Dang.. back to the drawing board..
Good thing I actually wanted to make games instead of spending day after day
in court.
-R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Faustus von Goethe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] I'm Game
> >From: "Grok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >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.
>
> Nope. Sorry. You would only be entitled to actual damages, so you would
> have to PRINT a product, then actually lose money & you would (at best)
just
> break even.
>
>
>
> ><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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
