> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of woodelf > (lists) > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 1:36 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] multiple licenses > > i could find numerous other examples. i'd say that this is "the same > material". the D20SRD as a whole may be best thought of as > derivative of the 3E books, but huge chunks of the text are the same > exact material, with little more than "you" replaced with "the > character"--hardly a significant change. but i'll accept that we > just have different ideas of what consitutes "the same" vs. > "derivative" (and, probably, of the line between "derivative" and > "fair use", too), chalk it up to a semantic point, and move on.
Fair enough. But actually, my idea on the line between "derivative" and "fair use" is that I'm too ignorant to have a valid opinion, and have no clue whatsoever that your opinion is wrong (or right, for that matter). That issue is exactly the sort of briar patch where I want Brer Lawyer on my side. I have no clue how a court would rule on a given case. In fact, being rather literal minded, I see it that fair use IS derivative, just a derivative that's allowed for the purposes of discussing and contemplating and satirizing the ideas. It's important that commentators be able to highlight the key points of good works and poke holes in the key points of bad works, so that free speech can be more than just free, but a means to improve the general body of knowledge. In this way, fair use promotes the same core values as open development. > >> Example 2: every time you release a work with the WOGL, you are in > >> fact resting the strength of the WOGL on the strength of copyright > >> and trademark: it is the legally-tested weight of these laws that > >> enables you to enforce the WOGL, by threatening to invoke them should > > > someone choose not to comply with the WOGL. So, effectively, you > >> must license any WOGLed work doubly, once under copyright (where the > >> "license" comes in the form of fair use and the ability of someone to > >> reuse the content provided they change the expression), and once > >> under the WOGL. > > > >Sorry, but I dislike using legal terms to mean what they do not. A copyright > >is not a license. Despite that, your point seems right so far to me: > >copyright protects certain rights for the author, and allows certain uses by > >others; while the OGL grants certain additional rights for reuse by > >licensees. > > 10 hours ago, i would've agreed with you. then i read Sandy Antunes > excellent article on open licenses, copyright, and sharing of game systems (at > <http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/open02nov01.html>). now i'm > not so certain; he makes a compelling argument that copyright > implicitly contains a license: by proscribing certain actions, it > implicitly allows others, thus giving one license to undertake them. Good article! I encourage all to check it out. And I guess if you put the quotation marks around "license", I'm not too bothered. Copyright permits uses, and licenses permit uses, so there is some similarity. But legally, the two mean very different things. > >I think you've raised some fascinating questions. But I'm left with one > >more: why? I'm not seeing any benefit in the extra work. > > to increase the potential pool of re-users. i'm actually looking at > it from the other way 'round: can i release something that i really > want to release under another license simultaneously with the D20 > license, so that the D20 enthusiasts can make use of it, and thus > increase its circulation? You have persuaded me that this should be possible. I'd like to see it done to be sure. And I'd like a lawyer's opinion, for certain. > or, let's say that i stumble across some > cool stuff that i want to combine in a further work, but some of it > has been released under the Gnu FDL, some under the OOGL, and some > under the WOGL. if i can persuade the authors of two of the works to > rerelease their work under the 3rd license, then i don't have to deal > with the near-impossibility of combining other work with WOGLed or > OOGLed work. VERY good reason for the question, I think: get everything under a common license, if possible, and your reuse becomes a lot easier. 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
