[Ogf-l] D20 Fantasy/Modern Compatability Labels
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, David Shepheard wrote: > Even the d20 System logo isn't entirely useful for customers as it gets used > for both fantasy and futuristic games. A product with the d20 System logo > might be compatible with Dungeons and Dragons or d20 Modern. The only way to > really tell if something is compatible, with the type of game rules you > prefer to use, is to flick through the book (or download a preview). Aside from obvious things like trade dress and cover art, one way for a publisher to make it plain which product line his d20 book supports is to prominently display the appropriate "This book requires the use of" disclaimer, instead of doing his best to hide the mandatory thing. If the d20 book says right on the cover "Requires the use of the D20 Modern Roleplaying Game, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.," it's probably not for use with your D&D campaign. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: OGL Logo
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Tom Caudron wrote: > Clark said, ""Terms" may not change, but enforcement sure does." > > The Prometheus project violates no part of the OGL of which I am aware, > which was the implied claim of the original email to which I was > replying. In the context of that comment, I have to stand by my claim. > Future kings in the Halls of WotC may not like the OGL and the d20SRD, > but the terms of the license are what they are. There exists no term > violations to enforce. In other words, if Prometheus violates some > arcane misunderstood term of the OGL, so do the rest of you (as nothing > Prometheus does is unknown in whole or in part in many other works) and > we have all based our respective products/projects on a misunderstanding > of the OGL---which would be unfortunate. > > I tend to believe that amongst all the various lawyers all of us have > spoken with, at least one of them would have raised the red flag if the > terms of the OGL were somehow dangerously mercurial or if there were > enforcement leeway on those terms that made them so. Over the years on this list a number of points in the licenses have been found to be open to at least two different interpretations each. I don't have a score card handy to say which side the various official lawyers on this list sided on with each dispute, but I'd be surprised if they all agreed on every single point. Various publishers have picked between the interpretations (some with the help of their own lawyers, probably most without) and produced products that (one hopes) they felt were legal. Odds are some of those products are in violation of one or the other license, with the only thing saving them being the fact that WotC chooses not to prosecute minor or one-time violations. I don't feel anyone should feel secure in their license compliance simply based on the practices of other publishers or debates on these e-lists. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] D&D 4E
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006, Doug Meerschaert 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. Except that it can be *a lot* easier to get Monte (for example)'s permission to use his name along with a set of rules that are Open than it was in the old days to get a license from TSR to produce products that were compatible with (A)D&D and marketed as such. Spike ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Re: [Ogf-d20-l] D&D 4E
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, The Sigil wrote: > Enlightened > self-interest would push most publishers together to adopt the same > bug-fixes? > > It will NEVER happen. One of the "talking points" that had everyone excited > about the OGL was that we were likely to see a whole bunch of rules and > ideas, and the best ones would quickly be adopted and become "the standard" > among third-party publishers, and possibly among WotC/D&D play as well. > That never even came close to happening. > > Why not? Three factors. > > First, the OGL's "viral Section 15 - but nowhere else - credit requirement" > made it impractical to do so without creating ever-bloating Section 15's. > > Second, publishers were very ambiguous with their OGC designations, making > picking out and reusing the OGC something of a legal liability minefield > that nobody wanted to brave. > > Third (and in my view most importantly), too much OGC came along as > "crippled" > > In other words, self-interest among many publishers killed the truly > sterling potential of the OGL to create a dynamic, legitimate alternative to > D&D. But these three points would only be important if 1) publishers were truly afraid of long Section 15s (and having produced some doozy's for some companies, I know that Section 15 fear didn't stop some folks), and 2) and 3) the crippled or ambiguous OGC also happened to be the best OGC, and that publishers found it impossible to work with each other (openly or behind the scenes) to clarify issues, both of which are debatable points at best. I think stronger points are 4) the fact that WotC didn't legitimize the best OGC by incorporating the really good third-party stuff in official D&D books, and 5) the fact that no matter what the third-party D20 publishers did alone or en masse, there was always D&D out there selling 10 to 100 times better than any of their own efforts and managing to ensure that anything the third-party publishers did was just a drop in the big bucket. If D&D were to disappear without a trace, that would leave the field open for the remaining D20 publishers to do something about problem 5, but if D&D stays around but morphs into a form that precludes third-party participation I think the situation gets worse, not better. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Open content in contracts between authors and publishers?
