> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Matthew Sprange > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 10:29 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Re: The Punch Bag has joined! > > > somewhat unclear -- it seems to me that the only way anyone would know what > > you consider to be OGC or not would be to contact you directly. > > Which you are more than welcome to do.
Forgive my bluntness, but then why don't you revise your OGC declaration to what it REALLY is: "DECLARATION OF OGC: Write us and ask, and we'll tell you whether it's OGC." What I like about the OGL is three-fold: 1. It strives very much to resolve ambiguity on rights to create derivative works, without having to resolve thorny issues in copyright law. 2. It strives very much to allow authors of derivative works to know what they may reuse without requiring complex negotiations and even legal proceedings. 3. It strives very much to compel authors to share the wealth: to allow reuse of any work based on work they reused. Your new form of declaration undermines these goals. Not 3, because you acknowledge the right of people to reuse your content that is derived from OGC. But it undermines 2, because your OGC is not clearly identified. If two different authors have two different views of what is "derivative", they will come away with two different ideas of what they may reuse from your work. And so it undermines 1, because we're back to the problem with copyright law: the definition of a derived work is not precise. A statement "This spell is OGC" is precise. And while you say "Just ask", and while such a request is good practice and good courtesy, it's by no means required. (Quick show of hands: how many of you publishers have contacted Wizards to ask approval to reuse the SRDs? Let's see, I count... Zero, I think.) So now people may just take an expansive view of what's derivative, reuse material when you do not approve, and get into license violation. If they believe they're justified, a court battle ensues, and everybody loses. Goodbye, safe harbor. Or people may take a very conservative view, and not reuse anything from Mongoose products for fear that you'll take a narrower view of "derivative" than they do. Again, goodbye, safe harbor. While you may be serving your customers -- gamers, not game designers -- and there's nothing wring with that, your products will become OGC dead ends. No knowledgeable designer will want to reuse your work. The effects will be: you'll lose some cross-promotional benefits (possibly small); and designers will see you in a less than flattering light. Again, neither affects your appeal to gamers, I realize that. Now coming onto this list and saying "Just ask us" is a nice way of correcting this misstep now; but it's less effective than correcting it in the books themselves. I hope that you'll reconsider your method of OGC declaration in future books. 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
