Re: [Ogf-l] Opening Closed Games
Dang. See what happens when the list comes to life? On 9/6/06, Exile In Paradise [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Open Game Gurus, I would like to discuss a real-world issue I am wrestling with. Robert, you need one of three things: (1) A statement from the copyright holder that your rules-only work is not infringing, (2) A lawyer who will take a retainer to defend your new game as legally distinct, or (3) an acceptance of possibly losing your house in a lawsuit. The OGL, like the GPL, can do nothing to help you do something with someone else's work. Freeciv could just have easily have been a closed-source game, with regards to it actually being written. Copylefft works great forward-going -- but it doesn't do anything the other way. As to your actual problem -- you'll find some on this list who say it's entirelly legal (it is kind of), and others who say a game has a distinct legally protectable character copyright (it doesn't really [all the time], but you'll need a lawyer to prove it.) If you do decide to re-write this game you wish, I'd hope you will use the OGL. Unless you're writing for an established game that prohibits it, there's no reason not to use the OGL. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
Mark Clover wrote: I'm not convinvced. Shall we just leave it at that and agree it hasn't been testing in court and won't matter until it is? We could be at this a long time doing a dance of semantic variations and never get anywhere. I'd say no, because we know why that line was put in the OGL, and what Wizards intended to do with it. If that line wasn't in there, and it didn't mean what I know it to mean, the whole d20 trademark scheme wouldn't work, either. It's not a question of semantic variations -- it's a question of following in the footsteps of the party that drafted the license. I'm going to point out that you are, by your own admission, looking for a compaitbility indicator and I'm going to posit that you mean compatibility with the d20 System, a compatibility indicator to be an alternative to the d20 system logo. I'm just going to leave it at that. With the slight technicality that we meant compatability with our new documents, that may or may not have anything to do with what the d20 SRD entails, yes. This doesn't seem to have made much, if any, headway in the last five/six(?) years. Is there a reason you can think of why this hasn't been adopted by all potential adopters in that time? Yes. It's simple, really -- there's no fiscal imperative for ANY compatibility logo that isn't paired with a big producer. The biggest producer already has their own logo, and the second-tiers have, for reasons that I won't pretend to speak for, decided not to pick up Prometheus or create their own publisher-independent logo. If Mongoose, White Wolf, Green Ronin, or ENWorld decided to start pushing hard for a replacement compatibility logo, that had the same it'll never get any worse than this clause that the OGL, GPL, and PTL all have, I think you would see Prometheus quietly fade away. The lack of fiscal imperative also explains the other two shortcomings -- the PRD itself is still rough and unfinished, and only those relatively close to the program itself are really aware of it. There are still today bright-eyed young gamers wondering why isn't there a logo that means 'I'm Open!', and as often as not they'll try and start their own new logo. Which just serves to divide the market, and prevent any of these alternative logos (FGA's spawn inclusive) from ever reaching meaningful penetration. Just as an exercise, put yourself on the other side of the table and delineate the opposite viewpoint to your usual perspective. I think I did that above -- presuming that by opposite you meant the FGA's stuff isn't worth it, rather than there's no point to a logo at all. (The argument against any logo at all basically boils down to either a case of not-invented-here, an instance of I don't like your license/logo/name, or a I don't see enough value in this to put it on the back of my book. You might see one or two arguments of I like the family-focused controls on the d20 logo, but I haven't seen too many of those.) DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Open Game Content Logo
Markus: We* had quite a discussion about the whys and why-nots of using the OGL or just making a new license. (A good portion of it, as Clark noted, happened here.) We decided to use our own license because, quite simply, the OGL wasn't intended to protect trademarks. There is *no* way to make a logo mean anything with just the OGL. You could take an OGL-only license, release only the logo and the OGL itself as OGC, and there'd be nothing anyone could do about it. As for that We part -- for a short while, there was a Washington-state not-for-profit called the Free Gaming Association that was going to manage the logos. Due to, among other things, lack of publisher interest in making a third-party-held license, we had to fold and Tom Cauldron got the job of being the legal license holder for our rather limited intellectual property. It looks like he tracked down a lawyer to revise the license, which he's well within his rights to do, but the current OpenDie license is many things that it shouldn't be. (It's not perpetual, there's no clear statement of what is required.) For now, I think you're right--don't touch it with a ten foot pole until Tom cleans up the license, or you get something you're confident will hold up in court. I'll find out what's going on with that thing -- and ask if he could do some updates on the site. (I know there's a vector-based format of the OpenDie around here somewhere...) DM P.S.: If the other guy can demand destruuction of my inventory scares you off, don't use the OGL, either. A provision like that, as ultimate forfeiture for failing to cure, was in the original draft of the OpenDie license and will probably be in any logo license you get, from anyone at all. P.P.S.: It sounds like you *are* looking for a compatability logo. The biggest part that's left out of the OpenDie license that's up right now is that you have to have essentially all of your work be OGC. On 8/10/06, Markus Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 01:58:56PM -0400, Doug Meerschaert wrote: OpenDie is established, and has a perpetual licence. We also have (had?) a compatability license, the Prometheus logo. The license for the OpenDie logo is too restrictive. Licensors are not allowed to modify the logo as they are allowed to do under the OGL. Also, breach of the OpenDie license could require you to destroy your inventory. Sorry, not touching that license with a 50' pole. http://www.prometheusgaming.com/OpenDieLicenseDraft.txt Why aren't you guy's using the OGL? What is the problem with the OGL that causes you concern? Hasbro lawyers were behind the OGL. It protects copyright and gives credit where credit is due. It is bulletproof and protects the little guys from mean 'ole corporations. Also, as you noted, I'm not looking for a compatability logo, such as d20, Prometheus, and such. In terms of publishers, I believe these are the most widely adopted. In terms of books published, I think Mongoose's Open logo takes the cake. In terms of ubiquitous symbols -- the word open and the shape of a d20 pretty much take the cake. To get in on Mongoose's license and use their logo, you must be a publisher that has published at least one title in the past. That's not very open. Sure, I fit that category and can get in on their license, but what about people writing their own adventures that they want to freely publish on the web and aren't looking to make a buck? They can't use Mongoose's logo, because they can't enter into a license agreement, because they're not a publisher. I agree that the shape of a d20 is the ubiquitious symbol of the industry, but I fear the d20 shape in a logo could be construed as indicating compatibility with the d20 system, which could land you in hot water. Also, the d20 shape could imply incompatibility with fudge, dX, Omni-Gamer, and others. If you want a logo to indicate we're open!, please use the OpenDie. You'll have far better luck with it than a brand new logo that means the same thing. Like I said, the license is so much more restrictive than the OGL. I don't want to agree to a license that gives the licensor a mechanism to demand the destruction of my inventory. Also, the logo cannot be modified (say, I wanted to add a zombie coming out of the die), there is no vector graphics version, and there is no monochrome version. Mark ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logos?