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Tavis Allison wrote: > > Is there a reason why a simple work-for-hire agreement wouldn't meet > > all of the author's needs in this instance? > > The right to be credited as the author of the work is an important one that > the OGL handles poorly but that work-for-hire negates altogether. The OGL doesn't deal at all with this concept; it's not meant to. That's a matter between the author and the publisher, not the author and some third-party licensor. As for work-for-hire negating the concept, that's a common misconception based on the way many companies craft their work-for-hire agreements. There's nothing in the concept that makes it mandatory that a company not give the author credit while buying the work as work-for-hire; heck, it's been years since I signed a work-for-hire contracts that didn't have author credit stipulations in it. > One could > write a guarantee that the author will be credited for the writing they do > into a work-for-hire contract, but as a publisher I wouldn't feel > comfortable offering such a guarantee since I might be held in breach if I > release that work as OGC, allowing another publisher to reprint it with > another author's name on the title page (relegating my author's name to a > Section 15 mention alone). Well then, the publisher should include a clause in his work-for-hire contract that says something like "Author will be credited as originator of the Work in any future publications by Publisher that make use of original text from the Work." That way the publisher is promising you that your name will forever be attached to the work, and at the same time disclaiming what other publishers might do with it. (The publisher might, though, want to change that to "make substantial use," so that he won't have to give you cover credit if he borrows a single sentence from a single feat that he then modifies heavily.) You and the publisher can then negotiate over the form the credit will take: do you get your name on the front cover, on the back cover, on the credits page, or in Section 15? And if you're still worried (as a publisher) about the possible breach of contract caused by the release of the content as OGC, then include a clause in the contract stating that "Author understands that certain parts of the Work will be released as Open Game Content under the strictures of the Open Game License v.1.0a" and then the publisher and the author, either separately or as part of the main contract, negotiate the details of exactly what parts of the Work will be Open, what will be Closed, and what will be PI. Plus, if the publisher includes the author's name in the Section 15 notice (which a lot of them do, in the form Book copyright 2005, Publisher; Author's name), then your name is guaranteed to follow your OGC throughout time so long as the other publishers in the chain follow the OGL rules. Heck, in this way your name is going to be spread far and wide in Section 15s that don't even necessarily have any of your OGC in them, due to the nature of Section 15 duplication. If, on the other hand, having your name follow your work only in the Section 15s of other publishers isn't sufficient for you, then the answer is not to publish your work under the OGL. (Or to write a lot of Closed Content to wrap around your OGC; the OGL controls how the Open Content will be dealt with, but you and the publisher can make the decisions regarding the Closed Content.) > I'm interested in the licensing possibility you raise; how would that work? Understanding that I've never been directly involved in one of these, basically what you do is instead of selling your work to the publisher, you license the work to him. The two of you write up a contract that establishes payment (which can be lump sum or royalties, or a combination of the two; just like with a work-for-hire contract), how the book will be credited, what the Section 15 will look like, and who'll have what rights to sell, reprint, excerpt, promote, extend, etc. the work. The license can be limited in duration or it can be permanent (with a provision that it reverts one way or the other with the death of the writer or the company). The advantage to the licensing scheme is that you get more control over what happens with your work. Depending on what you feel is important to you, you can demand approval over the cover graphics, the ability to refuse editorial suggestions; whatever you and the publisher can agree to. The disadvantage to the licensing scheme is that you're asking the publisher to make concessions to you, so you're going to have to make concessions to the publisher, most of which will come in the form of money: the more control you want (i.e., the more rights you want to retain for yourself), the smaller the amount of money you can expect the publisher to want to give you (since he's paying for fewer rights that he otherwise would be). Some publishers would likely refuse a licensing deal over con
Re: [Ogf-l] Open content in contracts between authors and publishers?
