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

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> 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/

These sites don't inspire much confidence for me. They're all really
similar, except for the first, which has a broken link for "legal".

Take http://www.d20modernpf.com/

"Open Game Content: All material on this site is designated Open Game
Content with the exception of content previously designated Product
Identity."

Previously designated where? http://www.d20modernpf.com/ogl doesn't
mention PI, but unclear how the notices on top relate.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-use does mention PI, and lots
of stuff falls into it. I'm not certain what doesn't.

The FAQ linked below says the publisher should clearly mark what is PI
and what is Open Game Content, but that doesn't seem to be what is
done.

It could be unfamiliarity with this scene makes me blind to what would
be obvious to anyone familiar with it about what is actually Open Game
Content. But if that's not the case and these are good examples, I'd
hate to see bad ones, and am doubtful OGL is used as an open license
in practice. Not against the letter of the OD, but not sure approval
would be proper either. Very happy to be shown to be blind or
otherwise wrong about any of this.

> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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