Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se>]

Not that I think this list is the *best* place to discuss the benefits or 
dangers of using the OGL... but nevertheless there are a few point I'd like 
to make.

fredag 16 april 2004 10:19 skrev Rob Myers:
> 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.

No not really. This license allows you to close stuff like poses, concepts, 
thematic elements, plots, story lines etc. 

> >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. 

Rob, I do know where the OGL comes from and of its intended market. I've been 
playing RPG's for more than 20 years...

The restriction I mentioned is stated as: "You agree not to indicate 
compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark 
in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly 
licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark 
or Registered Trademark."  This is hardly a "no advertising" clause. It's a 
ban on using any trademark to indicate any sort of compatibility. 

> 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.

Sorry Rob, but this is nothing but FUD. The OGL is a market control device, 
it 
does not belong in the same room as the CC licenses. Recommending its use is 
not particulary nice to those who would get caught in its web.  

I would recommend someone wanting to use a Open Content license for a 
roleplaying game to use either GPL, OSL or CC Att-SA.

/Peter