effectively and still retain the PI concept. This risk is what I have
heard
> to referred to as the "downstream liability" risk of publishing previously
> "opened" material. The situation could arise like this:
>
> 1. Party A writes an OGL document with a large part of it
> PI (copyright work).
> 2. Party B mistakenly publishes the entire work as "open".
> 3. Party C sees Party B's work, and writes and PUBLISHES
> a game based on the "mistakenly" open content.
> 4. Party A informs party C they cannot use the content,
> but too late - Party C has already spent $50,000 printing
> up their work. Way too late, because now they CAN'T publish
> and the $50 grand is wasted - GONE.
>
> This scenario leaves Party B clearly legally liable for Party C's $50
grand
> - even though all they did was pass on work they believed to be open. It
> might have been an honest mistake, or a late night printing blunder, but
> they are still liable.
>
> Now considering the obvious lack of understanding on MANY persons
concerning
> what PI is and how to use it, this situation is not only plausible, it is
> LIKELY that just this will happen before too long. This risk is also the
> crux of the reason why PI works to completely discourage ANY but
> professional gaming companies from truly embracing the "semi-open" nature
of
> the OGL.
>
> This is also EXACTLY the fundamental difference between "Free Software"
and
> "Open" Gaming. There IS NO "downstream liability" risk in Free Software
> (yes, free as in beer), because ALL of an open software work is (by
> definition) open - no PI.
>
> THE CONCLUSION: What we have (in the OGL) is a license that fundamentally
> only serves the needs of professional developers. It does not provide
> anything (except more products to buy) for the hobbyist.
>
> Not that that is a bad thing, but it certainly leaves something to be
> desired for the 99.9% of the "Gaming Community" that the "Open Gaming
> Foundation" is ostensibly supposed to represent.
>
> So, an open (sic) question: Have we LOST SIGHT of the FAN community here,
> or should we even be considering them?
>
> IMO the whole crux of this discussion can be summed up in that question:
>
> "Should the Open Gaming Foundation" concern itself with the
> needs of the FAN community?"
>
> Comments?
>
> Faust
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Grok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >Heh, the important things to note in the message below are:
> >a) Faust wins.. again.
> >b) Snow Apes apparently have a secret power of 'Initiate Litigation' that
> >was missed in the Creature Collection..
> >
> >Clark, will the webpage have the correct powers for Snow Apes soon?
> >
> >::reseting the bear trap in the chimney::
> >-R
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "LaPierre, Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 2:46 PM
> >Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] I'm Game
> >
> >
> > > "agreeing not to hold advice-givers liable" OK everyone this is _just
> >an
> > > example_ I don't think anyone on this list would do this but
eventually
> > > there will be other developers.
> > >
> > > 1) Doug wants to create a world using "Free20" and the OGL and "d20".
> > > 2) He decides that the northern reaches of his world has "Snow Apes".
> > > 3) Clark misses the email asking for permission.
> > > 4) Doug complains he doesn't have an answer.
> > > 5) Martin says "Clark is reasonable, go ahead and use it. He said on
the
> > > list that people can use the names as long as the description and
stats
> >are
> > > kept the same."
> > > 6) Clark missed the email because Faust was buying SSS and they were
> > > celebrating.
> > > 7) Faust sees his IP on a website with 50,000 hits a day.
> > > 8) Faust is upset because with all the info already created by
visitors
> >and
> > > added to the site, he has to scrap his plans to do "The ecology of the
> >Snow
> > > Ape".
> > > 9) He goes after Doug.
> > > 10) Doug says "I've only got $0.37, but you can have it."
> > > 11) Doug's lawyer says "Martin duped my client!"
> > > 12) Doug is found guilty anyway.
> > > 13) Since Doug didn't have anything, Faust goes after Martin. Faust
> >wasn't
> >a
> > > party to the "Free20" agreement.
> > > 14) Martin is partially culpable.
> > >
> > > Now as to having a plain english version: we had that argument most of
> >the
> > > last two weeks, I don't want to open it again.
> > > Bob
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Doug Meerschaert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >
> > > >2) Even with your proposed add-on _you still need to comply with the
> >OGL_,
> > > >just because you aren't doing it for profit doesn't mean you can't be
> > > >involved in legal problems. With or without your add-on.
> > >
> > >
> > > *OF COURSE* we need to use the OGL. But what Free20 would do is
provide
> >a
> > > consistent entity--see the "Free20" message. That "agreeing to not
hold
> > > advice-givers liable" is important.
> > >
> > > I don't know how LEGAL it is, but it's just a draft.
> > >
> > > >No-one on this list is saying "don't do it". We are saying that
unless
> >you
> > > >are 100% certain of your interpetation of the OGL then you need to
get
> > > >competent legal advice. The people on this list can't risk giving
legal
> > > >advice. And none of us want to see you lose everything.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bob, even Ryan needed legal advice on the OGL. And, even *with*
> >lawyers,
> > > people have messed up.
> > >
> > > What if, somehow, we *could* give advice on d20 without always saying
> >"I'm
> > > not a lawyer." What if there *was* a plain english document that
anyone
> >who
> > > can read the SRD could read, follow, and not have to worry about
getting
> > > sued? Free legal advice doesn't make any sense between one business
and
> > > another--but it makes PLENTY of sense for fans and individuals who
don't
> > > stand to profit from the OGL but still want to contribute.
> > >
> > >
> > > DM
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ogf-l mailing list
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
> > >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ogf-l mailing list
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ogf-l mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
>
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
