>MCortez wrote-
>
>"Again, if there is a partiular topic other then the OGL/d20 that you
>would like to discuss --- I too wouldn't mind a change in topic every
>now and then, but it requires someone with specific interest in other
>topics to post first..."
>
>I'd like to read what everyone thinks about the "Knotworks Open
>Collaborative Game License" located at
>http://www.ctmiller.net/knotworks/modules.php?
>op=modload&name=News&file=index&catid=12
>
>It seems to have taken the OGL and expanded upon it, clearly defining
>such categories as "Official Content", "Open Content", "Product
>Identity", "Protected Content", "Trademarks", and "Unofficial
>Content"...did they improve on the OGL, or did they make a license even
>MORE complicated? :-)
on the one hand, i don't see the need for another license that's
"just like the WotC OGL, only better". the DRL came first, so that
explains its existence. even if it hadn't it does a different job
that the WotC OGL couldn't do (requiring everything to be open and
tied to Dominion Rules). the Gnu GPL, Gnu FDL, and Open Content
License were all also prior to the WotC OGL, and also all have
different intended purposes, rather than being tailored to RPGs. the
OOGL has different goals (completely open works), so that explains
its existence. but on the other hand, i'm not about to say tha
there's no possible point to a new license. so, what does the
Knotworks Open Collaborative Game License do that none of the above
do? well, it's a bit muddled in its current form, but it looks like
it makes it possible for an author to open up a work for outside
contribution, while retaining some sort of control over the whole via
the designation of "official content". so, is this something you
can't do with one of the existing licenses, and, if so, something of
value?
well, to start with, i don't think the basic concept (lots of
contributors, possibly lots of unofficial versions, one official
version) is something that's hard to do with existing licenses. with
the WotC OGL, you just retain some unlicensed trademarks with which
to label your work and incorporate desirable OGC into your work as it
appears. even with the OOGL, you could do this, again by simply
including some sort of trademarked element in the endorsements
section. now, if you add in the idea of mixing open and closed
content, the OOGL is of course right out. but it still looks like
the WotC OGL would suffice. also, on a cursory glance, it looks like
you *might* even be able to bend the "larger works" provision of the
DRL to this purpose, though it's definitely not intended to do so.
so that leaves us with the specific execution of the Knotworks OCGL.
here's where we get to elements that aren't found in the other
licenses.
in the realm of general improvements, i'm glad to see it be more
explicit than th eWotC OGL about designation of Product Identity and
Protected Content, as well as what exactly those two constitute. but
it's still a bit muddled, with some clauses being clearer than
others. similarly, breaking up the WotC OGL's "Product Identity"
into two differentthings
for some of them, i don't see the point: all of the clauses relating
to consumers seem redundant, granting nothing that the consumer
doesn't already have under normal law without any license whatsoever.
the distinction between "Trademark" and "Product Identity" seems
pointless--simply recognizing that each author retains her own
product identity would seem sufficient, without needing two separate
terms. likewise, there's nothing in the license that says what you
*do* with Official Content. that is, none of the restrictions or
benefits actually relate to it, but instead are stated in terms of
Protected Content or Open Content. the only thing about Official
Content is that the Primary Author may designate or revoke that
status, and that, Official Content may be made Protected--but it
doesn't say that Unofficial Content may not be Protected Content.
there is one thing that the Knotworks OCGL does that none of the
existing ogls do: it gives the original author authority over
subsequent authors' works. not complete authority--it only allows
her to grab Open Content and mess with it. but nonetheless...[now we
get to the value judgement part]. i *really* don't like this.
that's a personal matter. but i also don't think it should be
considered an "open" license, because, even moreso than the potential
to propogate closed material with PI, this allows people to close
*others'* material. i think it would be less misleading to retitle
it the "Knotworks Collaborative Game License". to me, it seems
similar to the problems of the Apple Public Source License and the
Fudge License [as open licenses], in that it gives final authority to
one figure, who has rights that are not mirrored by those of the
other participants. neither WotC nor Dominion games can take someone
else's material released under the WotC OGL or the DRL (respectively)
and incorporate it into one of their works, and then say "sorry, the
rest of you can't use this anymore without permission", which is why
the licenses work--everyone is on an equal footing, as far as the
license is concerned (even if there might be a "big player" on one
side or the other, WRT content released). with the Knotworks
license, this isn't the case. it, IMHO, violates the spirit of open
development, in order to reap the benefits to the original author
(bug-checking and the additional ideas of multiple brains) without
embracing the ideal (give up your content to the common good, with
everyone having equal authority and access).
so, in answer to my original question: yes, it does something that no
other license already does, and, no, this is not something of value
[IMHO]. if you can not handle the concept of completely giving up
your baby, release it under the WotC OGL, retaining some control over
it via PI and closed content. if you can, use the WotC OGL and
designate everything open, or use the DRL or OOGL. if you want
others to contribute to your work to make it better, but you want
control over the final thing (including others' contributions),
you're not really talking about open-content development, so just set
up an organization that says that, and pursue it. that's the way
most RPG books i've looked at are written anyway (primary author, but
lots of other names in the "authors" or "additional writing"
credit)--you don't need a pseudo-open license to do it, just people
who are willing to give up their work to your creative vision, even
though you won't give up your work to theirs.
