On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, The Sigil wrote: > An understanding of the way the Permission Agreement works is fundamental to > determination of the answer. The entire point of the post was to describe > the process used in publication of work by a submitter.
For you, I understand that the Permission agreement is crucial for providing an answer. As presented on this list, the question was a generic question about combining copyright notices, so that's how I responded. Your explanation of the Permission Agreement clears up a lot about your answer that was re-posted here. > >The OGL requires you use the exact text of the copyright notice of all the > >works you borrow/derive from. It's generally accepted that you needn't do > >multiples of the same - since technically even without including the > >duplicates you are include exact text of each copyright notice. It's just > >that some items, most likely the SRD notice, are counting for more than > >one item you've borrowed from. > > Precisely. If the FaNCC printed everything for the first time, anyone who > tried to borrow stuff from their documents would have a VERY unwieldly and > mostly useless Section 15. This is why the FaNCC RE-publishes what can be > thought of as a "collection" of many other, smaller OGC documents. That > allows others to reference the "small" original document instead of the > "big" one. OK, but technically if the only thing a person has access to is the "collection" that is what they need to include in their Section 15. Why? Because they have no way of knowing with certainty that they have accurately followed the terms of the license. So while I understand the purpose behind what you are attempting to do, I don't think it's in compliance with the OGL. > >Now as for the part of the response about addendums. First, the copyright > >notice only needs to be included in material published under the OGL. So > >if you are merely contributing to a product, you should accurately list > >all the copyright notices of products you've borrowed/derived from and > >then the editor of the product should do the work of removing any multiple > >notices that result from multiple submissions relying on the same sources. > > True. But take a look at the Section 15 of the Netbook of Feats, for > instance - it is about a PAGE long. Now consider the poor sap who tries to > combine portions of SEVERAL Netbooks, each with a Section 15 as long as the > Netbook of Feats. It renders everything in the Netbooks basically unusable > for the sheer amount of "waste text" they would generate. Hence, the > Netbooks are not "first instance" documents, but instead a second-generation > collection of many micro-documents. This saves you the trouble of having to > do this. Only if you can actually access the "first instance" documents. If all I have available to me is the Netbook(s), the OGL requires that I use the copyright notice from the Netbook(s). > >The one comment I really didn't understand was this: > > > >>a new part. It works in much the > >>same way that errata becomes part of > >>the original single work. You don't > >>need to list (1) SRD and (2) errata > >>for SRD published on <date>. Just > >>the SRD. Note also that the errata > >>does not have to reprint the entire > >>SRD, but rather just says, "add or > >>replace these pieces." > > > >This is completely wrong. First off there is no errata for the SRD. Nor > >should there ever be one. If/when errata are discovered, Wizards should > >simply correct the SRD. That's the advantage of the official SRD being an > >online document. If an errata sheet were published under the OGL, it > >would need to list the SRD in section 15 (since the errata is clearly > >derivative of the SRD) and anyone using the errata would then need to list > >both the errata and the SRD in their section 15. > > I used the SRD as an example because it the most widely available example of > an OGC work. Let me instead use another example. Suppose I publish (in > hard copy form) a book, "My Book of OGC Stuff" this month. I notice that > something is wrong or missing, so I issue errata on my website in Feb 2002. > When you want to use my work, you don't have to include a reference to both > my original book and my errata - just my original book because errata is, by > nature, assumed to be part of the book. In a similar way, if I want to > publish another Chapter and say, "this is now considered a part of My Book > of OGC Stuff" then the Section 15 reference is still for the "My Book of OGC > Stuff" and does not also need a reference to "the Extra Chapter of My Book > of OGC Stuff". I'm sorry but this is still wrong. Errata are covered by their own copyright. While they may become part of the book in terms of correcting/replacing material within the book, they are not covered under the copyright of the book unless they are actually included in the book. In your example above, the errata on the web site would need to include the OGL and anyone using material from the errata would need to include it in their Section 15. Realize that many people who purchase books are never aware of errata - you actually want to cite the errata to be clear that there was a change in the book. > >But if you're just submitting things to be published by someone else, > >you're not actually publishing under the OGL yourself. You need to > >provide the publisher with all the information to comply with the OGL, but > >you really don't have to worry completely about form. So a submitter > >could combine the copyright notice information, but the actual publisher > >needs to make sure they are in compliance with the OGL by including the > >exact text of any OGC that is being copied, modified or distributed as > >well as updating the notice to include the title, date & copyright holder > >of any new OGC contributed. > > Your statement here implies that you don't understand the Permission > Agreement process (which, since I didn't explain it here until this post, is > in many ways expected). As I mentioned, the Submitter *IS* publishing under > the OGL himself. He publishes everything 100% OGC so that the FaNCC can > RE-publish it in a nice collection. His original "publication" is done by > e-mail. My guess is that most IP attorneys will tell you that publishing > electronically (e-mail, website, .doc file, or otherwise) is just as valid > as publishing to paper. True, but if it's published so only you see it, no one else can use just that material. They are relying upon the Netbook as their source of OGC and therefore *must* use the the Netbooks copyright notice. I understand what you're trying to do, but this isn't going to work. Under the OGL, a publisher must use the copyright notice of the source they reference. They cannot reference a source prior to the source they use and cut out their direct source because they believe (or even have been assured) that all the material the are using comes from this specific prior source. > I enocurage anyone who wishes to get involved in the discussion to check out > the Permission Agreement on the http://www.dndcommunitycouncil.org site, > read it, and try to understand the ramifications of how it works before > attempting to answer this question - not because I think you're stupid but > because the PA process is a VERY different process from the normal > "commercial" publishing process (like what Clark at SSS uses). > > Basically, consider that the FaNCC is a VERY unusual case because what they > are doing is very much different from a commercial publisher - they are > trying to do Netbooks under the OGL as a non-profit fan club. The FaNCC > tries to do everything legally, but the reason that members pay attention on > forums such as these is that this is all volunteer, spare-time, grassroots > stuff and can't afford to hire lawyers. This is not a company or > corporation, but instead a fan group trying to work within the framework of > the OGL. As such, they will have very different ideas about how to get > things done in a manner that meets their goals ("freely adding to the amount > of OGC out there" rather than "publish d20 stuff for fame and profit" - not > that there's anything wrong with the latter, but it just isn't the FaNCC's > goal). And I'm all for that, but unless the prior material (what you call "first instance" publication) can be accessed by those wanting to use it, people using your Netbooks are going to need to include the full copyright notice of the Netbook. The Netbook is their source of OGC material - they've never seen the "first instance" you speak of. This is exactly the same for commerical publishers. If I want to use the Sailor class from the Sovereign Stone Campaign Sourcebook, which originated in work I don't have (Dragon Lords of Melnibone) I can't just assume that the correct attribution would be to simply take SSCS's Section 15 but leave off SSCS's own copyright notice. I either must use the entire SSCS Section 15 or go get DLofM. What you're doing is fine for FaNCC & the Netbooks, but it really does nothing for those who wish to use or develop from the Netbooks. Sure, we could all just do a wink-wink, nudge-nudge and pretending that everyone using material from a Netbook is actually going back to the "first instance" publication, but eventually there's likely to be someone who ends up in trouble. Why not just make the individual entries available separately on a web site? That way each is published individually for those who want to use the OGC in their own work as well as having the entire Netbook available for those who want the entire thing for their own games. alec (the guy with a law degree who isn't an attorney) _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
