Is ther a generic OGL license Out there

[mratomek]

I want to publish the current game I am working on under an OGL license that would allow other people to run with it. Is there a good license out there that already exists? This is not a D20 game.

[timopod]

Do you really need one? You can write your own if you want. Just make a EULA or something that states your purpose.

[Trevis Martin]

Clinton author of The Shadow of Yesterday and technical admin of the Forge publishes his games under the Creative Commons license.  Perhaps that will suit your needs?

best

Trevis

[jerry]

I'm not aware of any good open licenses specifically for games. In general, I'm not sure you would want one, unless you specifically wanted to limit the use of the text to the sphere of gaming texts.

In general, the open licenses that people use for texts are:

The Creative Commons licenses
The GNU Free Documentation License
The GNU General Public License

You can find some others listed at GNU:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

I'm somewhat partial to the GNU FDL myself, because it requires that any downstream uses not only be open, but be in a format that people can use (that is, someone downstream can't use an FDLed document but publish the source in a word processor format where the word processor costs a lot money or is unavailable). I feel that this is very important, especially for maintaining the long-term viability of open works. However, the FDL does have issues, mainly with Invariant Texts. That's a pretty big issue because it opens the possibility of cutting off some future avenues of use (Invariant Texts cannot be removed; they cannot be relevant to the rest of the text; but that means that the FDLed document can't be modified in a manner that would make an Invariant Text relevant to the document's text).

Jerry

[madelf]

The WotC OGL actually is a generic license. You don't have to be basing your game on D20 to use it. Several non-d20 games have been released under the OGL. I don't know as I'd call it the best choice for an open license, but it's certainly an option.

[mratomek]

Do you really need one? You can write your own if you want. Just make a EULA or something that states your purpose.

Could a EULA be used to grant a limited license to people? I like that. The OGL is fine, but the amount of crap that is published is amazing. I wanted to be able to control whether an individual's contribution was free fanware, independant or in-house by requiring them to go throw a submission process if they actually wanted to sell their product for $$$.

[timopod]

Oh, this goes beyond me, and enters "call a lawyer" land.

[jerry]

The WotC OGL actually is a generic license. You don't have to be basing your game on D20 to use it. Several non-d20 games have been released under the OGL. I don't know as I'd call it the best choice for an open license, but it's certainly an option.

Yeah, the OGL is generic, but it isn't really open. It includes a very restrictive definition of "Product Identity" that mirrors what the old TSR tried to convince gamers was what trademark and copyright could restrict. Because of the Product Identity section, the OGL puts restrictions on downstream works that are unrelated to the content of the upstream works. And to the extent that PI is related to upstream works, permission must be acquired before a downstream work can be distributed.

Decent article about it on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Gaming_License

Jerry

[talysman]

The restrictions of the Product Identity section of the OGL only matters to those creating derivative works. In other words, the OGL allows the original publisher to label certain things "Product Identity" and requires a separate license from the publisher if downstream content creators want to claim compatibility. In other words, it doesn't protect the trademarked items at all, it protects the right to use the advertising claim "compatible with these trademarked games".

The example of this in action is, of course, the d20 license. In order for a game suppliment to advertise itself as d20 compatible and be able to use the Product Identiy materials, the derivative publisher must follow the rules of the d20 license, not just the rules of the OGL.

This doesn't matter for what mratomek wants. He has completely original content that he wants to openly license for non-commercial purposes, but wants a restriction requiring those who want to create commercial derivative works to pay a licensing fee. That sounds like just a Creative Commons license with the Attribution and NonCommercial clauses, plus an additional note to contact the publisher for commercial licensing options.

This could also be covered by a EULA, but don't be fooled by the abbreviation. A EULA is an End-User Licensing Agreement -- in other words, a license. The OGL and Creative Commons licenses are both EULAs; if you wanted a different EULA, you would have to write it yourself. And that means you should really talk to a lawyer, to make sure that the definitions of what the derivative publisher can and cannot do will hold up in court. You will also want to talk to a lawyer if you go the OGL route, to make sure your secondary license and your Product Identity has been defined correctly. Really, all we can do is make suggestions for your further research; we can't tell you which is right for what you are trying to do, can't write your license for you, and can't make that final decision for you.

