Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Strange Creative Commons Licence problem.

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: Strange Creative Commons Licence problem.
  • Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:19:54 +0100


On Friday, April 16, 2004, at 08:25AM, Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se>
wrote:

>I would not want to recommend the OGL over a CC license at all. OGL cannot
>really be called an Open Content license, it allows the licensor to close
>elements which are not possible to own from a IP law perspective.

Surely this is just like the FDL's invariant sections or CC's no-derivs.

>It also
>includes a general ,and thus very far reaching, restriction in the licensees
>right to indicate co-adaptability and compatibility with any trademark.
>Being
>able to indicate co-adaptability and compatibility with another game is
>essential when dealing with role-playing games.

You need to understand where the OGL has come from and its intended market.
The company that wrote it lost a lawsuit (yes, lost: WotC vs Palladium) about
claiming compatibility some years earlier. So whilst it's essential, it's not
something with a good precedent in law if a trademark holder gets upset. *
This limitation is roughly equivalent to a "no advertising" clause. Not
GPL-compatible, no, but then nor are most Open Content licenses.
The OGL is excellent for its intended purpose and contains some good stuff.
It is not particularly useful outside of pen&paper role-playing games except
as an interesting model.

- Rob.

* - IANAL. They settled in Palladium's favor. Don't know if this was in or
out of court. It was more about mechanics and trademarks than a simple "this
is compatible" notice. But you don't mess with Palladium...




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page