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Tavis Allison wrote: > Work for hire contracts are the ordinary solution to a publisher's needs in > gaming, but it seems to me that a contract based on an author being paid to > develop OGC, which anyone can then reuse under the OGL, does a better job of > meeting the desires of both authors and publishers. The publisher gets full > reusability, and has first crack at publishing the OGC plus the ability to > get the Word files from the author, request specific edits and additional > materials, etc. The author gets to have the OGC attributed to them and can > get paid up front without signing over their rights to the publisher; > instead, they're just giving up their rights to the OGL as they would have > to anyway. Is there a reason why a simple work-for-hire agreement wouldn't meet all of the author's needs in this instance? Is the only sticking point the fact that the author wants the copyright line in the Section 15 notice to read "Toaster Oven Artificial Intelligence Rules, copyright 2006 Manual Maytag; published by Small Appliance Press" instead of "Toaster Oven Artificial Intelligence Rules, copyright 2006 Small Appliance Press; Author Manuel Maytag" (something which could likely be handled by the publisher licensing the text from the author, instead of buying the text)? Spike Y Jones ___ 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 Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Tim Dugger 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. > > You have a "work", as defined by Ryan to be an entire product from > cover to cover. In this "work" you are required to declare what is > OGC, and to declare what is PI. However, there is nothing in the > license that says "the entire work IS OGC unless it is declared PI". So you're saying that Ryan's interpretation is correct and that Lee's interpretation is wrong. Spike Y Jones ___ 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 Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Doug Meerschaert 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. But Ryan just said that the intent of the OGL is that everything from cover to cover (including the covers) is "the covered work," and we know from Lee that the covered work consists of only PI and OGC, with "third type of content" being material that's outside of the covered work. If Ryan's right and there's no material in an OGL-using product that is outside of the covered work, then there's no such thing as the third type of content; either Ryan's wrong or everyone who believes in the third type of content (including a number of publishers) is wrong. Spike Y Jones ___ 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 Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Ryan S. Dancey wrote: > > Can I say the "work" is just chapters 2 and 4? Or, in > > your view, does the "work" mean the whole book? > > The intent of the license is that it apply to all chapters. > > This is a required interpretation. Otherwise, it would be possible to put > the things that we didn't want you to be able say like "This product is > compatible with Dungeons & Dragons(R)" on the cover and claim that it was > not a part of the "work" covered by the OGL. 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. I wonder if the fact that WotC hasn't taken any steps in the past five years to correct this misinterpretation would work against the company if it tried to start enforcing this interpretation now. Spike Y Jones ___ 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 Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Tim Dugger wrote: > So we would have the following: > 1) OGC > 2) PI > 3) Non-OGC, Non-PI Material > > For #3, it is neither OGC nor PI, and is covered by normal copyright > law, except where it is superceded by the limitations from the OGL. > > Would that be a better way of phrasing it? I think a better way of phrasing your concern about public domain text and other things that may creep in is: The "covered work" consists of the Open Gaming Content plus the Product Identity minus any text that the publisher doesn't have the authority (i.e., ownership rights) to contribute. This means a book could contain four types of text: 1) Open Content 2) Product Identity 3) Text that is within the covers of the book but is not within the declared bounds of the covered work (also commonly referred to as the "third type of content") 4) Text that is mistakenly declared to be OGC or PI, but which actually isn't covered by the strictures of the OGL > Okay, now back to the core question. The issue being discussed is > as follows: > > Lee has stated (and he can correct me if I get this incorrect) that in > his opinion, if you apply the OGL to a work (any work), that it is > automatically 100% OGC. You then need to declare what portions > are PI, and declare what portions are OGC, and that the work is > made up of only those two types of content. Just be careful here: When Lee talks about "a work," he probably means that as something distinct from "a book." That is, he's of the school that says "the covered work" isn't the equivalent of "the product," because "the work" can mean an individual OGL-bound article within a larger magazine that isn't bound by the strictures of the OGL. > However, the way that I view it (i.e. my opinion) is that when you > take a work (any work) and apply the OGL to it, that you > automatically end up with two types of content. The first being that > which must be declared OGC (i.e. any mechanics or other material > derived from the SRD or other OGL sources (presuming that those > other sources made their declarations correctly and you are using > those sources properly). The second type would be content type #3 > that I listed above. > > At this point, you would then expand the OGC declaration to include > anything