On 8/13/06, Mark Clover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I doubt you could successfully argue in court that a logo that seeks to implicitly indicate compatibility is not in violation of a licensing agreement that disallows indications of compatibility. Just because it hasn't come up yet do not mean that it won't, eventually, though for past products it might be a moot point. It's all in what you indicate compatability with. If, for example, SSS wants to say that all of their Warcraft d20 books are both compatible and co-adaptable, the OGL certainly can't say anything about it. The FGA asked Wizards if they had any objections at all to either Prometheus or the OpenDie. In fact, that's why we abandoned the old Free20 name. They won't have any problem with a brand-new compatability indicator -- and even if they did, unless it infringes on one of their trademarks, I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on. (And if you're looking for a new compatability indicator, the Prometheus mark is still the one to go with. Its license is almost exactly as the FGA wrote it, and it's got a nice safe any version you want clause, to boot.) DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Open Game Content Logo
On 8/10/06, David Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know there was some work on a logo, the OpenDie, but I don't know how much acceptance or support it had. OpenDie is established, and has a perpetual licence. We also have (had?) a compatability license, the Prometheus logo. In terms of publishers, I believe these are the most widely adopted. In terms of books published, I think Mongoose's Open logo takes the cake. In terms of ubiquitous symbols -- the word open and the shape of a d20 pretty much take the cake. If you want a logo to indicate we're open!, please use the OpenDie. You'll have far better luck with it than a brand new logo that means the same thing. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] DD 4E
Clark Peterson wrote: The bottom line truth is that there was very little significant reuse of OGC. I think I'll place blame for this most on a failing in the OGL -- there was no easy way to say my book uses Monte Cook's rules without actually asking Monte. Which puts you right back in the same situation as if the OGL had never existed at all, needing to ask permission. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] using the SRD verbatim
Gillispie, Bryan W. wrote: Your statement of There is some debate as to how much you have to in turn make OGC, and... sounded like you meant that there was a requirement past anything derivative since anything that is derivative of OGC is, without question, OGC. That is why I asked for clarification. Remember, however, that what is and is not derivative is not a clear black and white clause. About the only thing that everyone agrees must be OGC is a literal copy of existing text. If you re-write the entire thing, then you've got a good case that you don't even need the OGL -- unless you believe the Character copyright argument that Wizards will give you (and their lawyers will give the judge, and the theoretical jury). If you make a new widget to fit into the framework--like a feat, spell, race, monster, or individual character--have you created something new or something derivative of the system? If you make a new system, have you made something new or is it still a derivation from the OGC? If you want to preserve the safe harbor that the OGL gives you -- the ability to simply wave a document in front of Hasbro's lawyers and get a federal judge to tell them to back off (and maybe even pay for your lawyer) -- then you should mark every game rule or stat-block as OGC. Heck, mark everything except your trademarks and those trademarks you license (such as through the d20STL) as OGC. If you go that route, there's even a shiny logo you can add as well*, to say that you're more open than the other guy. (And there are still folk who look for that, to the extent that they don't buy anything that's not open enough for them. Not many, but we're there.) *: I speak, of course, of the Open Die Logo: http://www.prometheusgaming.com/ Formerly of the now-defunct Free Gaming Association. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] using the SRD verbatim
jeff wrote: Is there a general consensus on using text verbatim out of the MSRD/SRD? For the purposes you outlined -- no and yes. You may use text from any Open-Gaming Content, including the SRD, either verbatium or re-worded, so long as you follow the rules of the license. There is some debate as to how much you have to in turn make OGC, and a line of thought that verbatium copying is the only thing that the SRD gives you, but you certainly can use the exact text from the SRD. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] using the SRD verbatim
Gillispie, Bryan W. wrote: Are you refering to OGL or the D20STL? Your first statement has me confused because the OGL has no requirement on how much of a product has to be OGC. Really, in theory I could produce a document that has absolutely no OGC and release it under the OGL. The OGL *does* have a requirement on OGL -- anything that is derivative of someone else's OGC must, in turn, be OGC. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Using (and declaring) OGC from The Tome of Horrors
Keith Robinson wrote: So, am I right in thinking that the stat blocks for these creatures are OGC, but their names (and any other info in the Credit section) is not? That is to say, I can use the stat block, so long as I use a different monster name? That's my reading of it. My understanding--not having ever looked at ToH--is that you can go right ahead and use monster names, as long as they also appear somewhere other than the Credit section. After all, you wouldn't expect to have to redact all occurrences of the word originally (or in, is, or and for that matter), so why should a word like The Haunt get special treatment? If a trademarkable word is declared OGC, then it's OGC, even if it also happens to appear in a section that isn't OGC. Unless Clark marked it as a trademark (or someone else's trademark) or gave some other specific indication that you CAN'T use it, you can use it. (That is, after all, what saying monster names are OGC means.) DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] Section 6 requirements
Ok, easy question time. (I'm just drawing a blank; I'd thought this had been discussed before.) When is someone required to declare a copyright notice on Open Gaming Content they did not author? Is this something left to the grey areas of copyright law -- ie, only when a significant change tanamount to the creation of a new derivitive work or something, or is there an easier standard? If someone just copies text from an Open Gaming Content PDF and distributes it, are they required to update Section 15 with their own information? Does the answer change if they make layout changes or small edits? DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
David Bolack wrote: He has also, in the past, asserted that a website is similarly hosed. If you have a single OGL document, the entire site is contaminated. That sounds about right, actually. If your website has OGC on it, then you need to treat it all as a work under the OGL. That is, you can't use someone else's trademarks et al. DM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/2005 ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
woodelf wrote: Find me anything in the license itself that supports this. Section #7. ... in a work containting Open Gaming Content... Section #8: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content. Now, there are certain things that have to be OGC, possibly including all game rules in your product. But the license makes a lot more sense when you realize that non-game rule content doesn't have to be PI or OGC. DM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/2005 ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And I'm not willing to come to that conclusion simply so that I can say, see there is a third type of content inside a covered work. So, rather than take the interpretation that the industry has adopted, you prefer one that has almost exactly the same effect? Talk about arguing a moot point. Or is there some deep significance you prefer to attach to the distinction between text that is neither PI nor OGC inside an OGL-covered work and text is only in conjunction with the OGL-covered work. If there's something that you think you (and I) should be able to do, or that the other guy should be compelled to do, could you kindly spell it out for me? DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
