BryonD said:
Maybe there has been no legal double standard. But there most clearly has been a double standard.
First, I believe that the presence of the OGL included in MH would be strong evidence of intent that would impact the way a ruling would go under the exact same laws. You can site legal references to me all day long. In the end the real defintion of legal is what the court system hands down in the specific case.
But, legally speaking, what was released as open content is
the same thing that is not covered by copyright (I think that's been pretty well proven at this point). The law doesn't deal with ambiguous intent, it deals with law and contract. The OGL is a contract, and the way it's been used in this case it is saying the same thing as copyright law. Wulf may say he means to release more than just the mechanics (though he hasn't that I'm aware of), but based on his own declaration he is
only releasing the mechanics. He has specifically stated that his expression of those mechanics is closed, so he's basicly just included a statement that reiterates what is allowed by copyright law. I honestly can't see anything, other Wulf's (assumed) good will that changes that in the slightest.
And, in the end the "real definition of legal" is what the law says, and what existing precedent says, as
interpreted by the court. They will most certainly be using those legal references as the basis for their decision.
Second, staying to this thread, the tone of discussion has flipped back and forth. Any time re-wording AM has been the topic it has been described with a tone of matter-of-factness. Any time re-wording MH has been the topic, the tone has been one of ambiguity and worry. That is a double standard right there. To consider that the one that includes a statement of intent to share is the one getting the "worry" filter compounds the degree of double standard.
Well, I can't speak to any tone but my own, but...
The intial gist of the statements by you (and possibly others - I haven't been watching who said what as closely I probably should - just addressing the points raised) was that Grim Tales is wonderfully accessible, while Ars Magica is locked up tight as Fort Knox. So naturally, disputing that idea is going to shift the tone against that initial statement. Grim Tales is not wonderfully accessible beyond the mechanics themselves, seperate from all text (going strictly by the declaration - which is the only thing a court is going to care about), and the mechanics of Ars Magica, seperate from the text, are not locked up tight. Compared to the initial statements, the usability of Ars Magic mechanics is indeed a matter of fact (though not without risk if done improperly). And, likewise, the idea that (by the declaration) Grim Tales is as wide open as you seem to think it is does indeed trigger my "worry filter." Any comfort you may feel based on your perception of Wulf's good will aside (as not everyone who might wish to use those mechanics will necessarily know his motivations or intent, beyond what he has put down in writing in the declaration), the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle, in both cases. Neither is entirely accessible (there is the same element of risk, legally speaking, to both undertakings). So it's not a double standard, so much as a reaction to a perceived misunderstanding.
I will readily acknowledge (and haven't said or implied otherwise, that I'm aware of) that the Grim Tales mechanics, as opposed to the text which describes them,
are accessible. I'm just not convinced that they're as accessible as you seem to think.
As to the"bad guy"... I've bad-mouthed Wulf, to an extent, also (along with anyone else using similar tactics, by extension). In another thread I stated that I considered the way Wulf is, effectively, locking up material which he has adapted from others' open content (by rewording it and making the text PI) to be unethical. I don't believe he has the right to circumvent someone else's choice about the way their content will be used. But I still don't think Wulf is a "bad guy." I believe he means well. I just think he's doing something he shouldn't be, due to my disagreement with his interpretation of proper open content use.
