I've been reading/following this thread, and in a general well-read layman's way, I do understand the issues - and don't necessarily disagree with ADB's position on them. However, what I'm not clear on is what exactly is being argued over.
For the sake of this discussion, I would like to establish some definitions:
ADBU: The ADB Universe. Refers to the equivalent under ADB's license from Paramount of the Traveller OTU.
STU: The Star Trek Universe. Refers to Paramount's official view of what is Star Trek. Presumably includes six TV series and eleven feature films. May or may not also include a large number of novels, though Paramount has said that those novels are "not canon". May or may not include such things as the Technical Manual(s) and commercially-published blueprints.
PD/t: Prime Directive for Traveller. Refers to the forthcoming ADB/Mongoose product that - sorta (per this discussion) - brings the Star Trek franchise to Traveller in an official (sorta) way.
Now, if I'm understanding things correctly, what ADB (via Jean) is saying is effectively that "If it's been documented as part of the STU, but not as part of the ADBU, we can't see you do anything with it, or we will have to take IP protection measures.".
Note that I said "... been documented as ...". Without that phrase, a Role-Playing Game is impossible, because a character that I create would be part of the STU (must be, to be part of the ADBU), and not documented as part of the ADBU - and thus ADB would have to take IP protection measures.
This now causes a grey area to exist - we now need to answer the following questions:
1. Are the novels and technical manuals and blueprints included in the STU?
2. What constitutes being documented as part of the STU?
3. What constitutes being documented as part of the ADBU?
If the answer to (1) is "No", then, logically, they can be drawn on - in detail - by players of PD/t, since they can't possibly violate an IP that they're explicitly not part of. That means that I can work up such interesting races as the feline Sivaoans and Eeiauoans (from Janet Kagan's "Uhura's Song"), the Hamalki (from Diane Duane's "The Wounded Sky"), or the Vinithi (from Barbara Paul's "The Three-Minute Universe"). It would also mean that I can use such individuals as a captain named James T. Kirk, a First Officer/Science Officer from a planet called Vulcan named Spock, and so on - because I'm not drawing them from the STU, I'm using the portrayals from the novels that were explicitly declared as not part of the STU.
Let's dispense with that bit of silliness; assume that the answer to (1) is "Yes".
That leaves the questions of "What does 'documented' mean?" This is the question that we really need answered from ADB and Mongoose, and the answer is likely to need to be a prepared statement from their legal departments, preferably in language that a non-lawyer can understand and interpret without needing to descend into the morass of legal "terms of art".
It should be noted that the issue here is less a question of using STU stuff that isn't ADBU stuff than it is of sharing the same in the essentially public fan communities, like this forum.
As Jean found out - sadly, in a rather abrupt and unfriendly way - the Traveller community is big on sharing openly, and we tend to draw on anything and everything we see as relevant and compatible. Rarely do we do so without altering them to fit our personal perception of "canon", and when we do, we generally make it clear which fundamental assumptions we're choosing to violate, and how. We don't generally hold with the attitude often attributed to the creators of Certain Other Games, that there is only One Right Way to play, and that the creator in question has spoken the Gospel of that One Right Way.
For Mongoose and ADB to bring out a new product like PD/t, there has to be a business reason. For ADB, it's likely to expand their market slightly, to one more reasonably vital (in the sense of energetic, not important) game system - Traveller fans are likely to be Star Trek fans, and this gives them a way to combine the two. For Mongoose, it may be a little more important - Star Trek fans aren't necessarily Traveller fans, and seeing PD/t has the potential of bringing in an influx - and a potentially sizeable one, as RPGs go - of new fans for Traveller, which can then rebound on the whole line. Given that, I can't really see anything to object to in the match, and I'll be looking at the product when it's ready. But I am first a Traveller fan, and second the editor of a Traveller fanzine, and my ultimate view of the product is going to be from that perspective. Sharing Traveller is a community practice that is extremely important to me. I understand about the need and desire to protect IP - though I fundamentally disagree with some of the practices. I don't want to impair anyone's legitimate rights in that area. But I also believe that one of the things that keeps a property like Star Trek alive is not that Holy Paramount hands down from on high a New Image, be it TV or film, but that those in whom it lit a spark of imagination fan that spark into a raging flame of creativity that is never quenched, and which finds its outlet in fanac, from fiction to conventions to games to ... whatever.
A property that you can only look at from afar, like a perfect jewel in a museum, is not a living property. A living property is one that you can pick up, and inspect closely, and see if it fits with this other property over here, and can write about that subtle shade of color deep in it that you don't get to see except close up, and about that flaw way over there in it, and how you can display it to best hide that flaw - or to show off that flaw in a way that makes it look like it's NOT a flaw. It's something you can play with - and is durable enough to stand up to your play.
So now what? Now, I think it's time to ask - as a member of the community, not as anyone In A Position To Enforce My Desires - that everyone take a step back, and a deep breath. The dialogue here needs to continue - but before it can do so, we need to get a clear definition of terms. Then, rather than arguing about those terms, we need to work together to find out how - if at all - the legal limits imposed on ADB by Paramount can be made compatible with the community ethos of the Traveller community. It does not need to be Us v. Paramount, and should not be - and not solely because (as has been pointed out) Paramount has lawyers whose lunch expense accounts are higher than our lifetime incomes.
Jean, the ball appears to be in ADB's court. What can you do to provide us with the basic terms of the discussion - in language that we can understand?