woodelf wrote: Now, personally, i don't *like* the interpretation that there is no non-OGC non-PI content in a covered work--it wasn't until i had the third type of content explained to me that i was willing to even accept the license as viable--but i'm not yet convinced that, should it ever come down to a court to decide, that that third type is actually in the license. And later Tim Dugger wrote: You mentioned how courts tend to rule against the drafter in regards to contracts of adhesion, yet you are not realizing that your interpretation is acutally not of benefit to the draftee (and only potentially slightly more beneficial to the drafter). If anything, your interpretation is more restrictive to a person using the license. Woodelf, Tim said pretty much what I would say. The existince of a third type of content is an ambiguity in the license -- specifically, what is the status of part of a work that is neither identified as Open Gaming Content nor Product Idenity? But since it's in WotC's benefit for licensed work to have more OGC and not less whenever anyone but WotC uses it, a court should rule ambiguities in the favor of closing the content--that is, that where it isn't clear that work is OGC, it isn't. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If this is the case, then there's no such thing as the third type of content and a whole bunch of stuff has been published under the OGL using an incorrect interpretation of the license. Nope. Anything not identified as required in Section #8 and also not noted as Product Identity is third type of content. This whole recent fury of list posting can be traced back to a misunderstanding, that if you somehow don't mark content as required in Section 8 then you've opened up the entire work, sans the Product Identity. Which simply isn't true. DM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/88 - Release Date: 9/1/2005 ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Any work covered by the license
On 9/3/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Contractual construction requires that you give effect to this if possible, even if it renders something else redundant. A poor attempt at contractual construction is one where you have to delete a portion of the contract for it to make sense when you read it. Here's the thing -- and this is important, so feel free to repeat it ad-nauseum once you get it right. *Despite* what the industry thinks, if you don't properly follow the OGL you don't gain its protections. If you fail to follow clause #8, you've broken the license. Just as if you used someone else's trademark, used non-OGC, or failed to update your Section 15. Now, it's very likely that no one is going to come after your website that improperly uses someone else's OGC -- even if you're doing it wrong, the worst they can do is make you fix it. But for the second-generation, if you don't trust your upstream authors, don't use them. Because if THEY get called to task and decide it's easier to just not fix it, then YOU lose the part of their work that used THEIR work. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
woodelf wrote: And, while picking a license may be complex, at least the licenses are readable and clear. I don't see anything like the still-unresolved ambiguity over exactly who has authority to declare IP, what can be declared IP, and what the scope of said declarations is. Kindly, then, show me the Creative Commons explanation for the following related questions: * Does my website with advertisments count as commercial use? * What if I'm paid for something else and I use it in a matter of my primary course of work? * What if I sell it but give all of the profits to charity? All of the gross to charity? In comparison to the above, the OGL's reliance upon legal copyright standings for declaring OGL and PI is hardly worth wondering over. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Peculiar question...
On 8/21/05, David Bolack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a mailing list or other resource site for this? For the exchange of OGL'd rule ideas and text? Not really. I've had some success with simply asking around in community sites, but I've gotten woefully bad answers sometimes. (A request for a d20 Modern Wealth system in GP got me to A Magical Medeival Society, which has DCs for purchasing but still requires the tracking of GP.) There have been ideas like this in the past, but they've all stalled for one reason or another. Usually the morbidly small returns. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
Matthew Hector wrote: Since the license already defines other terms, it would certainly be useful to have owenership defined for purpses of the OGL in a later version. So, that's a grand total of two good ideas for a revision of the OGL. * Define Ownership. * Specifically allow attribution of OGC to specific sources. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Interesting comments about Creative Commons license
Hodgson, Matthew wrote: It's probably only out of fear of security that people think they need the CC licence. The CC license serves almost the exact same purpose as the OGL -- to let people do things that they probably could do otherwise, without the hassle of possibly going to court over it. And, more to the point, I suspect that Dvorak is trying to illicit from the public at large the answers he didn't get from the Creative Commons folk -- that is, a justification for CC's existance. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] RE: OGL and made-up logos
I want to put a logo to state compatibility with the game system. You may want to look at the Prometheus Compatability Logo License: www.theFGA.com. And, if you have a question about the legal ramifications of registering or not registering a trademark, you should talk to a lawyer, not a mailing list. We can help you find the right questions, but even the lawyers on this list won't give you answers to those questions through this medium. If you need help finding a lawyer experienced in open-gaming style issues, the list can probably generate several referrals. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] How much is too much for derivative works?
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:03:26 -0700, Ryan S. Dancey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Relevance: When considering how much of a game system can be used without permission, the answer might soon be virtually none. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the sampling they're talking about actually taking part of someone else's recording, slightly altering it, and including it in a new work? More chilling by far, IMNLO, is the ruling a few years back that a particular cord a musician heard and later, perhaps without realizing it, put in their own music, constituted copyright infringement. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: unclaimed trademarks? (was: Re: [Ogf-l] D20 OGL)
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:25:17 -0500, woodelf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Furthermore, i thought that the title of a single work was, perhaps with exceptions, not trademarkable--only series of works could benefit from trademark protection. Hence, the definition of trademark in the OGL. [(f) Trademark means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor] A very liberal reading of this could even conclude with System Reference Document being considered a trademark. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Using material that are not Open Gaming Content?