But if you wanted some non-lawyerly advice: what I would do is just go the Creative Commons by-nc route with the comment to contact me about commercial licening and just take the risk that I know what I'm doing. We're indie publishers, not major corporations. We should take basic copyright precautions, but we shouldn't overthink this. Who's going to steal from an indie publsiher? Periodically, someone gets bent out of shape about the possibilities of someone stealing their version of elves or putting their PDFs on a peer-to-peer network or something like that. I think that's a sign of losing perspective. *If* someone were to steal from an indie game publisher (and I doubt anyone would,) we're talking tiny dollar amounts that are probably going to be compensated by the free advertising. If someone does something that really requires legal action, then take legal action... THEN. don't worry about it NOW.

[mratomek]

This doesn't matter for what mratomek wants. He has completely original content that he wants to openly license for non-commercial purposes, but wants a restriction requiring those who want to create commercial derivative works to pay a licensing fee.

I want to control who can publish what, where and when. Not charge a licensing fee.

If your produt is not up to snuff, I would allow you to publish it freely as a fan-based product. You couldn't sell it or include it in a distribution that is sold. You have to give it away for free. No logos, branding or use of protected properties.

If your product is up to snuff, then I would like to simply have to grant the licenses for the particualr product. Without the grant of the license, it is nothing more than fan-based product. With the grant there would be access to logos, branding and protected properties.

If some of your product were up to snuff, but other aspects were not, that might be an opportunity for cooperation, publishing in house under a different in print. This would be more of an acquisition than a license.

So maybe all I am really looking for is a standardized licensing agreement that I could use repeatedly for those persons who are capable of producing a solid product. Any one know of any good examples on the Net somewhere?

[talysman]

I want to control who can publish what, where and when. Not charge a licensing fee.

Sorry, I misread your comment about wanting people to go through a submission process. This may explain why none of the suggestions people have given you have been satifactory.

What you want, plain and simple, is ordinary copyright and a notice that says "Contact the publisher for licensing information." Possibly some trademarks, as well. Then, have a contract ready for those you approve. None of the licenses mentioned will be useful unless you don't care if fan (noncommercial) products get your approval first. The OGL doesn't have enough restrictions on it for your needs.

Which means you have to talk to a lawyer, to get him to write up a standard contract.

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hi Mratomek,

I want to see if I am understanding you correctly.

You want to control:

• Use of logos.
• Who can make products for the retail space.

You want to allow:

• People to make copies of your work, but not sell them.
• People to make derivative works.

If that is accurate, then I would suggest looking at the creative commons non-commercial license. Release the text of your game under that license, and mark your logos as copyright. This would mean that if someone wants to make a derivative work and sell it, then they would have to make a contract and acquire permission from you, but fans could make derivative works as long as they didn't use your copyrighted logos.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so use this advice at your own risk.

[mratomek]

Hi Mratomek,

I want to see if I am understanding you correctly.

You want to control:

• Use of logos.
• Who can make products for the retail space.

You want to allow:

• People to make copies of your work, but not sell them.
• People to make derivative works.

If that is accurate, then I would suggest looking at the creative commons non-commercial license. Release the text of your game under that license, and mark your logos as copyright. This would mean that if someone wants to make a derivative work and sell it, then they would have to make a contract and acquire permission from you, but fans could make derivative works as long as they didn't use your copyrighted logos.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so use this advice at your own risk.

I looked into the CC, but its the "people can make copies of your work, but not sell them" aspect that is problematic.

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

You would want that for control.

You can release your copyrighted materials under different contracts. So if you allow people to make non-commerical copies, fans can make copys, and anyone who wants to sell a product based on your work can go through whatever additional process you require for that permission.

This is essentially how copyleft licenses work. If someone goes outside the license restrictions you have given them, then they have lost the right to use that copyrighted work, and can face prosecution. So with a copyleft license you want to only give away the rights you are comfortable no longer having control over. Since you want to retain control on a commerical level then you stop short of there with a CC non-commerical license.

There shouldn't be a need to make a new license as you should be able to accomplish what you want with existing licenses.

For example:

You release your work under a CC non-commercial license, excluding your logos which you keep under normal copyright.

This means I can:

• Make copies of your work, except for your logos. Perhaps I want the rest of my group to have copies so they understand the game better. Perhaps I want to leave them in city buses and park benches for people to find.
• Make derivative work, that does not include your copyrighted logos. Perhaps I want to make a monster book, but either don't want to ask for permission because I don't want to sell it, or you didn't find it up to snuff and won't give me the rights to use your logos. Which means I can't sell it.
• I can make a derivative work and sell it with your logos, if I first get your permission. To get your permission I have to do what you want as you hold the key, the permission. You can put my work through whatever process you want and give permission or withhold permission as you desire.