On Sun, 7 Oct 2001, John Kim wrote: > On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, Alec A. Burkhardt wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, Richard Stewart wrote: > > > 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. > > > > 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? > > Er, Richard said exactly the opposite. He said that he liked > the OGL and he wished more people would release games under it.
No, Richard said that the OGL is just the SRD and then said the OGL could be something better. And he said this is a single paragraph: "My point which you seem to have overlooked, is that the OGL IS in fact JUST SRD. All we have currently is the existing portion of the SRD that has been released and little (if any) of anything else. The SRD is still not even complete, "gentleman's agreement" be damned. The OGL could be something different...something better" This certainly gives the impression that he's saying there is something wrong with the OGL and that is the reason other publishers aren't using it. But he's never explained what is wrong with the OGL other than the fact that it is "just" the SRD. That's a circular argument. > I wouldn't go and blame game designers. There are a bunch of > complete non-D20 RPG's released under open licenses (FUDGE, Circe, > Dominion, Lycadican, and Four Colors), but none of them use the > WotC OGL. Yes, there are others, but the number is few and at least some are from before the OGL existed so they couldn't use it. And at least FUDGE really isn't open. A royalty free licenses to use is not the same as being open. And that's what the FUDGE license is - a royalty free license to use the FUDGE rules. It has no requirements about keeping derivative works open, or even is clear about who owns derivative works. The fact that most of what I've seen of FUDGE work at least implies openness speaks well of the people using FUDGE and their intention to be open, but that doesn't mean that the license itself is an open license. And I have no problem with publishers who want to protect their property by creating their own license. But there are generic open gaming licenses out there and it seems like those would be a good place for a someone who wants to publish open material to start. The OGF lists 5, but I'd start with either the OGL or OOGL as they are probably the most generic of those aimed directly at the rpg business. The question between the two is really whether or not you want/need a way of maintaining some protection over some types of intellectual property. If so, the OGL would be the choice. If not, either works (just don't use any PI under the OGL) but using the OGL means others may introduce PI into works that are derivative of yours. > And I don't think that it is correct to blame them rather than > the license. The WotC OGL is confusing -- we see that particularly in > the many cries of "hire a lawyer" whenever a question comes up here. > More importantly, actions speak louder than words on this point. WotC > has legal counsel, wrote its own license, and has had over a year since > the OGL was released -- yet still the SRD releases past the first handful > of notes are delayed, ostensibly for legal reasons. If it is this > difficult for WotC to use its own license, how can you find fault with > other publishers for not using the WotC OGL? Sorry, but I just don't see this argument about the OGL being confusing. Suggesting people hire a lawyer has absolutely nothing to do with the OGL being confusing. It has entirely to do with the fact that if you want to protect your property you shouldn't rely on the advice of strangers on the internet. If publishers who want to publish "open" material aren't using the OGL because the OGL is confusing, it'd be nice if someone would explain WHAT is confusing about the OGL. The only true confusion seems to come from people who want to play at the edges of the OGL - computer applications and such. That's a result of people using the OGL beyond what it was written for. But what's confusing for people who want to publish open gaming material? As for Wizards, it's been pointed out numerous times that the delay is entirely because there's little incentive for making the review of the SRD a business priority. There's been no indication that they are having any problem using the OGL. The problem is that there's really little to no incentive for Wizards to hurry about releasing the SRD. The main benefit Wizards receives is already being realized through the large number of people who are willing to operate under the gentelman's agreement. It costs time/money to have people review the document before making it official as well as for the web people to put the documents online. So the SRD has been something that people do when they've finished the work that must be done rather than something that is focussed on. And since Ryan has indicated that more material has already passed through R&D, and that a regular schedule has been set-up for R&D, it now seems the slow point is going to be with the web people. It's been over a month since Ryan said a regular schedule of review was set-up and at least two weeks since he's said stuff was sent to the web people to be posted and nothing has been added yet. But once again, none of this in anyway indicates a problem with using the license for publishing open gaming material. It merely points out the economic realities of a major corporation attempting to publish something that has very little economic importance for them. Another publisher could actually beat Wizards to the punch by being the first to officially release a rpg system under the OGL. And Wizards probably still wouldn't care or hurry up their release of the SRD. 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