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 21:49:28 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Davour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ? I've just started to think about a small project that would use rules from the D20 Star Wars game from WotC. Can I use that material, feats and skills, in any way? Can I replicate a feat like theirs with serial numbers filed off or how much must I stay away from non-open content? Technically, yes. A single rule is very likely in the not copyrightable aspect of the game. OTOH, in donig so you'd leave the safe harbor of the OGL. Because of that, please consider extant Open Gaming alternatives. For vehicles (on ground or in space), take a look at d20 Modern, Dragonstar and Babylon 5. For a force point like mechanic, look to Action Points from Unearthed Arcana, Spycraft, or d20 Modern. For the force, consider either core Psionics or one of the many non-core Psionics. Ken Hood's Skill Feat system is popular, as is Green Ronin's Psychic Handbook. (And less popular, but still getting plugged, is Mindcraft from yours truly--due soon now from Alea Publishing.) Finally, if you want Wound Points / Vitality Points, pick up Unearthed Arcana--the system's in there already. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] One or many licensors?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even assuming arguendo that you were correct (which requires us to ignore the note that there are sublicensees and treat it as wholly void and erroneous), what's the point? Whether or not there are sublicensees, it's not clear that you are off the hook for reproducing PI from one of the original sources, even if there are intermediaries involved, particularly not if you know about the PI in question. I do believe that's why the most common assumption about PI is if you could do it without using the OGL, it's O.K. If WotC decided to P.I. orcus, I could still have an evil being named Orcus--especially if I focused more on the historical accounts and less on the rod-wielding undead lord from the DD Abyss. (Unless, of course, they used it as a trademark--and by and by they don't, IIRC.) DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] OGL Breaches
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 05:39:22 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While your topic is very interesting, Peter, I would also be *very* interested in seeing what people on the list think is a fair corrective action to take when someone does accidentally breach the OGL. That depends on the nature of the breach. In essence, when an OGL breach occurse accidentially, you are negotiating for a limited-use permission to cover your offense. Typical agreements in the past have been along the lines of announe the error and correct this at next printing and in erratta, although pulp all the copies you have of this is the more extreme version. IMO this is one of the reasons why the OGL won't ever make it to court; the chances to settle are just so ingrained that no one who didn't have the year's best seller as an OGL violation would even consider taking it all the way to court, and even they would probably want to minimize losses. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] One or many licensors?
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 17:56:33 +0200, Peter Brink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is nothing in section 4 that gives me any reason to believe that the other contributors grants the licensee the right to issue a new license *in their name*. No, there isn't. But the other contributors gave an explicit license to anyone to use their content who uses the OGL. A licensee is not granting a new seperate license; they are merely relaying the information relevant to a multi-part license. A comparable example would be if I took one of Richard Stallman's rants, with his usual unaltered redistribution permitted flag, and posted it here. *I* wouldn't be granting anyone a new license to redistribute, I would merely be communicating the provisional license that Richard Stallman granted to you already. Peter, you sound like you're looking for a hole in the OGL. My advice is to not do so. Even if you found one and exploited it, the industry is friendly enough for all necssary parties to take you to court in any country necessary if you cause enough of a problem. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] One or many licensors?
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 16:00:25 +0200, Peter Brink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What does the list say? Collectively? Hire a lawyer. Personally, I believe that it is safest to assume that you have a license with everyone you put in you Section 15. If Maggie releases BWR Ships based on Joe's The Flight of the Yadda, and I release Yadda Quest, Joe will sue me for breach of the OGL. Of course, I might wind up suing Maggie for not being clear that she had a special license to use the Yadda in BWR Ships, and I might also claim that Joe doesn't have cause to sue me. But if I did that and the judge ruled correctly, Joe would just sue Maggie and Maggie might just sue me for not asking her what and all other material means. OTOH, what's likely to happen is that Joe will complain to me, I will go oh, I'm sorry, and we'll work out some arrangement--possibly pulling Yadda Quest or giving some ammount of the profits to Joe or just putting a PI statement on Yadda Quest. (Note that, like Joe, I'm not a lawyer. I don't have a law degree. Following my advice may very well wind you up in court and cost you your house, and if you do so don't come looking at me for a place to stay.) DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: compiled list of D20SRD changes?
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:19:50 -0500, woodelf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got all three versions on my harddrive already. Plus a couple more minor iterations in between (i believe i have 5 complete versions of the SRD, plus one pre-release version). Do you have MS Word, or Open Office? Try saving both RTF files as the appropriate office file, and run compare changes on it. You should get the changes highlighted, and then all you have to do is go through and update the pre-marked bits. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Dual Statting a game
Morrigan wrote: I'm fairly new to this list but can anyone tell me if there are any d20 license restrictions to producing a sourcebook that would contain game stats for both d20 and another game system? There are no OGL restrictions. However, the d20 System Trademark License requires that you not describe character creation; it may be easier to not use the d20STL and instead use either no logo or one of the 'no hurdles logos, such as the Prometheus Compatability logo. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Open Gaming License and Software
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am currently developing a computer game, a fantasy strategy/trading > card game hybrid, where i would like to use content from the d20 3.5 > SRD. I especially would like to use the d20 rules for combat, or > monster/spell names and their statistics or things like that. There > are some parts of the game that will be closed content like the > story, world name and so on and the rules for the trading card part > and images and so on. I don't know how to properly seperate those two > parts correctly according to the OGL. Hire a lawyer. You're treading on the greyest area of the license, and proposing something that is exactly what Hasbro does NOT want done. Expect them to object, file an initial case, and take you to court. You MIGHT be able to get WotC to give you permission to use the OGL like this, or you might get lucky and convince them that you're not worth the effort to stop. But whatever happens, advice on this list won't help you develop a mixed-content CRPG with the OGL. (Now that you've paniced, remember that Hasbro and WotC really aren't evil conglomerates, and in the past have been relatively helpful. But they aren't in the business of making their own competition for things like Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate--so in the CRPG world, you're on your own.) (Oh, and you might want to go the angle of "I'm developing a CRPG, and I would like to make the internal rules d20 compatable. Is there anything I can do or shouldn't do to give WotC credit for the familiar game design and point your customers to their rules?) Assuming that you've got the OGL issues done, you mgiht want to look into the OpenDie and Prometheus licenses to help identify your software as what it is. E-mail me off-list if you want to know more. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Creating A World For Release
