I clearly stated in the header of my original post that it was a rant, so I expected some "you're ignorant" replies - this was an argument made with my heart as much as my head (that's what rant means).
However, it seems that only a couple of people have caught on to what I was alluding to... >>So to say "open the whole spell" is to say "give up >>ownership of the thing you have created." > >Except you didn't create it alone. Your spell, in this context, is >derivative of someone else's work (or at least that's the assumption behind >the OGL). In this case, that work is the d20 SRD. Why should you expect to >be given free use of someone else's hard work made through blood, sweat and >tears if you aren't willing to make the same offer? > >That seems to be the perspective that some people are arguing from when >they say "open the whole spell". And, legally speaking, they have a good >point. WotC hasn't lost D&D by opening up the core mechanics behind it (to >use your words: they haven't "given up ownership of the thing they have >created". Rather, they have given up an aspect of what we consider >"ownership". Specifically, the right to copy and modify that work. I think >that's really what some folks want from those who are essentially riding on >WotCs coat-tails. Give us the same rights that WotC (or any other OGC >contributor) gave you. That is precisely the perspective I am speaking from. I have seen the posts asking me for specific examples of "crippling" OGC designation. I don't like to point fingers (which is why I didn't call out companies in the first place), and so I will use the same company as both a "good" and a "crippling" example to show that I'm not trying to hold out any grudges. ***Good example first: Relics & Rituals (SSS) - the OGC portion of a spell is its mechanical description, and its "game stats" such as Range, Duration, etc. The Non-OGC portions of a spell are its name and its "atmospheric/flavor" description. Does anyone see how this is crippling? First: Let the record reflect that I have NO problem with designating the "atmospheric/flavor" description as something other than OGC (I *do* have a problem with designating it PI, but remember, under the OGL, things can be OGC, PI, or Neither - this is something that IMO should be a Neither or in other words, "copyrighted material"). However, what happens if I am a publisher who wants to use this spell in one of my own published works? For sake of argument, say I want to use the spell BUOYANCY NET. I can tell you what its range, duration, and effects are, but I can't call it by name! I have to just say, "the spell with the following range, duration, and effects" or rename it entirely (to perhaps "FORCE STUFF TO FLOAT"). Ugh! Somebody buys my book, sees R&R in the Section 15, and then tries to figure out why he can't find the spell "FORCE STUFF TO FLOAT" in R&R. BUT Clark was nice enough to provide a separate license for using the spell names - I can use them under certain conditions much like the OGL, and so I actually can use (and republish) BUOYANCY NET in my own publication (so my water-mage NPC can have the spell with its description available and the person who buys the book doesn't have to buy *ANOTHER* book). Would I prefer it 100% OGC? Of course, but this is at least usable. Which is why Clark gets credit for "good" OGC. ***Bad example: Creature Collection (also from SSS). What happens if I want to use a FLESHCRAWLER? Well, his "stat block" is OGC, and his combat abilities are OGC, but his name isn't. Again, I am put in the position of having to either use a nameless creature or rename it entirely (and have people wondering why I credited the Creature Collection in Section 15 when they can't find "UNDEAD TETHER SHOOTING GUY" in the Creature Collection). In this case, Clark has NOT provided a license for using the creature separately, so the Fleshcrawler is rendered completely unusable for all practical purposes to other companies. Does this help straighten out what I mean? Speaking to the issue of "if your lawyer can't understand the OGL, you need a new one" (new lawyer, not new OGL ;-) )... You misunderstood - even I can understand the OGL. The OGL isn't hard... it's some peoples' designation of OGC that is convoluted and hard. If I give my lawyer a highlighter and a book and say, "highlight all of the OGC in this book" he can't always do it because the OGC designation can get horrifically complex, especially when the question is, "is this derived from the SRD or not?" Well, obviously if it's a verbatim cut/paste from the SRD it's a derivative. But what about spell stat blocks (range/duration/etc.)? Is the format of the stat block derived from the SRD? Almost certainly. Does that mean the stat block itself is derived from the SRD? If it uses common SRD terms (e.g., Short Range 25 ft plus 2 ft/level), odds are good that it was, BUT if it uses non-standard terms, (e.g., Range = 4.8 x 10^-17 parsecs) is it derived from the SRD? We can't be sure. That's not good. Make it so simple that I can give a highlighter to a 6-year old and tell him "highlight all the OGC in this book" and he'll be able to do it (assuming he doesn't get bored and decide to go highlight the walls in my house). I have no problem with you keeping your storylines, plots, major NPCs (NOT Bartender #5), and thematic elements to yourself. But, as was so eloquently stated, WotC has opened up and let you use their "generic" stuff like spells, classes, etc. - is it too much to ask for you do do the same? And no, the OGL doesn't let you keep all of your OGC on a website somewhere and not designate what is open in the book. But it would make it completely clear if you made your designation in the book and then had a website with all the stuff as well - then nobody could be confused as to what's what. And as far as the PI issue, people saying, "we need unlimited PI in a work to control all the original content," you missed the point. You don't need to PI all of your original content. You just don't designate it as anything. If it isn't PI and it isn't OGC (and, under the OGL, it is perfectly permissible to publish items that are neither in a work), then it's copyrighted material that can only be used subject to normal copyright terms (e.g., fair use, scholastic discussion, satire, etc. - which, I might point out, people can do with your PI too). PI is just a fancy way of saying, "this is the special stuff that *defines* our work" - again, this is "Faerun" and "Elminster" and "Drow" but is NOT "flaming sword" or "stewed pig meat" (on the menu at an inn). I will speak to the "ownership" of ideas issue in another rant shortly - and it will be long... you have been warned... suffice to say there will be a heavy dose of social and economic theory in that one, but I figure it's better to break this up... --The Sigil _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
