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

[Rob Myers]

On 01/10/13 03:39 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> 
> I wonder if (as Rob Myers suggested) that works under this Open Game
> License might be considered open, with the priviso that no Product
> Identity is specified by the licensor, like the FDL with no invariant
> sections etc?
> 
> A reason to not stipulate this might be if the license in practice is
> never used without specifying PI. I have no data on this.
> 
> Chris, Rob, or anyone care to provide data or otherwise comment?

I don't have data on this. But there are a number of web sites and
products that present all the Open Content for a given game, sans
Product Identity:

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/
http://www.traveller-srd.com/
http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/
http://www.d20swsrd.com/
http://www.d20herosrd.com/
http://www.d20modernpf.com/


Some references for parts of the license that concern me:

Copyright in games (1.d):

http://web.archive.org/web/20130822202515/http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

Copyright in plots (1.e):

http://www.copyrightcodex.com/infringement/16-infringement-substantial-similarity/infringement-plots-storylines

Super-trademarks (7):

http://www.earth1066.com/D20FAQ.htm#_C.08__


And Wizards Of The Coast have a FAQ regarding the license here, which
covers some of the terms of the license in more detail:

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f

- Rob.