Ian Hewitt wrote: My first question would be this: Would it be incredibly complicated to work with different individuals - most of whom do not have any published credits - to develop the world? My thoughts are that if it were to be published at some time in the future contracts and payment may lead to confusing legal issues that I would be ill equipped to deal with. Or could I simply share any spoils made as I saw fit and fair? My advice--which, I remind you, is not legal advice, as I'm not a lawyer and you might want to consider getting one--is to spell out the agreements in writing. Even if it's share and share alike, write it down, have everyone sign it, and give everyone signed original copies to keep. Whether or not someone has published credits has ZERO effect on their claim to their creative work. My second question: It is obviously much easier to publish in pdf and move to print if sales and interest warrants. What kind of sales do even the best pdf products (developed by independent or new writers) generate? Not that many. 200 is good. 1000 is incredible. Publishing via an established company would obviously be preferable, but how easy would it be to create my own pdf and offer it for sale somewhere online? I am would be very cautious in that respect regarding the legalities of the license etc, much of the technicalities of which I am not confidently familiar with. Publishing via another company would be good for another reason--they'd be more knowledgeable in the license, and likely would have already setup contacts to handle publishing and licensing issues. As for the rest of the questions--as long as you realize that the best you'll get is this is how other folk do it, and our advice may very well be horribly wrong and wind up costing you your house, feel free to ask away. (Read that last sentence as we're not lawyers, don't sue us if we're wrong. If you want a answer that's sound and certain, hire a lawyer AND talk to us.) DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] This could be the manifesto for Open Gaming
Damian wrote: Except that the d20 System sounds like Movable Type, and the OGL sounds like wordpress. That doesn't really bode well for Wizards that the d20 System is going to be a dead end because people will move to OGL only works. Not so. The D20STL will be modified to meet the needs of the company. When third-parties are being too loose with the brand, the guide gets tightened. When they stop producing enough product period, the guide gets more liberal. As much as I'd like a replacement for the d20 logo, it's never going to happen unless Wizards of the Coast tries to move away from the OGL entirely--and that might be a movement that DD simply wouldn't survive. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] How to revise the OGL
jdomsalla wrote: What might be more feasible is something of a certified status. For instance, a group of Contributors (Fictional Title: Open Gaming Union) develop a list of standards that they view as an ideal OGL-interpretation (not the only possible reading, but clearly not in violation of it). They develop a logo that can be put on a product *if* that product is within their guidelines. We've had this discussion before. There is just such a logo: The FGA's OpenDie logo. There's also a few other similar logos, but ours is (AFAIK) the only one with a body standing behind it and saying yes you can or no you can't use it. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Closed Content, derivative of OGC?
Fred wrote: Is it, in fact, closed content? IANAL. (duh.) Yes, it is closed content. As in, don't use it, they didn't give you permission. They're also in breach, and they might lose their entire license to use the feat at all. Don't use shady OGC sources--it might bite you. It seems to me that it would be impossible to justifiably declare a feat to be closed content. I agree, though I'm sure that there is someone who can find a lawyer and a court who disagree with us. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] SRD WotC errata question
Reginald Cablayan wrote: Would attaching a copy of the OGL to an errata document be okay (to assure third-party game designers wanting to use your OGC material) or is that a moot point? Of course it would be OK. It may (IANAL) be a requirement of the OGL. Simply copy the OGL from the work, exactly, and state this eratta document is to be considered part of X somewhere. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Product Identity does not mean Everything that's not OGC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think it's semantics at all. If PI is a sub-set of OGC then it is not subject to distribution limitations. If it is completely different from OGC then it is subject to restrictions on distributions. PI isn't OGC, and neither is it a sub-set of OGC. PI and OGC and contradictory states that content within a work can be in. Any given part of a work can EITHER be PI or OGC--never, ever both. If it looks like there's an overlap, assume that it's PI. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Product Identity does not mean Everything that's not OGC
Clark Peterson wrote: Yes, PI is not OGC but there is (presumptively) no need to declare as PI anything that is not mixed with OGC. (Now, I have certainly PId stuff that isnt mixed with OGC, but that is another story) I think the reason this was done was to make designations easy. I think that the effect of having Product Identity at all is, to borrow a web design term, graceful failure. If a publisher has something that they absolutely have to protect--like, for example, the Dungeons and Dragons name or a license that they're contractually bound to not copyleft, then they mark it as Product Identity. In doing so, they know that, even if a court decides that their Open Gaming Content designation was so bad that it really means everything is OGC, then what they marked is still not copylefted. PI was made to keep us publishers happy who were worried about losting control over stuff in sections that were OGC. You could argue that PI is unnecessary. You could say that you could just do a very restrictive OGC designation and thereby protect stuff that you might want to PI. But PI is now within the license and part of the safe harbor and I think serves a purpose. I seem to recall discussions about such cumbersome wordings--and the generally accepted conclusion was that doing so would make the OGL impossible to use without a lawyer. Of course, I also recall seeing the deleted scenes from _Pirates of the Caribeean_ in the theater... DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the OGL explicitly allows people to PI spell names, and since spell name collections are copyrightable and subject to being PI'd, I'd say PI'ing spell name collections is _explicitly_ allowable and _intended_ under the language of the OGL. Spell name collections? I guess, if they're all original. But nonunique spell names (i.e., fire bolt) aren't necessarily protected by a PI declaration ANYWAY (check your lawyer, don't trust me)--so in claiming a nontrademarkable spell name as PI, someone might actually be violating the OGL. And even if they're not, they're doing something that's really rather annoying. Oh, and collections of OGC spell names may (I don't know) be derivitive of the OGC, and so required to be released as OGC (and not PI). DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
Clark Peterson wrote: As for the suggestion that we could have made it all OGC, The only suggestion worthwhile is that you PI what's important--the names of your gods et al--and OGC everything else. Won't a claim of Ildur as PI also keep the name out of Ildur's Smite or Bane of Ildur? In fact, (I don't have my copy with me)--isn't that what you did? DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
Clark Peterson wrote: For example, I just did a product where my author used 5 or 6 rather obscure internet OGC sources. They had bad section 15 designations. So, though I was forced to use their section 15 by the license, I also added a section called: OGC in this Book where I said This book uses Open Game Content from some unique sources that deserve further designation. Then I went on to list them. Couldn't that be considered an indication of compatability or co-adaptability? DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] compatible claims
jdomsalla wrote: In the Introduction, after the part where I hail and praise open gaming, I intend to include a small section where I indicate incompatibility issues with other gaming products *will likely* occur. I wish to indicate the following... Why not just fulfill this gamer's fantasy, and include a page or two highlighting what parts are significantly different from the norm. It wouldn't even have to hit everything, just the key points for somone who has extant game knowledge that will run into some pitfalls. Not a single one of the half-dozen odd SRD-variant games I have includes a this is what's different page. Even worse, game companies don't even include such a page even when they have clear copyright to the base system--WotC's d20 books and White Wolf's Storyteller books are two great examples of places where this would be useful, and simply isn't included. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] compatible claims
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mutants Masterminds, page 10 sidebar: Under the Mask: What's Different?. Oooh. MM just moved one slot up on my wish list. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] OGL specific injury rules?