else you want to be OGC. You would also make your PI > declaration for anything you want to mark as Product Identity. > > By my reasoning, the license would not include the following clause > -- > 8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must > clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing > are Open Game Content. > -- > if the whole work were considered OGL just by applying the license > to the work. To put it another way, "Why do you have to clearly > indicate which portions of the work are OGC if the whole work is > considered to be OGC just by putting it with the license?" You can also read Section 8 the other way around: "If you distribute Open Game Content, you must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing *aren't* Open Game Content." Read this way, what it refers to is the fact that you have to clearly denote any PI that falls within the declared OGC, lest it be considered Open. Since the work consists of OGC and PI, if you accurately declare one (e.g., "The OGC is all of the following ... with the exception of these specific words...") you've effectively identified the other. Spike Y Jones ___ 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 Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Tim Dugger wrote: > > OGC = COVERED WORK - PI > > OR > > COVERED WORK = OGC + PI > > Where I was saying > > Covered Work = OGC + PI + whatever is left over and not covered > by the previous two terms (this would be covered by standard > copyright law). > > Thus if a person used material from the public domain, you could > not, according to the OGL declare that public domain material as > OGC, nor as PI. To me, this says that his interpretation that > everything (except what is declared PI) is OGC is incorrect. The problem with adding the "plus leftover standard copyright law stuff" as part of the covered work, is that those things that are part of the covered work are not covered under standard copyright law. For instance, you are allowed to get away with some things in copyright law (mentioning other people's trademarks, or quoting short passages under fair use rules) that you aren't allowed to do within a covered work under the OGL. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI declarations
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Clark Peterson wrote: > I'd be surprised if Mongoose even felt you needed to > ask permission to use words that are obviously in the > public domain (and obviously I am only talking about > words and names that are actually in the public > domain). I agree with you that reasonable people would come to the conclusion that the OGL doesn't allow you to successfully shut public domain words away from use by OGL publishers. But the fact that Mongoose sought fit to include a bunch of public domain words in its PI declaration, though, makes me wonder if Mongoose has a different interpretation of the license, or if they were forced to put those words on the list by their licensor (despite secretly know that it was unenforceable). I mean, if we rule out incompetence, insanity, and spite for the IP declaration, then there must be *some* reason by Mongoose went through these motions, mustn't there? Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] Dual Copyright Notices
Here's another one to read and think about. On the credits page at the front of The Tome of Horrors, there is a standard, real-world copyright notice: "(c) 2002 Necromancer Games, Inc. All rights reserved" and a list of trademarks and such. On the License page at the back of the book is their Section 15 listing: Open Game License v 1.0a... System Reference Document... [Insert the name of monster used -- incorporated here by this reference -- in place of this bracketed text, with each monster used requiring a separate entry in Section 15] from the Tome of Horros, Copyright 2002, Necromancer Games Inc. [see the individual monster entry or entries for additional Section 15 information and insert that information here -- incorporated here by this reference -- in place of this bracketed text when reusing]. As a result, effectively, Tome of Horrors is to be considered a single book containing over 400 "covered works" each of which has its own Section 15 copyright notice appearing not on the License page, but at the end of each monster entry. The entire text in each monster entry is Open, with the exception of a small amount of declared Product Identity (Necromancer Games' trademarks, including the product name Tome of Horrors -- except when "Tome of Horrors" appears in the Section 15 notice), and the text that appears in the Credits paragraph that appears with each monster telling readers where the critter first appeared. This Credits section is neither Open Content nor Product Identity, but is instead that mythical third kind of text, which isn't available for reuse by other publishers, but isn't Necromancer's PI either. Why? Well, in part because it includes a whole bunch of TSR/WotC trademarks (e.g., the names of pre-D&D3 modules and monster books) that Necromancer can't claim as its own PI, and which arguably can't be claimed as WotC PI because these names haven't appeared in products released under the OGL. Necromancer gained specific permission from WotC to use these trademarks in this fashion, but they probably could have used them under fair use provisions anyway. Okay. That should open up some more worm cans for people to discuss, but I think it represents a pretty good example of what the majority of the industry considers (or would be willing to accept as) a reasonable interpretation of the OGL, including one would assume WotC, who gave Necromancer permission to use a bunch of their trademarks in a "third type of content" way. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] Who can declare Product Identity (Third Party Beneficiaries?)
