[od-discuss] Getting the Open Game License accepted under the Open Definition

Mon Dec 3 22:53:32 GMT 2012

Hi Mike,

Thanks for following this up!

As far as I understand, Product Identity is not sticky in the same way that
the OGL is. If you use content under the OGL (work 1), you have to
re-license it under the OGL (for work 2). However, you do not need to
declare the Product Identity of work 1 in work 2. That means if someone
creates work 3 from work 2, they are not bound by the Product Identity of
work 1. (If they are creating work 3 from work 1 too, then they would be).

Here's an example:

In Dungeons & Dragons there's a monster, the beholder (a multi-eyed orb
monster). It is Product Identity. If you were creating a work from the
System Reference Document, you couldn't use the term 'beholder'. However,
if you were creating a work (work 3) from a work (work 2) that was itself
created from the System Reference Document (work 1), you could. This would
allow you to create a NoX RPG (NoX had a similar but different monster
called a beholder).

At least, that's my interpretation. The alternative would be that every
time you created a derivative of a work, you would need to identify the
Product Identity of every work that that work was a derivative of.

Therefore, it shouldn't be too hard to find (or create) works without
Product Identity, even if they are derived from works with Product Identity.

But I am not a lawyer, so take all this with a grain of salt.

Cheers,

*Chris Sakkas
**Admin of the FOSsil Bank wiki <http://fossilbank.wikidot.com/> and the Living
Libre blog <http://www.livinglibre.com> and Twitter
feed<https://twitter.com/#%21/living_libre>
.*

On 4 December 2012 09:15, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:

> Months ago Chris Sakkas wrote to this list re the subject
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/2012-May/000149.html and I
> didn't see any followup.
>
> I suggest http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html *might* be Open
> Knowledge Definition compliant, with the proviso that no "Product
> Identity" is defined (akin to FDL with no invariant sections etc). But
> I'm not at all certain.
>
> This is an old license (2000). It has been discussed thoroughly
> elsewhere, though I don't have a specific reference. Does anyone? Does
> anyone know of important uses free of "Product Identity"?
>
> Mike
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20121204/d2fedefa/attachment-0001.htm>