woodelf wrote: How much do you wanna replace? Essentially the whole shebang. For compatability I want to leave damage the same, but instead of having players subtract the damage from their HP total, I want them to write down light injury arm, serious injury torso, or as much more or little detail as they want. Having 100 or 10 hp doens't really make all that much difference from a pure roleplaying perspective, but I figure that specific injuries would. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] OGL specific injury rules?
Damian wrote: Bastion. Torn Asunder. Hmm, looking at it the entire text is Open Content too. Ooh, spiffy. That's definitely on the list to pick up, then. But, based on their advertisements, it's not what I need. Has anyone done a HP replacement system? (Gotta do the research before I start calling something first, don't I?) DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] OGL specific injury rules?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DM: You mean like Wounds/Vitality? (Which, rumor has, is part of Unearthed Arcana and thus is soon-to-be OGC...) Nope. I mean specific--as in, instead of a player writing down I take 6 damage, they write down I have a light wound to my left arm or something. I have a good working idea on how a system could work, but I don't want to spend my time reinventing the wheel until I see what else is out there. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Why OGL?
Athlor RPG wrote: If this is so, WHY SHOULD I BOTHER? 1: You have essentially NO chance of being sued by WotC for copyright infringemnet, if you take your design and rules language from the SRD. 2: You can use the wording in the SRD verbatium. No re-interpretation necessary. 3: You can use the feel and design of the world's most popular RPG. 4: Copyleft is a good thing 5: In addition to DD, you get access to a whole bundle of options, many of whom are more than willing to discuss special permission for specific projects, like yours, if you want to go beyond the OGL. 6: Character copyright very much exist in RPGs. Use the DD rule without the OGL or some other arrangement, and you might as well put a dual-scimitar wielding dark elf ranger turned good who worshipps a unicorn goddess. and, of course: 7: There are oodles and oodles of ways to communicate that your product works like DD without using the DD or d20 trademarks, most of which will be easily accessable to your audience. And as a shameless plug: the Prometheus Compatability License does allow use on software. More information can be found at www.theFGA.com. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] d20
Jamie wrote: I have a question for you all: I have recently purchased Knights of the Old Republic for my X-Box. The game is without doubt d20 based with the standard six abilities, feats and skills from the PHB etc. experience levels as the PHB (or possibly d20 Star Wars) and yet there is no mention of WotC or the d20 logo anywhere is sight. Why is this? Do you have a copy of the d20 Star Wars game? It's copyright Lucasarts, not Wizards of the Coast. While I'm sure that there's some kind of consideration that WotC got, Lucasarts (apparantly) doesn't need to aknowledge Hasbro or WotC or DD at all to use the d20-Star Wars rules in a video game. (And, should Hasbro ever fold or WotC stop producting the game, Lucasarts likely can take their game elsewhere.) DM (I, of course, am just conjecturing here.) ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI in summary...
Steven Conan Trustrum wrote: As my lawyer has explained it to me, and as I've had it explained by a number of d20 publishers, though, you still wouldn't have a case unless the other party was infringing on your VERSION of the gods. Yes, exactly. If they use my god-stats, and my god-names, as I matched them with my god-stats, I have at least a tenuous claim. Also: Brian Fields wrote: In the case of the Greek gods you mentioned, you don't have the right to declare the names PI Sure I do. PI only means this text is excluded from my OGC declarations, and I probably consider the names therein as trademarks according to the OGL. It just happens that you, Steve, or anyone else can take my PI declaration, find a Public Domain source, and use my non-original names--as long as you don't indicate compatability or co-adaptability. Which, honestly, if you use my stats and my name, you're very likely indicating one or the other. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI in summary...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I understand it, if you made your version of the god stats open but falsely declare the god names PI, they could still use your open stats with the god names and you'd have no claim because you simply can't claim those names as PI. It's not that I can't claim them as PI, it's that claiming them as PI requires them to find an alternate source. While, technically, a good case can be made that mere usage of identical stats doesn't make a copyrightable character, we could also aruge that rules aren't protected by copyright, and so the OGL is unecessary. The OGL is designed to create a lawsuit-free Safe Harbor. PI'ing a PD name essentially means if you use this name this way, you've left the safe harbor and I may pursue legal action. Leaving the safe harbor is generally a bad idea. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI in summary...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, because your PI still has to be defendable. The OGL makes no requirement that a PI claim be defensable. Practicality makes it unprofessional and a waste of time to do so, but there's no real requirement. I mean, WotC at one time claimed d20 as Product Identity. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI in summary...
