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

Wed Oct 23 07:23:19 UTC 2013

On 13-10-22 08:04 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
Astute point Federico. Perhaps we should be rejecting any "license" that
tries to impose obligations through contract that would not otherwise be
imposable through copyright, trademark, or other IP rights.  The
recently rejected Calgary license is a prime example of this, where the
"license" was intermingled with the contractual terms of use.  In this
case, the terms stated "If you access, use or download any of the
datasets (&"Data") provided by The City of Calgary (&"The City") on this
website (&"Site") you accept and agree to comply and be legally bound by
[this agreement]".  These terms would likely apply irrespective of
whether you did anything to implicate copyright in the work.

The Open Game License isn't quite clearly as founded in contract as the
Calgary license -- it's labelled as a license throughout and leads off
with a copyright notice -- but it's overall a bit questionable.  In
particular, it seems that the "Offer and Acceptance" and "Grant and
Consideration" sections are attempting to make the terms apply through
contract in addition to copyright.  The inclusion of non-copyrightable
"methods, procedures, processes and routines" add fuel to this fire.

I'm not sure this flaw clearly fails the current Open Definition, so we
should probably think through this a bit more for 1.2.  Also, a bit
problematically, I think some already-approved licenses suffer the same
flaw.  For example, the OGL Canada states "Use of any Information
indicates your acceptance of the terms below" and "Information" is
defined as "information resources protected by copyright *or other
information *that is offered for use under the terms of this licence". 
The UK OGL, even though only slightly different, should be fine; it
defines "use" as "doing any act which is restricted by copyright or
database right."

Anyways, as for the Open Game License, I'd like to hear more comments on
this issue.  If everyone will permit, I'll retract and reserve for now
my vote until this previously undiscussed issue is worked out.

Kent

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20131023/4ef47ad9/attachment-0001.html>