I've just had a crazy idea...

[Jdvn1]

I like the idea, but there are indeed some concerns.

How about, with a SRD/OGL site, you take in OGC submissions and try to make a database of all OGL stuff in much the same manner? So you update the site yourself, using submissions. At least, you don't have to go back over everything to make sure nothing has been tampered with to violate the OGL.

 

[RSKennan]

Which is why you don't see me volunteering.

JH, good idea, but it would need to be something besides a Wiki specifically, with an advisory board to oversee all additions, and that board would need to be VERY familiar with the OGL to avoid breaking the license, if not having at least one lawyer on board.

I don't think you'd need an advisory board in a formal way- just someone responsible with admin privileges. The nature of a wiki culture is such that no one gets away with anything. If everyone had to cite their sources perfectly, on penalty of deletion as laid out in the membership agreement, it would be self-policing.

You could have verified flags (icons) for content; content that wasn’t yet verified by X sources would be considered “use at your own risk”.

Worst case scenario, you’re asked to cease and desist- and that means deleting the material, and warning or banning the user who put it up.

Another aspect is that frequent violators would lose credibility and eventually their right to edit- it can be arranged so that everyone is liable for their own additions; another clause to put into the join agreement.

I don’t think it’s as dangerous as people seem to think.

 

[jmucchiello]

You could have verified flags (icons) for content; content that wasn’t yet verified by X sources would be considered “use at your own risk”.

IANAL, But I doubt that is OGL compatible. First piece of PI entered into the wiki makes the whole system vulnerable to cease and desist of the whole wiki.

It's probably not worth the hassle.

 

[RSKennan]

IANAL, But I doubt that is OGL compatible. First piece of PI entered into the wiki makes the whole system vulnerable to cease and desist of the whole wiki.

It's probably not worth the hassle.

I hear you- I'm just one optimistic writer and not a lawyer either. Here are some questions that I'd ask a lawyer if I had one handy:

Strictly speaking, in a digital format, you could link to the ogl after every section and treat each section as a single work, right?

If not, why, and where would the beginning and end of one work be?

How does the OGL handle online material in one collection that is spread over numerous domains?

How does the law handle a news story or other web content that's plagiarized?

.....


Granted, WotC is the boss, and whatever they put into the OGL goes, of course, regardless of internet law as a whole. Still, I know they've been very nice about helping people who had questions, though I don't know if that philosophy still stands.

 

[jmucchiello]

I hear you- I'm just one optimistic writer and not a lawyer either. Here are some questions that I'd ask a lawyer if I had one handy:

Again IANAL but I'll give you my loose interpretation. Not legal advice of course...

Strictly speaking, in a digital format, you could link to the ogl after every section and treat each section as a single work, right?

If everything points to the same OGL instance, they are one work. You'd have to include the OGL on every page to convincingly claim each page is its own work.

Remember the OGL doesn't deal with links, it deal with works.

If not, why, and where would the beginning and end of one work be?

Depends on how you use the links and how you declare your open content/pi

How does the OGL handle online material in one collection that is spread over numerous domains?

Only a court could decide if the declarations statement was ambiguous. If you say, "All the link at www.example.com/ogc and www.example2.com/fred'sfolder/ogc are open content as definined in the OGL. (OGL follows)" that is not ambiguous. If however there is a link out of the two domains to a third domain which may contain open content, now you need a court to figure it out.

How does the law handle a news story or other web content that's plagiarized?

Like any other case of copyright violation.

Granted, WotC is the boss, and whatever they put into the OGL goes, of course, regardless of internet law as a whole. Still, I know they've been very nice about helping people who had questions, though I don't know if that philosophy still stands.

That's not important. If you accidently use Mongoose's PI, it is Mongoose who could sue you, not WotC. If you accidently use my PI, it is I who could sue you, not WotC. WotC is not the "Boss" when it comes to OGL violations except when those violations involve their specific OGL covered works (The two SRDs and Unearthed Arcana at the moment.)

 

[RSKennan]

IANAL, but my probably faulty understanding is that WotC can send a cease and desist letter to a publisher that must immediately be adhered to, whereas a 3rd party publisher could be taken to court... am I wrong?

Also, what I was getting at with the plagiarized news article example was that only the article would be removed, not the entire site, right?

Furthermore, what would be the big deal about creating a separate instance of the OGL for every page/entry? It's bandwidth, but not much- it's just text.

Finally I'll just say, that since I'm not a lawyer, I shouldn't even be approaching legal issues in a public forum (I'm obviously in over my head), but nothing here seems insurmountable. I'm actually planning to discuss this with the administrator/partner for my sites. We're meeting with a lawyer for other IP reasons later this summer, so maybe we can discuss this as well.

 

[jmucchiello]

IANAL, but my probably faulty understanding is that WotC can send a cease and desist letter to a publisher that must immediately be adhered to, whereas a 3rd party publisher could be taken to court... am I wrong?

If someone has my PI on their website I can send them a cease and desist letter too. WotC has no special standing in the license except that they can create a new version of the license that other can choose to use or ignore.

Also, what I was getting at with the plagiarized news article example was that only the article would be removed, not the entire site, right?

Yes, because that is copyright law, not contract law such as the OGL is.

Furthermore, what would be the big deal about creating a separate instance of the OGL for every page/entry? It's bandwidth, but not much- it's just text.

It would look ugly including an extra 2000 character on every page wouldn't it?

Finally I'll just say, that since I'm not a lawyer, I shouldn't even be approaching legal issues in a public forum (I'm obviously in over my head), but nothing here seems insurmountable. I'm actually planning to discuss this with the administrator/partner for my sites. We're meeting with a lawyer for other IP reasons later this summer, so maybe we can discuss this as well.

Have fun. Make sure the lawyer is well versed in IP issues and know something about open licenses.

 

[RSKennan]

As for the OGL on every page, it wouldn't necessarily even have to be visible without scrolling unless there are some vagaries of the license I don't know about- I don't see anything preventing that. Based on a 800 x 600 screen, it could be designed in such a way that you'd have to scroll down to even see it. There's no reason why the same couldn't be done on based on higher resolutions.

Even better, that stuff can be done dynamically for each user. So no, it doesn't have to be ugly, just legal.

Have fun. Make sure the lawyer is well versed in IP issues and know something about open licenses.

Of course.

I'm not looking to make any enemies. It's long been obvious that certain people are hostile to the very idea of an OGC repository for their own reasons. I know that I'd have to be as careful as possible, since there are people who'd love to make an issue of it.

I personally have one thing left to finish in this part of the industry (aside from a long-term project with no current deadline) and then I'm out. Anything I'd do towards a repository would be as a fan, but as long as it didn't mean that people would irrationally try to make my life hell, I'd certainly like to be involved in some way.

It's just an idea right now anyway; I've thought about this every time the topic has come up in various places, but nonetheless it's still just hypothetical.

I suspect that this line of conversation could veer into dangerous territory soon, so I'm done. I should have kept my mouth shut until I knew whether I even wanted to do this on my own site, but I got swept up in the conversation.