Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ExileInParadise" data-source="post: 3860184" data-attributes="member: 42106">The OGL, OGL FAQ, and Software FAQ already limit OGC to a)distribution as RTF files, b) English printed on paper, or c) Javascript viewable in a browser (which may not actually be true when the wording of the OGL FAQ is contrasted with the wording of the Software FAQ, but at least the Software FAQ saying Javascript in a browser is acceptable improves the developers legal defense.)Anything else is "get a lawyer" because of the vague wordings used in the OGL itself, the OGL FAQ[1], and the OGL Software FAQ[2] which give WotC the ability to creatively interpret any other distribution means to be in violation, if they choose. The only safe harbors you can really rely on in a court challenge are the 3 listed as a-c above. Sure, PDF is widespread... but is it *legal* under all of the applied terms of those documents? Debatable, especially if WotC chose to. Just because they haven't so far means nothing, especially in the face of a new edition. Past performance is not indicative of future blah blah.The "clearly identified" clause is one of the least clear in the entire license. For example, it could easily be used to limit translations to other languages, because those may not be clear to the legal team, at that time. Plus, the license itself can't be translated anyway, without WotC permission, because the license itself is not OGC.Even getting a lawyer is still opening yourself to risk, because, ultimately, the interpretation is at WotC's discretion. The wording of the OGL and supporting documents (which most legal venues would honor and incorporate as "clarifications" of intent) is indefensible by anyone but WotC themselves.The FAQ "clarifications" are a real landmine too, because they can be modified at any time, outside the fixed-in-print wording of the OGL, yet a court would generally see fit to "include" them right in because the express "intent" of the original author(s). So, unless you monitor every change to those FAQs, you don't actually know what you can and cannot do, anyway. In that environment, its easy for a developer to spend  years developing software only to find a slight change on the webpage has rendered all that time wasted. Honestly, after going word through word over everything related to software, PDF distribution, or HTML could be in violation because the OGC may not be "clearly identifiable" by the recipient of a copy, and its up to WotC to decide, not you or your lawyers. Sure you can point to every HTML, or PDF file out there, but all they have to say is "those were clearer to us than yours." There's no legal test for you to rely on with wording like that in the OGL and related FAQs.The only "blessed" way to use OGC rules in software is read the plain(ish) English text from a file, magically and accurately parse human-readable text into machine-readable tokens capable of accurately reflecting the applied rules of the game. Not simple: no one has a foolproof human-readable to machine-readable back to human-readable parser that could take the words of the text and generate rules from them that a computer would use in the same way as a DM. Heck, DM's can't even agree on how to interpret many data or rules in various contexts, even after years of hashing them on forums. New applications come up all of the time.Yes, my earlier post was about software, but the point was that the wording is already too restrictive of the means, media, or methods, and that a future OGL should clarify the intent *within the body of the license itself* and expand or at least clearly draw the safe-harbors and mined areas. And it would be nice if someone didn't have to invent an artificially intelligent GM just to be in compliance with the license and make software at the same time.But, rather than this devolve into a nightmarish jargon and semantics argument, I will echo WotC when I asked them about several different software development models: "get a lawyer." Any other media, I would recommend the same thing. Translations: same thing. And that's what needs to be worked on, IMO.<My rant about something so "open" or "free" requiring so many lawyers, or that everyone become one was  cut for space.>Ultimately, I think a new OGL should distill, address, and demystify all of the hashed and rehashed debates and discussions held about the OGL v1.0a in the past. Why create a new standard that doesn't try to fix all fo the problems of the previous standard? Software was just an easy example to point to of a long-standing problem in OGL/OGC where software seems so do-able yet really isn't when you try it.I wonder if the PCgen folks would agree...[1] OGL FAQ: <a href="http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123d" target="_blank">http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123d</a>[2] Software FAQ: <a href="http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i" target="_blank">http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i</a></blockquote>

Verification