[Kyle Said]
>What is your motivation for limiting the PROFIT making potential of your
>work or the derivatives of your work, whether it is D20, Free20, or
>whatever?
>
>Just wondering,
That is just one possibility. It arises out of two realities:
1. If there is no PI or trademark AT ALL in a document, the profit motive in
production seriously dwindles. Anyone can take your entire document, post
it on the net and give it away for free.
2. FAN's seem to become very irate when they have it shoved in their faces
that their work can be included in a partially closed document and sold for
a profit.
I am very much still looking for comments on this. In practice, the license
could just say:
No document bearing the "Free20" trademark can have any content
designated as PI.
In practice, there would be nothing LEGAL stopping a producer from taking
"Free20" works and publishing them for profit, BUT in practice they would be
absolute fools to do it. They would essentially be "buying" bunches of risk
that some part of the contributed "free20" work had been mistakenly "opened"
at some remote time in the past. they would have to be very VERY dumb.
Free20 would say "hands off" to professional developer in a big way, but
would basically say "go ahead and use me, copy me, and imporove me" to the
hobbyists and fans.
I think the important part of this is psychological - to provide an
OGL-supported ALTERNATIVE to the OGL/D20 for the fans to use. Up to now,
the FANS who have come on the board wanting to make FAN works have basically
been told "either hire a lawyer or go away".
I think it would be better if we were able to say "Hey, what YOU want is the
'Free20' list. It is located here _____."
Faust
>From: "Kyle Rode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Faustus von Goethe,
>
>What is your motivation for limiting the PROFIT making potential of your
>work or the derivatives of your work, whether it is D20, Free20, or
>whatever?
>
>Just wondering,
>
>Kyle Rode
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Faustus von Goethe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > Free20 would be a Use license - just like D20. It would be contingent
>on
> > the OGL, just like D20, and it would grant the right to use the Free20
>Logo,
> > just like D20 does.
> >
> > It would have provisions also, that limited both the PI and the PROFIT
> > motive. In short these provisions would be structured to create a "safe
> > harbor" for contributors of content that they wanted to make "open" but
>that
> > do not want to become part of a partially closed, produced-for-profit,
>work.
> >
> > A "Fan-Only" version of D20?
> >
> > Faust
> >
> >
> > >From: Bryce Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] I'm Game
> > >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
> > >
> > >On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Faustus von Goethe wrote:
> > >
> > > > >From: Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >
> > > > >No one is trying to scare people. But when you write:
> > > > >
> > > > >"my meaning was not that a hobbyist *will* get more,
> > > > >but that the hobbyist *may be* less likely to face
> > > > >formal litigation."
> > > > >
> > > > >That is dangerous. It is totally untrue legally as
> > > > >well as practically.
> > > >
> > > > If you make the "FreeD20" license as we (at least >I<) have been
> > >discussing
> > > > it, then there would be much less likelihood of monetary damages.
> > >Making it
> > > > ALL OGL and ALL FREE effectively eliminates the downstream
>liability
> > >issue
> > > > - since "Party C" would never have SPENT the $50 grand in the first
> > >place.
> > > >
> > > > "FreeD20"
> > > > "SandboxD20"
> > > > "FAND20"
> > > > "FAN20"
> > > > "FAN-D-20"
> > > >
> > > > Hmmmm......
> > >
> > >I like the 'Free20' term, as it doesn't contain the sub-part 'D20',
> > >which WOTC might object to being used, even in this context.
> > >
> > >But, I'm a bit confused as to whether the Free20 is a license, like the
> > >OGL, or is a trademark or servicemark or something? If it isn't a
> > >license, would a new license separate from the OGL be needed? If so,
>is
> > >it legal for us to derive a license from the OGL since it is
>copyrighted
> > >with all rights reserved (including modification) by WOTC?
> > >
> > >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >Bryce Harrington bryce @ neptune.net bryceharrington @ yahoo.com
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >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
