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

Wed Jul 17 21:59:57 UTC 2013

On 11/07/13 08:36, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> Hi Chris, thanks for the writeup.
>
> If we did approve this, it'd probably go in the little used category.
>
> One comment inline below, but I'd like discussion from others before
> moving ahead. Maybe Rob Myers will appear. :)

Sorry for the delay, I was relocating to Vancouver.

I have a soft spot for the OGL, and I think that if the GNU FDL without 
immutable sections is OK then the OGL without Product Identity is also 
OK. I have concerns about a couple of the clauses, but they are probably 
overwrought. ;-)

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html

Clause 1:

* "Product Identity" is a kind of super-trademark, it covers not just 
product and product line names, logos and trade dress but "formats, 
poses, concepts, themes". This definition wouldn't be used by any 
OD-compliant work, but it's there in the license. I assume this is OK.

* "Open Game Content" is "the game mechanic and includes the methods, 
procedures, processes and routines". Notice that we're talking about 
uncopyrightable material here - game mechanics.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

If the license reads as "...of course this only covers what is 
copyrightable in the game rules text", this is OK.

* Clause 3 requires you to accept the terms of the license, and clause 4 
grants you a license in return. Does this affect the license-vs-contract 
status of the OGL, and if it does is that of concern for OD conformance? 
I assume not as the ODbL includes a contract fallback, but I mention it 
to be complete.

- Rob.