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If the legalese is too vague, consider this. Tim, tomorrow you start a brand > new company. You release a product. You don't use the OGL. But you write > inside the front cover, "I feel that I am allowed to declare all my > characters > and poses as Product Identity as that term is used under the OGL, but my work > is not covered by the OGL." First, is this binding over anyone, since nobody > will have you in their Section 15. Unlike copyrights, trademarks, and patents, Product Identity of the sort described in the OGL has no legal existence outside of the OGL. The OGL serves, in many ways, as a replacement for or an addition to existing copyright, trademark, and patent laws and practices -- but only within the context of the license. Let's take a more ridiculous example. Say someone publishes a novel that has nothing to do with gaming. Say someone else publishes a different novel that has nothing to do with gaming, and he uses a similar font for the back-cover blurb. Can the first publisher complain about the second publisher's Product Identity breach? I'd say no, since neither product is publisher under the only license in which the concept of Product Identity exists. Now how is that different from the situation where one publisher is party to the license but the other one isn't? Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Poisons
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Jonathan M. Thompson wrote: > Can anyone recommend a book that is full of poisons for d20? Pale Designs: A Poisoner's Handbook, Bastion Press Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] If there is no OGL 4e (Was: When does quoting a review = indicating compatibilitywith a trad...)
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, David Shepheard wrote: > If WotC decide to abandon the d20 publishers, then in the short term some publishers > would > probably be pushed out, or switch to publishing their own gaming systems instead of > using > the OGL, but in the long term the OGL community might even be better off. Look at the disparity in scale between WotC/D&D and any D20 publisher and their D20 releases. The worst-selling WotC D&D products sell many multiples of what the best-selling independent D20 products do, and the proceeds from even a single one of WotC's best-selling D&D books would probably dwarf the income from most D20 companies' entire product lines. Why? A variety of reasons. They have better distribution, their products are official, their products are perceived as having better quality, they have a bigger advertising budget, etc. If WotC produced a D&D4 that was not SRDed, then all publishers who decided to continue cranking out books linked to the 3.5 SRD would find themselves in the same situation as any publisher today who decides to publish 3.0-compatible D20 books instead of 3.5: he'd be trying to sell to the small subset of the gaming audience who want to play D&D but who refuse to play the current version of the game. Might was well try selling AD&D2-compatible products to tap into that great demographic of grognards. Yes, a strong OGL product would be able to make some headway in that sort of marketplace, but it would be doing so entirely on its own merits, getting no boost from riding D&D's coattails. Effectively, it would be no different from GURPS, Rifts, Ars Magica or any other completely independent game system: it would be a rival game to D&D, not a complementary one. > On the other hand, now that WotC have introduced the OGL and SRD, I think that > trying to > stop support for it could have a very bad PR effect with their existing customers. Considering how small the percentage of D&D players who know what D20 and OGL and the D20STL are all about, while there'd certainly be some complaints it probably wouldn't affect sales appreciably. > If WotC were to replace 3.5e *and* also looked like they were stabbing the d20 > publishers > in the back at the same time, then I think that a lot of people would not bother to > update > their core rulebooks. Gamers would most likely base their decision on the product (are the new rules really improved? are the new books really nifty looking? is the price reasonable?), not on philosophical considerations of how WotC treats its competitors. Yes, there would be some who wouldn't switch, but there are still 3.0 and AD&D2 and AD&D and Basic Set and OD&D players out there who haven't switched in years or even decades, and WotC doesn't seem to be hurting as a result. (Well maybe they took some hit from those who didn't switch from 3.0 to 3.5, but that was their own fault for