[od-discuss] Open Game License 1.0a for approval

[Mike Linksvayer]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Federico Morando
<federico.morando at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/21/2013 12:09 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
>> It may be worth putting a note about the non-copyrightability of game
>> rules and/or the overreaching nature of the definition of Open Game
>> Content in the comments.
>
> -1 on considering the Open Game License as an open license.

At this point, 3 (Rufus, Kent, Herb) of 4 AC members expressing an
opinion are +1, so it would pass (per
http://opendefinition.org/licenses/process/ at least 75% if there's
any dissent).

Others encouraged to weigh in. Delivery of mail to this list was
delayed for a bit (thanks to OKF sysadmins for fixing), so we'll start
the 2 week time period from the first +1, October 20, as clearly it
had been delivered by then.

> Or, at least, I'm very skeptical. In fact, the issue concerning the
> non-copyrightability of game rules "as such" (in the sense that manuals are
> of course copyrightable as the description of a specific rule at a much more
> "micro" level, as soon as ideas and expressions are not merged) is not just
> incidental here. In my opinion, the OGL has been designed in oder to instill
> in the mind of a lot of amateur role playing game authors that "the game
> mechanic [including] the methods, procedures, processes and routines"
> govering a role playing game (let's say, D&D, to be clear) can copyrighted.

I don't think we've discussed this issue (whether purporting to
license something which is not restricted by default is problematic,
should be prohibited, or other for open licenses; what about
purporting to accomplish same via contract?) in depth here. Would be
interested to hear folks' thoughts on this, and immediately, whether
uncertainty should mean deferring if not outright rejecting the Open
Game License.

> Moreover, the clause about the use of Product Identity aims at something
> similar concerning potentially public domains things, such as artifacts,
> creatures, spells, plots.
> But, of course, we can deal with this using the proviso that the OGL is only
> Open when no Product Identity is identified.
>
> Overall, I would not like to endorse this license, even if - technically
> speaking - some readings of the license (i.e., a reading adding "if
> copyrightable" about 10 times...) could lead to an interpretation which is
> in line with the open definition.
>
> To conclude, I do not have strong legal objections to the addition of the
> license the the list of "Conformant but Little Used, Discontinued or
> Deprecated Licenses", but I just wanted to comment on the fact that some
> additional discussion may be appropriate and/or that the proviso about
> Product Identity should be very clear and prominent.

If conformance passes, I'll try to make the proviso (and the one for
GFDL) more prominent and scary on the approved licenses list. Not much
of an assurance, I admit.

Mike