Matthew Yarro wrote: As a publisher, you are responsible with respect to PI to your upline only. That is anyone you are deriving your work from and anyone they have derived work from. Anything they claim as PI is off limits, even if it is Public Domain. There is very little arugment to back this up. AFAIK--and I'm not a lawyer, so be prepared for my advice to be shot down by a lawyer on or off the list--PI is only an exclusion of OGC. Whatever is marked as PI is not OGC, but if you could use it without the OGL, as long as it's not a trademark (as defined in the license) used to indicate compatability or co-adaptability (defined by the courts), then you can use it even if your upstream marks it as PI. Of course, this is pretty vauge--in a nutshell, it's safter to make sure that you don't use anyone else's PI'd content in the same way that they do without permission. Let's say that I make a mamoth RPG book, and stat-out the greek gods with their names as PI (naughty me, I know. Assume that I made a whole bunch of new mythologies, and alternate OGC names for the gods). I also include a Real Spiffy Hero system. You then take my Real Spiffy System, but not my god-stats, and include a whole new stat-block for the greek gods. Sure, you've used something that I marked PI, but not as I marked it, and so there's little that I can do. If you were to take my greek god stats, and use their names, I could send you a CD on the basis that you're indicating compatability and co-adaptability. (I probably WOULDN'T, but I could.) DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI in summary...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think your use of the Greek gods serves your intended example very well. First off, you're claiming items of public domain as PI. So, in this example, you COULD send him a CD for using their name, which you claim as PI, with your OGC Hero System, but you wouldn't have a leg to stand on because your PI claim to those particular names is invalid. They're items of public domain that I adapted and derived from to create my own version of the greek gods. I could claim that I have a substantial, copyrightable improvement on the characters, sufficient to be an intrest in the OGL. Or, to put it another way, I wouldn't ignore someone's PI declaration just because it's a PD name. DM
37 questions (was re: [Ogf-l] Re: Possible Formation of Project)
Devin Watson wrote: 2. Reading through these responses suggests that there should be a slightly easier way to figure out if the OGL is right for your project. An example would be asking yourself a series of questions. If you answer no or yes to any of them, then you have an easy way of knowing. It's just those questions that elude me at the moment. I am not (repeat NOT) a lawyer. I have, however, spent far too much time on this list in the last several years. I consider myself an exerpt on the OGL, and confident that the 37 questions below will help just about anyone determine if their project is right for the OGL. (If anyone has any questions to add, or suggestions to this list, PLEASE let me know. I'm going to try and get this distributed as far and wide as I can--so that we can all avoid running into some of these threads again and again and again...) INTRO: The questions are divided up into catagories. You don't need to answer yes to the d20STL questions if you're not using the d20STL, the software questions if your product isn't software, or the Lawyer questions if you're working off of the roll over and comply legal theory of RPG fandom. (I do not endorse the roll over and comply legal theory of RPG fandom, and I think that it's an irresponsible way to enter into a legal contract--but it's better to point you towards this and getting your own lawyers than the I'm a foolish fanboy who thinks I can understand everything about this without a laywer legal theory of RPG fandom.) You should be able to answer YES (a resounding yes, in capital letters--not a meek yes in lowercase) to all of the following questions. If not, then my wholehearted advice is to stop whatever it is that you're doing until you can answer YES to all of them. Basic (OGL) questions: 1: Is your product a roleplaying game product, either standalone or a tool to aid in the use of roleplaying games? 2: Is it based on the d20 System, as detailed in the SRD? (If yes, the OGL is required; if not, you may be able to not use the OGL.) 3: Do you have any part of your product to which you do not have clear and total title to--is there anyone at all who has not directly and specifically approved your product who has ownership of any part of your product, excluding positivly identified Open Gaming Content? 4: Are you legally able to enter into contracts? 5: Do you understand the spirit of the OGL? 6: Do you understand the letter of the OGL? 7: If you lose every last penny you invest in the OGL, will you be able to continue to live? d20STL questions: (repeat of above:) 2: Is it based on the d20 System, as detailed in the SRD? (If not, you may not use the d20STL). 8: Will your product benefit from the network effect of the d20 logo? 9: Does your product describe or include character creation, as defined by the d20 System Guide currently hosted at www.wizards.com/d20? 10: Does your product describe or include charater advancement, as defined by the d20 System Guide currently hosted at www.wizards.com/d20? 11: Have you re-defined any of the Required Terms? 12: Have you placed the Required Notice on your product? 13: Do you understand the letter of the D20STL? 14: Do you understand the letter of the d20 System Guide? 15: Do you understand that Wizards of the Coast can revise either the D20STL or the d20 System Guide at any time for any reason, and that them doing so WILL cause you to have to re-evaluate your product? Software questions: 16: Are you not using the D20STL? (If you are, software becomes hairy.) 17: Do you have clear title to your software libraries and components, or permission to distribute them as OGC? 18: Will you be distributing source code? (a nonissue; the OGL does not require source code, though it's probably a good idea) 19: Is your product a computer game? (If so, NO d20STL) 20: Is your product an in-game aid? (If so, MAYBE d20STL) 20: Is your product a pre-game-aid? (If so, PROBABLY YES d20STL) 21: Is your product a GM-replacement? (If so, PROBABLY NO d20STL) Lawyer / PI Questions: (repeat of above:) 7: If you lose every last penny you invest in the OGL, will you be able to continue to live? 22: Have you consulted a lawyer for possible jurisdictional conflicts? 23: Do you have a plan on how to behave if you reieve a Cease Desist letter? 24: Is your lawyer familar with the use of and implications of the FSF's copyleft term? If not, does he have an associate who is? 25: Is your lawyer an expert in copyright law? If not, does he have an associate who is? 26: Is your lawyer an expert in contract law? If not, does he have an associate who is? Compliance Questions: 27: Did you include the OGL with every distribution of your product? 28: Did you update Section 15 with all of our sources, verbatium? 29: Did you add your own copyright notice to your Section 15? 30: Did you clearly identify your OGC? (If not, are you sure that you want to identify EVERYTHING as OGC?) 31: Did you
Re: [Ogf-l] D20 as Product Identity
Ryan S. Dancey wrote: In short: They can put whatever they like into a Product Identity clause, but successfully enforcing that declaration on a 3rd party is probably impossible for something as vague as d20 in anything other than a trademark infringement case. You forgot the qualifier, Ryan. ...enforing that declaration on a 3rd party _who is willing to fight the legal battle_ is probably impossible... If an ambiguous statement that requires a court case to determine enforcement clutters the issue, then it's a restriction on the safe harbor, and thus a minor defeat to the openness of the OGL. It isn't enough for the GPL to be able to stand-up in court--the important factor is that FSF provides sufficient briefs to settle nearly all infringement and license violations out of court. A competent small-time publisher who wishes to play by the rules and who has no malice should be able to successfully operate without holding tens of thousands of dollars in escrow for a legal defense. Thankfully, a simple inquiry to WotC is sufficient to calm the waters of the safe harbor, if anyone is really concerned about it. DM P.S.: My memory may be slipping, but I did recieve a reply from WotC re: use of Dungeon Master. It's off-limits as far as they're concerned, and it's inclusion in the old SRD was a mistake. Thank god for WinGREP. ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] SRD released (apparantly)
Don't know if their web-staff jumped the gun, or if it's just up nice and early, but the 3.5 SRD is up on WotC's website. More after I digest it--but on first looks, I must say that I am very impressed with it. Still RTF, but with real tables--and monster descriptions. Andy, if you're still on the list--you rock! DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] SRD released (apparantly)
Sixten Otto wrote: Do any of those terms actually occur in the files? (I'm looking, but I just discovered that the ZIP versions are still the 3.0 SRD files, and have NOT been updated.) The mini-ZIPs do. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] OGL in HTML comments?
