Hi Clark:
Ha Ha. Despite being somewhat of an anarchist, I do take licenses and terms very seriously. Like any good anarchist, I consider accepting a license to be equivalent to a handshake and a promise. (And I have to admit to a certain amount of dismay at the way a lot of so called "professional" publishers are fouling up "our" licenses.)What is wrong with you? Did someone steal your login and post this in your name? This doesnt sound like you.
True. I suppose the suggestion of a "letter of notice" with a timeline for response and / or suggested action would be better.> If the oversight was Mongoose's (and not yours) both > you and the wronged > authors have the option to send Mongoose a "notice > to quit" asking them to > recall all of those products and / or compensate the > authors who were > wronged.Agreed, but a bit drastic as a first measure.
I will explain. I worked with Brad a lot when he set up the protocols for submission to the NETBOOKS. One major fear was that the Netbooks would become clogged with content whose source was dubious and whose copyright status was indecipherable. He very much wanted the netbooks to be every bit as "quality" in terms of their OGL usability as the very best of the professional publishing houses. He also wanted to be able to publish the netbooks under the OGL but wanted the "NETBOOK COUNCIL" to be isolated from the risk and/or problems of stolen or copied submissins. After a lot of discussion and a trip or two to an attorney he decided the best way to do this was to NEVER have the NETBOOK COUNCILS generate open content of their own. So here is how it is set up.> If the oversight was YOURS, each of the wronged > authors has the right to do > the same (ask Mongoose to recall the product). > Mongoose would then have the > right to ask YOU to pay for the cost of the recall. I guess I dont see how the oversight could be theirs. Thats like saying the oversight was mine if someone publshes my OGC wihout me knowing about it.
The "netbooks" do not publish their own content. Rather, they accept submissions that are formatted as ogl contributions by the authors, THEN they republish them under the OGL, placing the authors "section 15" into their netbooks. Each author must submit a signed intent to contribute with personal identification identifying them and stipulating that they understand their responsibilities and the ramifications of submitting OGL content.
That way, if the NETBOOK ever published NON-OPEN content that was copied from a WotC product or another copyright source, it was not THEIR error, but the error of the original author who submitted. Isolating them from the risk.
Effectively this made the netbooks a conduit for ALREADY PUBLISHED ogl material, rather than an originator of OGL material. They also seriously limit their PI designations.
As a result, the only thing the COUNCIL could be liable for is if they screwed up the section 15 - if they ommitted to list an author in their section 15 - the so-called "downstream liability" issue.
That is what I am referring to above.
The situation here is that when Mongoose copied all the PrsCs from the NETBOOK, they inadvertantly left out part of the section 15, thereby failing to pass-on author's credit for some 34 or so prestige classes.
If it had been the council who had left those cites out of their NETBOOK sec. 15, ultimate responsibility would have been theirs.
Likely because you were not aware of my early involvement with the Netbook efforts. Even though it was peripheral and fleeting, I feel a personal pride for what they are doing. Like any good anarchist I also have a soft spot for rugged loners who do what they do for nothing other than the opportunity to contribute.> You (and the authors) are fully within your rights > to ask for a recall of > the product, but before you do you should certainly > consider how damaging > that might be to Mongoose and whether something else > can be worked out. Do what is best for you, not what is best for Mongoose. Let them worry about that. If they had wanted to worry about that they could have done it right in the first place or taken prompt steps when they noticed the error or were contacted. (This is the part that really doesnt sound like Faust to me)
Moreover, the COUNCILS have continued to insist on high standards and (for the most part) meticulous marking of OGL material.
Anybody in the industry who continues to natter on about how "hard" it seems to be to appropriately mark the content and follow the licenses need look no farther. This group of rank amateurs in most cases does it flawlessly.
As a result I am convinced that the so-called "professional" publishers who screw it up are either lazy or are intentionally obfusticating to make it harder for others to reuse their material.
Here Here! I agree 100%.I am a strong advocate of asking permission even when you dont have to. I think it avoids things like this.
Faust
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