releasing the new edition so soon after the origins; if they hold back on releasing 4.0 long enough to make the upgrade seem more reasonable, there'll be fewer gamers clinging to 3.5.) > I don't actually think it is in the interest of WotC to stop providing SRDs because > as > things stand now they are in charge. I don't think "being in charge of the D20/OGL movement" is a particularly strong consideration at WotC/Hasbro. Even if they kill the D20 license and don't SRD 4th edition they'll still be in charge in the RPG marketplace by virtue of being far and away the biggest gorilla in the game store. If there's any case to be made for WotC to stick with the OGL when 4th edition comes out it's that any of the original arguments in favour of the OGL when 3.0 was released have the same validity now as they did then. (The question then becoming: How much validity did those arguments really have?) > If they stop providing support then who knows what > will happen. Pulling the rug out from other publishers will *force* them to stand up > on > their own. And hurting them will take away their motivation to tow the WotC line. > WotC > might find that someone else is capable of doing a better job of selling core > rulebooks > than they are. I don't think it would be sensible for them to see if anyone has the > motivation to beat them at their own game, just in case someone *can* do it. TSR spent a couple decades competing against other RPG publishers who had no OGL, and who therefore had to produce RPGs that sold on their own merits in direct competition to D&D. And while various publishers and their products did well for themselves, even at its lowest ebb TSR and WotC's pre-3.0 D&D was still the unassailable market leader. I don't think WotC's too worried about someone doing them one better and wresting the #1 spot away from them. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] When does quoting a review = indicating compatibility with a trad...
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > < covered work itself, not other things that aren't released under the > license (i.e., things without a copy of the license or a Section 15 > update) that may be related to the covered product. Therefore your > advertising, your website, your spoken line of patter during a > convention demo wouldn't be a covered product, and therefore wouldn't > have to abide by the OGL rules.>> > > "In conjunction with" could be construed narrowly or broadly. Likely, if a > court agreed that there were multiple interpretations it would be the one that > WotC least desires that would be upheld. Vague areas of the license are often > construed AGAINST the drafting party. Given that the OGL is effectively a > contract of adhesion, and that we have no authority to reword it, I think that > standard would be applied. If that's the case, then everyone's in the clear. It's in the interest of WotC (the drafting party) to have the term interpreted broadly, to restrict their competitors' potential use of WotC's trademarks. If the vague areas are to be interpreted against the drafting party, then the court would then rule in favour of the narrowest interpretation consistent with the wording. (And yes, that's a very big "if" to hang your entire livelihood on.) Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] When does quoting a review = indicating compatibility with a trad...
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I found a reference to the incident (below), but none of the actual posts.. > > Anyone have better archive skills than me, or remember the crap-stirring > > enough to give a synopsis? > > I think the press release stuff came up around the Book of Erotic Fantasy or > somesuch by Valar press [?]. Anyone else want to back me up on this? > If memory serves, that press release included lots of overt usages of > trademarks and compatibility declarations and people went nuts over whether a press > release was "in conjunction with" a covered work, whether ads were "in > conjunction", etc. If I remember correctly (and since this debate didn't really interest me that much I might not have paid enough attention to firmly lodge it in my memory) at least part of the Book of Erotic Fantasy press release flap involved the wording of Anthony's statements about his employment at WotC. I also seem to recall some press release discussion involving Green Ronin and Mongoose (maybe having to do with Mutants & Masterminds on GR's part, but I can't remember what the Mongoose complaints were). Spike "Not particularly helpful" Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] How much is "too much" for derivative works?
