On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, Richard Stewart wrote: > Ok let me clarify... > > The OGL is simply, an Open Game License that allows ANY mechanic to be > included...and used in open environment when released under said license. > Sanguine Productions Ltd. could, as an example, release all or some its > Polyhedral System if we so wished to the OGL and make all our books OGC or > at least the mechanics of the book open. Something I personally support. > > That is FACT. I do not think we disagreeing about this and I am sorry if > more use of terminology has clouded this issue. > > What we are disagreeing about is what has manifested and that is a WIDE > range of products based on the SRD. They are almost ALL derivatives of the > SRD whether they actually include the material contained within it. The > same could be true for anything D20.
So? What's your point? So far most of the peope who have used the OGL have published material based upon the SRD? If that's your point, it has no relevance to whether or not the OGL can be used for other things. And practically by definition anything published under the D20STL is going to be based on the SRD (or face angry customers). > My point on mechanics is one that a lot seem to share (though maybe not so > many on this list). While there have been a FEW token exceptions to what > has been released and the LACK of relationship to the SRD and/or D20 (which > falls back on the OGL anyways) a majority use the SRD and D20 compatible > mechanics. People just assume that OGL means this...and it simply does NOT. Well, these people are then doing what most people do when they assume aren't they. But I'd be surprised if most purchasers are even aware of the OGL. I'd be willing to bet they are more cognizant of the D20 logo and what that means. That's also one of the reasons for there NOT being a logo that simply means "published under the OGL" -- such a logo has little to no meaning. A book can be published under the OGL, a painting can be published under the OGL, anything that can be copyrighted can be published under the OGL. But nothing says that everything released as open content needs to be able to work with everything else that has been released as open content. But your argument seems to be saying that since almost everything released under the OGL so far is SRD related, that somehow makes the OGL itself flawed. Why? It's certainly not Wizards fault that no other publisher has decided to release open content under the OGL. Nor is it the fault of the current publishers of OGL material that their interest are in following the D20 line (that's where the money is after-all). So if anyone's at fault (and I don't think anyone is), it's the game designers who are refusing to release their mechanics as open content. And at this point, your argument becomes circular. Everyone associates the OGL with D20/SRD, therefore people who aren't doing D20/SRD won't use the OGL. But if people not doing D20/SRD don't use the OGL, there's no way for the OGL not to be associated with D20/SRD. But once again, that's not a problem with the license in any way; it's a problem with the people who don't understand the license. If every publisher decides to write their own version of an open license, that's fine. It's also going to mean more work & money for those publishers. And it will limit the growth of openness because of the difficulty (if not impossibility) of using the "open" material from various licenses together. So far the major criticism of the OGL has been the limits it imposes on mentioning/referring to other people's property (trademark usage, product identity and the like). But there's already another license out there if that's your problem with the license - the October OGL. And I really don't think any of the major companies are going to have this problem with the OGL, in fact they'll probably like this feature. As for what GRG is proposing, it's really hard to tell at this point what their end goal is. If what they want to do is simply release an open game system, clearly they should look at the OGL and see if it meets all their needs. If it does they could still easily have the three different types of trademark licenses that they are currently proposing - in the same way that Wizards has made the D20STL. If they don't want/need the IP protection of the OGL, they should also look at the OOGL. And if they want more IP protection than the OGL, then they'd need to draft their own. Realizing of course that some people already consider the OGL to provide too much protection and adding more could mean people don't consider your license truly an "open" one. 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
