Rich Redman on being a good forum denizen

[Berandor]

It may be expensive to ask for legal consults now, but if you get into trouble based on advice you find here, you'll have to pay an even bigger price later. Besides, no good lawyer give meaninful legal advice beyond the basics for free. Otherwise, why become a trademark and licensing lawyer in the first place?

Well, that depends on the kind and depth of legal advice you ask for. I agree that if you need legal advice for professional reasons (or reasons that could bring you into contact with jurisdiction), you would do best to contact a lawyer and pay her.
However, if you just need a broad picture, like "why can't Larry Elmore paint nude Elves on the cover of the Elfonomicon, now that the d20 license has changed?", something that can be explained in an off-hand way and one or two short paragraphs, I think it's alright to get it on the intraweb. After all, you won't need to worry too much about lawyers calling you up if you misunderstand an issue you have no relation to.
There's no qualifying explanation in the article, however, leading me to understand that both actions are equally looked down upon.

Besides, you're just defending him because he dropped your name

 

[Blacksad]

I find the comment on the OGL a little harsh.

I'm still puzzled as to why the GPL/LGPL Berkley license, and many other, could be used by a great number of people without lawyer, and why you'd require one for the OGL (though, owners of PI in computer science might tend to be a bit more helpful. I received a clear answer from Trolltech when I asked if their ancient release made before their GPL release were usable under the GPL: no).

Maybe it has something to do with reading comprehension, everyone know that gamers (especialy RPG gamers) are illiterate

 

[buzz]

I'm still puzzled as to why the GPL/LGPL Berkley license, and many other, could be used by a great number of people without lawyer, and why you'd require one for the OGL...

Because the d20/OGL was put forth by an entity which has billions of dollars to use to sue you into the stone age?

All I think Rich is saying on this point is, if you're not a lawyer, don't offer legal advice (which is distinct from participating in a discussion that involves legal issues), and if you're a budding game mogul, don't rely on some yahoos on a Web forum to provide you with legal advice when you're seriously trying to start a business. The same probably goes for building a business on GPL/LGPL products. Seems to make sense to me.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

All I think Rich is saying on this point is, if you're not a lawyer, don't offer legal advice (which is distinct from participating in a discussion that involves legal issues)...

I really like this distinction - sums things up nicely.

 

[Zappo]

I find the comment on the OGL a little harsh.

I'm still puzzled as to why the GPL/LGPL Berkley license, and many other, could be used by a great number of people without lawyer, and why you'd require one for the OGL (though, owners of PI in computer science might tend to be a bit more helpful. I received a clear answer from Trolltech when I asked if their ancient release made before their GPL release were usable under the GPL: no).

Maybe it has something to do with reading comprehension, everyone know that gamers (especialy RPG gamers) are illiterate

These open licenses are free to use, but that doesn't mean that they are easy to use. Noone forces you to hire a lawyer, but if you don't, you shouldn't be surprised when you find you've made a mistake - and by then, it's too late. I am sure that there are hundreds of small developers who think they're using the GPL right and are in fact infringing. If SCO came to them instead of heading to IBM, they would be toast. Of course, being a small fish is the best defense. Anyway, it's not a matter of reading comprehension; reading legalese with full understanding is simply damn hard and prone to errors unless you're trained.

 

[barsoomcore]

If you're a budding game mogul, don't rely on some yahoos on a Web forum to provide you with legal advice when you're seriously trying to start a business.

Who you calling a yahoo?

 

[buzz]

Who you calling a yahoo?

Uh, I, umm, uh, meant RESPECTED INDIVIDUALS AND ESTEEMED MEMBERS OF THE ENWORLD COMMUNITY. Yeah, that's what I meant.

 

[Dark Jezter]

This was my favorite part of the article...

"…Just wants our money."
Every time I read this I think "Duh!" Okay, we've been there. We've been young people with extremely limited incomes. We've been through that period where our families bought everything we really needed and gaming was the first thing on which we spent our own money. We remember the passionate devotion to the hobby that goes along with being passionate adolescents, and how much it can hurt to choose between what we want and what we can afford.

I wish I could tell you that it gets easier, but it doesn't. You just get used to it. The simple fact is that businesses exist to make money. That's as true for The Game Mechanics as it is for General Motors or Prudential Insurance. We don't apologize for it. In our case, we're both the designers and the guys who run the company. In the case of larger companies, that's not true. The designers are most often gamers and writers and are interested in producing the best and most desirable products possible. They don't want to produce desirable product because it will sell (though they're not completely ignorant of that), they want to produce it because the fans want it. Those designers are the ones reading your posts, not the corporate bean counters.

So when you accuse a business of just wanting your money, you're stating the obvious. You're also risking alienating the people who are trying to produce what you want as fast as they can. Get over it, accept the commercial reality of our world, and get to the meat of your message instead of padding it with this accusation.

I'm tempted to post a link to this article next time I see a rant about "3.$" or a statement like "WotC/Hasbro is an evil corperation that is just in it for the money!"

 

[Wormwood]

I'm tempted to post a link to this article next time I see a rant about "3.$" or a statement like "WotC/Hasbro is an evil corperation that is just in it for the money!"

When I see those posts I'm tempted to poke the poster with a sharp stick.

Luckily, stick and poster are rarely at hand.

 

[Blacksad]

I am sure that there are hundreds of small developers who think they're using the GPL right and are in fact infringing. If SCO came to them instead of heading to IBM, they would be toast. Of course, being a small fish is the best defense.

err, I must correct something here.

SCO is heading to small fish to get most of their revenue, it works mainly in the U.S. as its cheaper to negociate a license for linux with SCO than to win a trial against SCO.

IBM and General Motors (and a few others) are those that do not negociate, because in the long run it will be cheaper for them to win. But they are exceptions.

As far as I know, I've heard of a few software done using GPL source, while they didn't release their sources (basic copyright violiation, it happens with GPL because the source are open). But I've never heard of confirmed case where someone released GPL sources without the right.

It isn't that hard to see the similarities in the OGL: unclear OGC statement are never used. Only material with crystal clear statement or original material are used in new products.

Anyway, it's not a matter of reading comprehension; reading legalese with full understanding is simply damn hard and prone to errors unless you're trained.

you did not notice the smiley?

P.S. I'm sure that there is almost no developper using the GPL wrongly. No set case as far as I know. While there has been misuse of the OGL, those were obvious, and probably done consciously (FFE had several notice of its customer, and changed their policy only when WotC warned them).