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Michael P. Hopcroft wrote: > RThe message is clear: if you donot have access to a > multi-million-dollar IP lawyer, you should not be in any sort of > creative enterprise. In other words, if you haven't already made enough > money to defend yourself against an agressive and frvolous lawsuit, get > out of business NOW. And never come back. Or the message could be: Don't make enemies, don't make mistakes, don't steal other people's stuff, and you won't get in trouble. And as for the multi-million dollar lawyer, if anyone's lawyer thinks he's going to be able to squeeze millions of dollars out of your average RPG company, he deserves the shock that he's going to get. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] D20 OGL
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Damian wrote: > > There is. And apparently it has succeeded in being subtle enough that > > it's not obvious: one of them always uses "you", while the other > > always uses "your character" (right now, i forget which is which, and > > i don't feel like checking because it doesn't really matter). > > I'm not seeing that with the 3.5 books and SRD. I compared a few sections > like Feats and Skills and they both use "you" and "your character" in the > same places. When they differ, it's radically. Look for shifts between second and third person. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Draft of limited license to use PI for citation of OCG
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Tavis Allison wrote: > Behemoth3, Inc. enthusiastically supports the open source licensing > movement, and we salute the creators of the Open Game License for > this revolutionary contribution to our community. In this spirit we > are honored to release sections of this book as open game content, > which we hope other creators will be inspired to re-use and build > upon in their own works. [If you do, we encourage you to use the > following limited license.] We feel that citation of the source in > which an idea originally appeared is essential to the vitality of > all open intellectual systems, and this limited license is designed > to facilitate such citation. We hope that other publishers will > consider including similar licenses in their own releases. Not commenting on the license itself, my personal preference would be for you to insert language of the sort "While you may reuse this Open Content according to the terms of the Open Gaming License, if you do so, we encourage you to *also* use the following limited attribution license" to replace the sentence marked with [brackets] above. I wouldn't want someone to use your PI license because he mistakenly thought its use was mandatory. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Limited license for the use of PI titles to cite reused OGC
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Tavis Allison wrote: > > For my part, I'd like to authorize the use of an officially > abbreviated version of the title - e.g. Horde Book 1 instead of the > mouthful Masters and Minions Horde Book 2: Maze of the Minotaur. I'd > prefer that the citation appeared in the text along with the > original OGC, for example via a footnote like this-- > "The minotrize maze mage originally appeared along with a wealth > of related material in Horde Book 2 by Brian Stith, copyright 2004 > Behemoth3; available through www.Behemoth3.com" The longer the exact text you require someone to reproduce under your limited license, the less likely he is to go to the effort merely for a "thank you" citation (especially if he wants to cite work from a large number of different books). Your 26-word cite, complete with an ad for your company that would compete with ads for his own company, might turn a publisher off. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Thematic Elements
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Is it just me, or does anyone else find this incredibly vague as a PI > designation? > > "All thematic elements are PI and everything else is OGC". > > Now, it's not more vague than the OGL itself (since that's a protectable > category), but so many things (classes, spells, etc.) could be "thematic elements" > in the proper circumstances that I am not sure that stating that "thematic > elements are PI'd" is particularly clear as to exactly what is and isn't OGC. I think the intent of the drafters of the license was probably something along the lines of "thematic elements are a protectable category, so if you have a thematic element you want to protect, write it down and then declare it PI." Same with poses and language and all the rest of the vague categories. The problem comes when a publisher just says "all poses" or "all language" or "all thematic elements", instead of "the pose that Grrgywzz takes in the illo on p. 25" or "the words written in Thurjarian in the fiction segments" or "the theme of..." (well, I'm having trouble thinking of any thematic element that someone might want to try claim off the top of my head). Once again, sloppy usage. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Creating A World For Release