Bryan Gillispie wrote: A small link someplace on the page that linked to an OGL.txt or OGL.html would remove any doubts and wouldn't require any instructions on how to access it. Yes, but that would require updating and distributing a second file. The user couldn't for example, just find the file in their cache and use that. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] The Term d20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Only for d20 licensed products. Anyone else could use whatever OGL version they wanted regardless of when any new IP was released. 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. An OGL 2 could include a clause excluding OGL 1. Doing so would negate OGL 1's legality to cover OGC released under OGL 2. Such a revision _might_ make it difficult to udpate someone else's original OGC--but given the low rate of non-SRD re-use, this wouldn't be too great of a problem. New IP is not relevant at all. Unless the new IP is a new type of content not managed by OGL 1.0, then OGL only publishers would have no incentive to use a more restrictive OGL 2.0. As neither you nor I are lawyers, let's just call this a draw and agree to disagree. Suffice it to say that, if given sufficient reason, WotC could make a new OGL with a mechanism to prevent the current OGL from being used on latter-OGL released work. I'd say without an incentive plan, the only reason to switch over to OGL 2.0 would be if it sufficiently clarifies things so that use of it avoids potential lawsuits. I agree. I can only think of a few bits that I'd change on the OGL if I could: * Require / urge a reasonable effort to use the most recent version of an OGL work. * Explicitly allow identification of source material. (i.e., make it 100% kosher to say /Crazy Blaster/ from /Sample Product/.) * Clarify Section 15's updates to explicitly allow deletion of redundant entries. So, I really don't see how updating the d20 STL will encourage OGL 2.0 usage in non-d20 licensed publications, particularly if OGL 2.0 is more restrictive than the current one is in any way. Assuming that OGL 2 has a mechanism to keep OGC2 from being treated as OGC1, a slow cross-over would occur as OGC2 becomes used more and more. The non-d20 licnesed market is so incredibly small, it can be moved by the margin of a marginal industry. DM ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Sample OGL/d20 Legal Notice Questions
Roger Bert wrote:
I am new to the Open Game world and am looking to
publish some OGL and/or d20 materials on the Internet.
In an exercise to learn the legal information
posting requirements for d20 System licensed products I have created
the following fake sample legal statement. I would appreciate any
advice or comments on what I did wrong. You can comment here or e-mail
me direct. Thanks for your time.
By and large you look, legally good. But as I'm not a lawyer, you
shouldn't believe me.
I do have some comments on your declarations, re: best practices.
Notice of Open Game Content:
Portions of this publication contain Open Game Content as defined
under the Open Game License Version 1.0a. Open Game Content may only
be Used under and in terms of the Open Game License.
Why bother with this declaration? It's not necessary, it feels
redundant, and it's wrong. The presence of the OGL in a work is not a
blanket requirement for use; insofar as the law allows, OGC can be used
just like any other text.
I'll take care of the OGC first, as OGC is really the meat of any Open
Gaming work and the only text that the OGL really effects.
Designation of Open Gaming Content:
With the exception of Product Identity, the text of all Races,
Classes, Skills, Feats, Equipment, Weapons, Magic Items and Spells
adopted from the System Reference Document and the Modern
System Reference Document herein are considered Open Game Content.
Please, please, PLEASE don't make a designation based on an assumption
that your reader has access to or knowledge of any other work. Doing
so may violate the OGL as not being "clearly identified", and it
functionally castrates the Safe Harbor that the OGL was designed to
create.
All Stat Blocks, excepting the name or proper
name associated with the Stat Block and any Product Identity included
within, are Open Game Content.
Again, don't assume that "Stat Block" is going to stand up for
observation or in court. You may as well say "game rule" or "stuff
that should be open gaming content." It may be a good idea, both
stylistically and compliance-wise, to use a distinctive typesetting to
denote stat blocks if those are the bulk of your OGC. ("All
single-spaced paragraphs with minor left and right insets that detail a
creature", or "all text contained within a thin black border" are two
sample definitions.)
Also, realize that there is subsantial goodwill and market value
avaliable through re-use of Open Gaming Content. Whenever possible,
please leave the names marked as Open Gaming Content; this allows for
easy recognition by players of your unique contributions to Open
Gaming--plus, it's not necessary to exclude Product Identity from OGC
in the OGC designation, as the license already does that quite
succinctly. (if you must include such a qualifier, it's better to
place it in the PI designation.)
All text in Chapter 7, "The Silly Mechanic",
is hereby designated as Open Game Content.
The last example is direct, clear, leaves nothing to be misinterpreted.
In my opinion, the best practice for an Open Gaming work is to mark all
of the text as Open Gaming Content, excluding any excerpts and quotes
to which you do not have the right to contribute or which to keep
closed for your own reasons. If you have a great deal of text that you
must open and text that you must close, consier a typesetting device to
clearly denote which is which.
Just whatever you do, please don't include "and any other text
derivitive of other Open Gaming Content" in your designation. In the
unlikely event that someone takes you to task for not marking Open
Gaming Content, a one-line qualifier does not seem likely to save your
stock.
Now, on to the PI, wherein you keep your distinctive line and company
marks and IP seperate from OGC. (It's useful to think of PI as
"anti-OGC"; mark text that's likely to be intermixed with OGC that you
absolutely do not want to have become OGC as PI.)
Designation of Product Identity:
All material other than game rules already considered Open Gaming
Content is considered Product Identity as described in Section 1(e) of
the Open Game License Version 1.0a. This includes, but is not limited
to, product and product line names, logos and identifying marks
including trade dress; artifacts; creatures, characters; stories,
storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language,
artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses,
concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio
representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells,
enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special
abilities, places, locations, environments, countries, creatures,
geographic locations, gods, historic events, equipment, magic items,
magical or supernatural abilities or effects, organizations, logos,
symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered
trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the
