How do you improve the OGL?

[2WS-Steve]

I don't think you can make any changes to the OGL without making the incredible volumes of material released under the current OGL no longer usable with your new, improved OGL -- which strikes me as a losing proposition unless your new OGL was a tremendous improvement.

 

[2WS-Steve]

I think someone with mdoerator abilities needs to differentiate the forums for folks. The OGF-L list used to be discussion for Open Gaming Lciense in general, with the OGF-D20-L was for discussion of WOTC's OGL.

Actually, I think the D20-L was for the d20 Trademark License.

Regardless, I suspect it'd be worthwhile to merge these two boards together. I don't think they'll have so many active threads at once that we'll need two boards and there could just be tags setup to indicate if it's non-WotC OGL, WotC OGL, or a d20 trademark thread.

 

[Vigilance]

To the best of my recollection, the OGL 1.0a does not prohibit listing the precise source of a particular piece of material in the body of the text - the license only governs the citation of that source in the Section 15. trancejeremy's point about possible conflict with the "claims compatability" part is valid, but it's a matter of both interpretation and how that in-body citation is written.

I suppose that would be how Paizo "gets away with it". It isn't restricted to begin with, and they don't write it in a way that others interpret as a claim of compatability.

Most products list the name of the product as product identity, which means its protected under the license and can't be used.

For example, in Modern20, the single only thing we declared as product identity was the name Modern20.

Edit: Also, in Section 7 of the license (Use of Product Identity), it specifically prohibits naming another product without express consent of the company that wrote that product.

You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.

Edit 2: And because I'm sure someone will mention that few products actually contain real, actual, registered trademarks, the definition of that term within the license is somewhat broad:

"Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor

In other words, for purposes of the license, company and product names are automatically designated Product Identity and trademarks.

Edit 3: And I think doing away with these protections would involve some serious reservations on peoples' part when using the license.

Monte Cook's name (for example), or Mike Mearls', have a lot of value, and being able to sprinkle their names, and/or the names of their signature products throughout a book or on the cover would be seriously misleading.

 

[Vigilance]

I don't think you can make any changes to the OGL without making the incredible volumes of material released under the current OGL no longer usable with your new, improved OGL -- which strikes me as a losing proposition unless your new OGL was a tremendous improvement.

No, material released under the old OGL would still be usable under the old OGL.

You'd just need to include both licenses in your book I think.

 

[ExileInParadise]

Software Clarity

A new OGL should clarify whether software is, or is not, allowed, and if so, what must and must not be done.

The OGL 1.0a appears generous in this respect.

The reality is otherwise once WotC "clarifications" from their FAQ and Software page are factored in.

The description of what the PCgen folks went through just makes it worse.

Under the OGL v1.0a, with website "clarifications", the only thing that seems explicitly allowed is "JavaScript running in a browser" and anything else is "get a lawyer".

 

[Ranger REG]

Some time in court.

Yeah, I know none of us want to be that party, and we don't really want WotC to start swinging the lawyers around either. But really, as a legal document, the only way it's going to get any better is for it to see some challenges and some time in the courtroom, so we can see what parts of it stand up and what parts fall down.

I agree wholeheartedly. In a practical sense, the sooner the OGL is court-tested and a precedent is set, the better its value as a legal document.

 

[Ranger REG]

A new OGL should clarify whether software is, or is not, allowed, and if so, what must and must not be done.

The OGL 1.0a appears generous in this respect.

The reality is otherwise once WotC "clarifications" from their FAQ and Software page are factored in.

The description of what the PCgen folks went through just makes it worse.

Under the OGL v1.0a, with website "clarifications", the only thing that seems explicitly allowed is "JavaScript running in a browser" and anything else is "get a lawyer".

I know your post is focused on software or electronic medium, but what other medium should the OGL also cover besides print?

I'm wary that if we list what the OGL can be used with certain media, it will limit to those media, and single out, for example phonorecording (odd, but not farfetched).

 

[grislyeye]

I know your post is focused on software or electronic medium, but what other medium should the OGL also cover besides print?

I'm wary that if we list what the OGL can be used with certain media, it will limit to those media, and single out, for example phonorecording (odd, but not farfetched).

In the long-term it might be better if the OGL didn't arbitrarily exclude software altogether, and allowed people to use OGC without restriction.

 

[Ranger REG]

In the long-term it might be better if the OGL didn't arbitrarily exclude software altogether, and allowed people to use OGC without restriction.

AFAIK, the current OGL v1.0a does not exclude software medium.

 

[Gilwen]

In the long-term it might be better if the OGL didn't arbitrarily exclude software altogether, and allowed people to use OGC without restriction.

As it stands now the OGL doesn't exclude or limit software. You must ensure that the OGC it uses can be easily identified by the end user, which does pose its own challenges, but no where does the OGL limit or exclude software. However, the D20 System Trademark License did limit software.

Gil