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

Tue Aug 13 13:50:52 UTC 2013

Given the other comments for reviewing this license, I've come around to 
a +1 on giving this a substantive look (I'd originally thought it was an 
license exclusively for D&D, but it looks like it's at least somewhat 
wider than this).

All of it looks fine to me except for the Product Identity clause (s. 7) 
-- and I don't think this is compliant.  It's one thing to not license 
use of the product identity. It's quite another to have the user agree 
"not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to 
compatibility".

It seems like this amounts to a contractual obligation quite outside of 
copyright or trademark.  Regardless of whether I have a trademark or 
copyright license at all, I'm generally free to mention a product or say 
another is compatible with it (at least under Canadian or US trademark 
law; I believe some European jurisdictions are stricter). Moreover, the 
definition of "Product Identity" in the license is even wider than just 
trade-mark.  This is quite a limit on fair use and free speech that 
users must agree to.  It's also not clear whether this obligation would 
apply only to derivative works; it may very well extend at least to 
other works distributed alongside the original.

Also, this isn't problematic for OD compliance, but I had to look up the 
word "potation".  Oxford dictionary defines it as " the action of 
drinking alcohol"...

Kent

On 13-08-12 03:28 PM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
> I think we do, and should, aim to cover "Open Content" as well as 
> "Open Data". Reading the notes seems to imply main issue was being 
> outside "Open Data" expertise. IMO that shouldn't be a reason for full 
> exclusion.
>
> rufus
>
> PS: really sorry not to make the meeting (had a pre-existing 
> conflicting call). Thanks for the prompt notes and main thing for me 
> is helping to take through actions from *previous* call (esp those 
> with Herb re getting up license texts and merging existing licenses repo).
>
>
> On 10 August 2013 00:41, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com 
> <mailto:ml at gondwanaland.com>> wrote:
>
>     As reflected in
>     http://opendefinition.org/2013/08/08/notes-from-open-definition-call-august-2013/
>     we briefly discussed the Open Game License, though not its substance.
>     The feeling among those present was it may be out of scope for this
>     group, and is outside of this group's expertise: unless someone wants
>     strongly to convince otherwise and does so, we'll not officially
>     evaluate the Open Game License's conformance or lack thereof.
>
>     It'd be easy to convince me otherwise, but I'm probably an outlier
>     here in terms of interest in licenses that have near zero public
>     sector or research relevance; I don't want to push this through
>     without other AC members' scrutiny.
>
>     Mike
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     od-discuss mailing list
>     od-discuss at lists.okfn.org <mailto:od-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>     http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
>     Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *
>
> **Rufus Pollock**
>
> **Founder and Executive Director | skype: rufuspollock | @rufuspollock 
> <https://twitter.com/rufuspollock>**
>
> **The Open Knowledge Foundation <http://okfn.org/>**
>
> **Empowering through Open Knowledge**
>
> **http://okfn.org/| @okfn <http://twitter.com/OKFN>| OKF on Facebook 
> <https://www.facebook.com/OKFNetwork>| Blog <http://blog.okfn.org/> | 
> Newsletter <http://okfn.org/about/newsletter>*
> **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20130813/70b4ab2f/attachment-0001.html>