> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Ciro Alessandro Sacco
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 6:52 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Non-English material
>
> Given the due respect to these considerations, I think should
> be understood that the OGL has been written in English and
> designed to fit in the US copyright laws. Other countries
> could have serious differences in laws so some parts of the
> OGL could, in theory, be unenforceable. For example, when I
> bought my new computer and looked at the section concerning
> the manufacturer's civil and penal liability for potential
> accidents using this product (I'll call it 'disclaimer'), I
> noticed with much interest that the manufacturer's
> liabilities in the US, in Italy and Germany (for example)
> were different, more stringent in Germany and the US, less
> (unfortunately) in Italy . The manufacturer didn't think that
> the US diclaimer had value all over the world and took pains
> to write various disclaimers for the various countries its
> product was exported and sold, based on local laws.
As you point out below, copyright has a (near) universal convention. I'm
pretty sure that liability doesn't; so you HAVE TO either deal with
local laws or don't sell in that market. But the OGL builds on
copyright.
> I'm not a
> lawyer, but I'd be very careful with "It is implied that such
> a copy must be in English" and about duties and privileges
> given you by US laws that, being not European or national
> ones, have no legal value whatsoerver (excluding Universal
> Copyright Conventions agreements of course).
But the universal copyright conventions are a the first step in this:
the OGL is rooted in attempt to explicitly grant certain rights that are
arguably allowed under copyright, and to also explicitly deny certain
actions that are arguably allowed under copyright. In essence, it is a
way to add detail to some grey areas in such a way that Wizards (and
other producers) grant explicit permission for things that otherwise
they might have sued over (rightly or wrongly, but fear of their legal
muscle would come into play); and in exchange, you agree not to do
things that they would rather you not do.
And so we get to the reason why the license MUST be in English, and why
it ONLY gives you duties and privileges under US law. Wizards simply
doesn't agree to the license under any other conditions, so you can't
use the material otherwise. The license is a document crafted VERY
carefully by Wizards' lawyers to delineate their offerings and their
obligations and your rights and your obligations. Yes, it CAN be used to
protect ANY OGC producer, but it was SPECIFICALLY crafted to protect
Wizards. And because a translation might unintentionally change the
meaning, or because other jurisdictional laws might change the meaning,
Wizards is NOT accepting anything but the original English language
license under US laws. They're simply not agreeing to the license under
any other conditions, because they're not sure what they'd be agreeing
to. Now if they saw a business advantage, they might very well put in
the legal sweat to make official translations into other languages and
other jurisdictions; but since the driving force behind OG at Wizards
(Ryan Dancey) is now out of the loop -- and since they're far behind on
any OG work at all -- I doubt that will happen any time soon.
So it may be true that the terms of the license are not binding under
your jurisdiction. I believe, though, that that would render the license
null and void for you: you would have no rights to use the material
outside of normal copyright, and Wizards would have whatever rights to
suit they would have under normal copyright law in your jurisdiction. To
receive the protection from suit and the permission to reuse, you must
accept the obligations.
It's also true that you could do your own translation, get your own
lawyers to adjust it for your jurisdiction, and use it to license any of
your own OGC that was not derivative of any OGC licensed under the
English OGL. But since you said (in another message) that the game
market there is too small to support full-fledged game development on a
large scale, you'll probably be doing derivative works most of the time.
I'm a little surprised that the license doesn't state the jurisdiction
under which it will be adjudicated. That's common for contracts ("This
contract shall be administered under the laws of the State of Insanity",
or some such wording); but as the legal minds here have explained
before, licenses are a little different. Maybe this is one of those
differences; or maybe Wizards had some reason for leaving that out.
> Sometimes seems to me that the many Americans think that US
> laws have value around the world: I hope this is not the
> case, for solid and pratical reasons. I am convinced that the
> translations and languages issues should have been and should
> be now seriously addressed by WotC.
Wizards sells all over the world; and parent company Hasbro is
definitely multinational. This is not an issue of US-centrism, simply an
issue of Wizards trying to protect their rights in their largest market
first and foremost and for the least legal costs, and then doing
whatever they can for their other markets. As of right now, "doing
whatever they can" means offering you the right to use the licensed
material as long as you agree to the same English-language license as
the rest of us.
The translation and language issues have been seriously addressed by
Wizards. They chose to address them by saying, "We can't afford the
extra effort. Sorry." We may not like this resolution; but it's not fair
to say they didn't consider these issues at length and reach the best
decision they could justify. Always remember that the OGL makes Wizards
NO money directly; and while there's strong evidence that it makes them
money indirectly (and even that is only true in hindsight: when the OGL
was crafted, this was all just Ryan trying to convince Wizards that it
would work), there are still some who question it as a business
decision. There are few who consider it a key strategy like Ryan did.
Ryan's direct replacement as Chief Open Gaming Advocate, Anthony, is now
buried in submissions for a new fantasy setting, and probably has
forgotten what his friends and family look like. (Hey, Anthony, call
home once in a while, so they don't declare you legally dead!) Couple
this with their shrinking revenues and consequent shrinking staff AND
with the demands of producing products that DO directly bring in
revenue, and their resources for Open Gaming are scarce. Now take this
one step further: there are a lot of people (many on this list)
screaming for them to spend those scarce Open Gaming resources on
finishing the SRD and for adding [FILL IN THE BLANK] product to it, and
they're swamped. While you have legitimate concerns, they're concerns
for which Wizards currently has a workable solution -- from THEIR
perspective, I understand. And thus, your concerns are probably so far
down on the priority list as to be completely invisible. (Of course, if
you want to change those priorities, you have to keep raising your
concerns.)
And yes: some Americans do think that US laws have value around the
world. But that's just the common human tendency to judge everything new
in light of what you already know, even if that doesn't work. It's also
true that some Michigan citizens think Michigan laws apply in Florida,
and vice versa.
Martin L. Shoemaker
Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com
http://www.UMLBootCamp.com
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