----
what follows is a more-or-less point-by-point analysis (some stuff is
out of order because of interrelationships) of the Knotworks Open
Collaborative Game License
----
i think it's clearer, though more complicated, than the WotC OGL.
or, rather, i think it would be if better executed. there are
several distinctions they try and make that would help the WotC OGL,
but they fail to do so because of poor grammar or editing, or
conflicting articles. first of all, it's got some errors that may be
just typos or grammatical/editing errors, but that may also be errors
of understanding.
articles 1.7, 1.9, 1.10 seem a bit muddled.
articles 1.2 & 1.3 clearly want to differentiate between those who
are just using existing material, and those who are creating new
derivative material, but then 1.13 just lumps both of those actions
together for the rest of the license.
1.11 is rather muddled. the license doesn't need to define
"trademark", so i'm not sure why it wasn't just included in the
definition of "Product Identity", since this license already
separates "content that is integral to the identity of this product,
whether actually trademarked or not" from "stuff i don't want to give
away" (Protected Content). moreover, it's a bit confusing-- either
there're some serious grammatical issues with that clause, like
missing subjects or conjunctions, or it refers to a person with the
3rd-person neuter pronoun, or it refers to both a person and his or
her work with the 3rd-person neuter pronoun. whatever the case, it's
unclear. oh, and making a distinction between, effectively,
trademarks owned by a Contributing Author and those owned by the
Primary Author is probably unnecessary. that is, both conventional
trademark law, and the Product Identity rules of the license itself
would seem to provide the necessary protection. plus, the few times
that "trademark" is used after the definitions section, it seems to
be referring to it in the conventional sense, rather than the
license's special definition.
6.1 explicitly states that you must identify PI, OC, and Protected
Content. that is very good. a clause like this in the WotC OGL
would've saved a lot of mistunderstandings and arguments. but then
article 4, which is the one that defines how to apply the license,
explicitly says you have to label OC (4.3), but has no mention of the
other two types of special content.
2.2 says you can't alter the license, except as the license itself
designates. 1.5 says that the license consists of this document and
others "by reference". i don't see any mechanisms for modifying the
license, nor of referencing other licenses, so they must be talking
about a scheme like the D20STL, where another license references this
one. which makes article 7.2 a bite confusing: i presume it means
that it's ok if one of those other works alters the behavior of
Protected Content, but using "License" to mean both "The Knotworks
OPen Collaborative Game License" and "The Knotworks Open
Collaborative Game License and any other documents that are
simultaneously invoked in a particular licensing situation" can get
confusing.
7.3 once again needs editing. and, it seems to say that Protected
Content behaves like Invariant Sections in a couple of other licenses
(well, specifically the OOGL, since the Gnu FDL doesn't give you the
option of including or not including invariant sections). but if so,
it is a bit unclear. also as written, it could easily mean that that
you can't make *any* changes to Protected Content--such as breaking
it into two chunks in order to better organize it. i doubt that's
the intent, but the license is pretty absolute.
8.1 is another reference to something the license "may" do, when the
license has no provision for doing any such thing. presumably, again
just giving permission for adjunct licenses to do so, so that no one
will claim that this one forbids it.
now, to the meat of the license--that is, those portions that seem to
be pursuing a different goal than the WotC OGL, rather than just
"fixing" it. 7.1 is the first article to make it clear that the
Primary Author has special powers. it says that to use Protected
content, you need the permission of both the author of the content,
and the Primary Author. it doesn't distinguish between cases where
the Primary Author has something to do with that content and where
she doesn't. all of articles 9 further enumerate the considerable
powers of teh Primary Author. 9.2 & 9.3 allow the Primary Author to
change the status of any Open Content to or from Official Content.
9.4 further allows the Primary Author to designate any Official
Content as Protected Content. and 9.5 allows the Primary Author to
redistribute others' Protected Content without needing any
permission, so long as it is not for profit. 9.4 is the one that
really worries me: it potentially means that A contributes some Open
Content to B's world, B likes it a whole lot and designates it as
Official Content, and then Protected Content. now, nobody can reuse
or alter A's nominally-open content, except with the permission of B
(remember, 7.1 requires the permission of both the original creator
of Protected Content, and the Primary Author, for reuse). the fact
that the Primary Author can redistribute someone else's Protected
Content without permission just compounds this problem.
and i don't see the point of 10.4--is there anything in IP law or
this license that would otherwise prevent that? for that matter, it
gives a false sense of security. by explicitly saying that you may
transfer your rights, in writing, to the Primary Author, it implies
that you can't otherwise do so, when portions of articles 9
explicitly allow the Primary Author to take some of your rights
without any need of your consent.
11.2 says you can only engage in "personal use" of the material, as a
consumer. but "Use" was defined earlier to include "publish...[or]
create derivative works". probably they're making a distinction
based on capitalization, but it seems awkward.
and then we get to article 12.1. what's the point of 2.2 (no
articles may be changed, added, deleted) when 12.1 says that the
Primary Author of a given work can publish an updated version of the
license at any time? which of these takes precedence? or is it
another case of the confusion of what constitutes the License? it
may be that they intend the Knotworks OCGL to be inviolate, but
almost always paired with an additional license, specific to the
world being released, and that it is only this other license that may
be altered at any time. but it's not at all clear.
13.1 should probably have "Open Content or Product Identity" in both
places, instead of just "Open Content" and then "Open Content and/or
Product Identity".
oh, and an issue of presentation: it would be much clearer if either
the full article number was spelled out at all points ("7.1", not
just ".1" for the first subarticle of article 7), or they alternated
letters and numbers, as in standard outline style.
on the upside, it is explicit that Product Identity, as well as Open
Content, are covered by the license.
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.home.net/woodelph/
If any religion is right, maybe they all have to be right. Maybe God
doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them.
--Sinclair
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
