Under the six tests then, it would seem that if a
publisher took the d20 SRD and published a module
without the d20 license or OGL, they will have
violated WotC's six tests.
Previously, however, you indicated that publications
based on the d20SRD without the d20 logo were
perfectly fine. Would you please clarify?
Mac Golden
--- "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Kal Lin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > How "infectious" is the OGL?
>
> The "infection" in the OGL is the derivative works
> clause of USC Title 17,
> the US Copyright law. If a work based on Open Game
> Content is considered
> "derivative" of that Open Game Content under the
> terms of that law, that
> work must also use the OGL.
>
> This looks clear, but it's really clear as mud. The
> problem is that
> "derivative" is not defined by Title 17; the
> definition of "derivative" is
> left to the courts to determine on a case by case
> basis. The case law, as
> it relates to games and "instructions" is very, very
> vague.
>
> The Free Software Foundation, and the Open Source
> community in general,
> chooses to take an extreme and narrow view of the
> copyright law. In their
> eyes, >any< use of >any< copyrighted code, no matter
> how trivial, creates a
> work derived in part from that code; and in the case
> of the GPL, the
> derivative work in the whole may be distributed
> using only the GPL as as
> result.
>
> Copyright law covers the specific expression of
> ideas, not the ideas
> themselves. The "idea" of a roleplaying game cannot
> be copyright. It might
> have been eligable for a patent in 1975, but that
> window closed long ago and
> nobody can reopen it.
>
> So, the question becomes: "in the context of the
> rules and materials of a
> roleplaying game system, to what extent does the
> copyright law cover those
> rules and materials?"
>
> Just so you know, there is no clear and definitive
> answer to this question,
> because no significant copyright case has ever been
> brought to trial and
> received a final judgement from a court involving
> roleplaying games. There
> have been several suits filed, all of which have
> been settled out of court,
> and it is generally acknowledged that such
> settlements have favored the
> plantiffs.
>
> Here's the definition that Wizards essentially uses
> to determine if we
> should take action against something we consider
> infringing. If a work
> could be considered "infringing", it can also be
> considered "derivative".
> Thus, these tests provide some guidence as to what
> the OGL can "infect". A
> similar set of tests is probably going to be used by
> the copyright holders
> of Open Game Material in the event that someone
> tries to break and/or
> challenge the OGL.
>
> We believe a work may reasonably be held by a court
> to be
> infringing/derivative if:
>
> 1) The material contains exact quotes longer than a
> few sentences from a
> copyright work and it would not be considered a
> "fair use" of the work as
> described in Title 17.
>
> 2) The material would be considered a "translation"
> under the terms of
> Title 17; including a simple "search and replace" on
> the game terms or
> proper nouns used in a copyright work.
>
> 3) The material contains references (i.e. "names")
> of characters, spells,
> locations, magic items, monsters or gods to
> copyright material that is not
> in the public domain.
>
> 4) The material uses the specific expression of the
> standardized stat
> blocks defined by the core game system without
> altering the order or the
> meaning of the items in that stat block.
>
> 5) The material claims to be "compatible with" or
> "designed for use with" a
> specific named game system.
>
> 6) The material consists of descriptions of
> characters, spells, location,
> magic items, monsters, or gods formatted in the same
> fashion as the standard
> templates used in a copyright work, and using the
> same descriptive terms for
> abilities, skills, and special powers as defined in
> that copyright work.
>
> Now, you can certainly find any number of people
> (including a lawyer or two)
> who will tell you that none of the above six tests
> are valid and that there
> is no way to use the copyright laws to protect the
> use or re-use of game
> rules.
>
> And, you can certainly find any number of people
> (including a lawyer or two)
> who will tell you that copyright law protection
> extends even to the merest
> reference of game system terms in a work and is a
> suitable tool to keep such
> material out of the market.
>
> Because the OGL is a copyright license and because
> the copyrights are held
> by the contributors, there it will be up to each
> contributor to determine
> when, and if, to pursue someone else for
> infringement or for violating the
> terms of the license.
>
> Ryan
>
> -------------
> For more information, please link to
www.opengamingfoundation.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
