Forum:OGL vs GFDL, possible multiple copyvios

I would like to draw your attention to the suspected incompatibility between GFDL and the Open Gaming License (hereafter referred to as OGL). This might mean that we have a multitude of copyvios on Wikia and is, IMO, a huge matter. --TOR 19:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What is OGL and what's it for
OGL is a license created by Wizards of the Coast, a producer of a number of Role-playing Games, most notably Dungeons & Dragons.

OGL allows companies and individuals to distribute and modify content released under the license and, therefore, to publish standalone gaming products using those game mechanics.

More information:
 * 'Open Gaming License' Wikipedia article
 * 'Wizards of the Coast' Wikipedia article

Compatibility issues
I am not a lawyer and may not be right about this, but after reading both documents it seems to me that they are incompatible.

Consider the following:
 * 1) There is no OGL &rarr; GFDL compatibility, because:
 * OGL reads:
 * 2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License.
 * 1) '''There is no GFDL &rarr; OGL compatibility, because:
 * GFDL reads:
 * You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, [...] provided that [...] you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.
 * AND
 * OGL reads:
 * 10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.
 * (which seems to be an additional condition)

Wikias involved

 * d20npcs (info)
 * dnd (info)
 * pl.dnd (info; inactive, but was intended to be a Polish version of dnd)
 * Note: this list may be inconclusive.

Possible solutions

 * Closing the Wikias: A drastic, but clear and easy solution.
 * Deleting OGL content: It is possible that in some cases OGL content will not be the only thing on a wiki. The community might delete the offending pages and continue to develop the wiki without OGL content. This could save some Wikias but would require a lot of effort.
 * Allowing OGL: Allowing portions of articles to be licensed under OGL while the rest would be GFDL would solve the problem. However, this might open the way towards new licensed being introduced on Wikia, which would probably only confuse editors and hurt the projects.

Discussion

 * Please discuss this issue below

Kernigh writes: It is good to acknowledge and discuss license-conflict issues. I am no expert on these issues, but I have made contributions to Wikia under the GFDL.

Issue One (OGL as GFDL) does not seem to present a conflict to me. One could could satisfy that clause of the OGL by following the conjunction (all the terms) of both the OGL and GFDL.

Issue Two (GFDL as OGL) argues that the requirement to include a copy of the OGL contradicts the GFDL. I believe that this is not a contradiction, and thus not a problem. Here is a similar situation:


 * GNU General Public License reads:
 * 6. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
 * Python 2.0.1 license reads:
 * 2. [PSF grants a license] provided, however, that PSF's License Agreement and PSF's notice of copyright [...] are retained in Python 2.0.1 alone or in any derivative version prepared by Licensee.

However, the Python 2.0.1 license appears upon the FSF License List as being compatible with the GNU GPL. This either means that the requirement to include the Python license or OGL does not conflict with the GPL or GFDL, or that the Free Software Foundation (FSF), with all of its expertise concerning GNU licenses, has not noticed this problem (or possibly, though I think not, that the GPL allows a restriction that there be a copy of the Python license, but the GFDL does not allow such for the OGL).

Meanwhile, I think that I might have once noticed another incompatibility between the OGL and GFDL, but I do not now recall what that might have been. --Kernigh 02:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

GFDL vs. OGL
I believe that kernight is correct, even though he quotes back the wrong licence. In reading the entire Text of the GNU Free Documentation License and being familiar with the OGL, I don't believe the conflict is a great as you think.

The important point here is that the GFDL acknowledges a "invariant section", which if you copy a text under the GFDL, you must include, and can not alter this, section of the text. This was included for copyright notices, references for the origninal papers, and additional licences like the OGL. Specifically quoting from Section 4, paragraph L:


 * Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered in their text and in their titles. Section numbers or the equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.

From the perspective of the GFDL, the OGL does not impose any new restrictions on the text, the OGL text includes a one page "invariant section" (the text of the licence, including a list of copyright holders).

To be completely pendantic, the wiki authors posting OGL material should include a notice on every page similar to "This article is licenced under the terms of the OGL, and if you publish this text you must include a copy of the OGL per the Invariant Section requirement of the GFDL." (probably through a template). Tjoneslo 13:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)