[freeroleplay] Re: [Fwd: Free-Content Licensing of FUDGE]
- From: Axon <ax0n@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:35:08 +0000
Jerry Stratton wrote:
> I agree with the others; this would be a good place to put "for example,
> the OGL requires you to sign on to limitations to your own work which you
> otherwise would not have to agree to, such as a definition of "Product
> Identity" that serves mainly to close off re-use of terminology from
> downriver products--including re-use by original contributors such as Grey
> Ghost Games.
PI is actually an onerous increase of the IP burden: you can "protect"
concepts and ideas that are not normally protected by copyright law,
such as "themes" - one ponders how you can prevent others stealing you
themes? "Only I'm allowed to write adventures using the themes of
discover!". Quite ridiculous.
> Other problem:
>
> The OGL allows others to use your work while keeping all portions original
> to them closed.
This is quite correct: there is nothing that requires that people using
your work contribute anything further to the open gaming community (a
phrase that is very under-used, IMHO). A person can copy your work, add
their own content as closed and piggy-back off your own creativity
without contributing anything back.
> The OGL appears mainly to have been designed to allow closed-work
> providers to benefit from OGL products.
I think there are a lot of reasons why the OGL allows the mixing of
closed and open content. I think it might be a little unfair to
characterise it as above: it seems more likely that this was done so as
to allow publishers to keep ROSC (Rules Open, Setting Closed). That is,
mechanics derived from the SRD must stay open, but your own material can
be kept closed.
> (Note, make sure I'm not wrong about the above three. You can and should
> point them to further information about confusing aspects of the OGL, but
> in the letter everything should be certain.)
See my notes above.
The new draft is as follows:
Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> Let me first state that I represent the Free Roleplaying Community, a
> group of gamers advocating "free as in speech" content in both the
> amateur and professional roleplaying industries. For more information on
> our community please see our FAQ:
>
> http://www.freeroleplay.org/faq.php
>
> It has recently come to our attention that Stefan O'Sullivan has
> assigned copyright of his excellent FUDGE roleplaying system to your
> company. We understand that you are now planning to release FUDGE under
> an "open content" license such as the Open Gaming License (OGL).
>
> We would like to point out that there are concerns with the OGL, and
> licenses like it. Please see here:
>
> http://www.freeroleplay.org/faq.php#OGL
>
> The foremost problem is that the OGL allows others to use and share your
> work while keeping all portions original to them closed. This means that
> whilst others may benefit from your work, they are not themselves
> required to contribute anything back into the open gaming community
> themselves.
>
> And, despite its "open" tag, the OGL actually increases the burden of
> "intellectual property" rights in ways which are, for very good reasons,
> not allowed for in law. For example, the OGL defines "Product Identity"
> which is used to not only protect trademarks, but to prevent other OGL
> users from using vague concepts and ideas such as plots, likenesses and
> even "themes".
>
> There are licenses that are simpler and more reasonable and mature, such
> as the GNU General Public License (GPL) or Free Documentation License
> (FDL), that will still allow you to sell and make a profit from your
> books but will ensure the basic freedoms that we at the FRPGC consider
> to be important are kept safe.
>
> Most importantly, the GPL and the FDL are the only licenses that require
> modifiable copies be published with all works. We consider this to be a
> fundamental requirement of any free or open content license. In the most
> common case, it prevents users from publishing a digital document in
> read-only, PDF format only thereby severally limit the ability to re-use
> the any open or free content contained within.
>
> If you have not done so already, we would like you to reconsider. If you
> have any questions about the FRPGC or regarding the GPL or the FDL
> please do not hesitate to get in touch.
>
> Thank you for your time. Kind regards...
>
> --
> Ricardo Gladwell
> President, Free Roleplaying Community
> http://www.freeroleplay.org/
> president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