On Sun, 30 May 2004, Ian Hewitt wrote: > Would it be incredibly complicated to work with different > individuals 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? Most important: Come up with a spoils-sharing agreement well in advance of the moment when there are any spoils to share. Everyone involved in the development *has* to have a written contract. It doesn't have to be a multi-page document that's been reviewed by a lawyer (although that might help), but it does have to explicitly state who gets what under which conditions. If you don't have contracts before there's money to split, you may find it hard to get agreement once there is, and if you don't have clear ownership agreements in writing it will definitely impact on your ability to interest an established company in your product. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] If people are *really* bothered by crippled OGC issued under the ...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > My concern is that I've > been told any number of times on this list that rules, etc. can't be PI'd and > that every major publisher agrees. They clearly don't. I doubt that you've ever heard a major publisher say on this list that he believes that no rules can be PIed or Closed. You *might* have heard one say that any rule that is derivative (as per Section 1 (b) of the OGL) of previously released Open Content that he Uses (as per Section 1 (g) of the OGL) cannot be closed or PIed. If a publisher feels that his rule is not derivative of previously released OGC that he Uses in his book (e.g., the Power Points rules in Mutants & Masterminds, which aren't based on any equivalent rules in the SRD since there are no equivalent rules in the SRD) then he will have the choice of releasing it as Open Content or closing/PIing it. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [OGF-L] If people are *really* bothered by crippled OGC issued under the OGL why don't they do something about it?
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If people are really concerned about publishers using the OGL to > claim PI on terms couldn't they just use the principle of PI against > itself? Is there anything stopping someone from using an > "Anti-PI" PI licence to stop publishers that cripple OGC from > reusing their content. What I mean by this is: > > 1) Author concerned about non-crippled OGC writes new rules. > 2) The author then deliberately cripples their own rules and > publishes this "Anti-Crippling Content" ACC in the same way as the > SRD. > 3) They write up an Anti-Crippling Licence (ACL) and publish it > separately. > 4) The author then publishes their proper product and refers to the > ACC and ACL in their section 15. > 5) The section 15 entry of the ACL includes a PI licence that > allows anyone to use any PI in the product it contains under the > terms of the ACL. It also includes the URL of a website dedicated to > uncrippled content. There's one big stumbling block in the way of all this: it costs time and money. There are simpler ways to accomplish some of what you want: Green Ronin published a big book of OGC spells borrowed from other publisher's work. Some of those spells had PI names. Green Ronin came up with different names for those spells, and Opened those different names. Hence those specific examples of PI were now circumvented, and anyone who wants to use those spells with the new GR-created names can do so under the terms of the OGL without worrying about PI emcumbrances. But Green Ronin probably wouldn't have done that work for free as a gift to the anti-crippling movement. They did it as part of a book that they intended to sell for profit; it required them to put time and money to assemble, edit, and print the text, and they presumably wanted to get money back out of it. (I use the Green Ronin spell compilations as an example here because those are the ones I'm familiar with. There are others.) There was a movement to release an alternative SRD that included things missing from the WotC SRD, such as character creation rules and the descriptions of the appearance of SRD monsters. That movement never came to fruition because it relied on volunteers to do all the work: time and money. A number of companies have released products under the OGL but not the D20STL in part so that they could include character creation and advancement rules. They likely wouldn't have done so for free: time and money. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] The Myth Of Closed Content?
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Absolutely not true. If I have a work that consists of > > ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ and I designate W as product identity and N to Z > > as open content, then A to M is closed content. > > Based on what lines of the license? The license explicitly says that > OGC means the covered work is OGC except the parts that are PI. It > then says you have to clearly designate the open stuff. Lee, This topic has been debated on this list (among others) for years now. Hundreds of books have been published using the OGL. Is there even one publisher (the people who have their money on the line, and who hopefully have consulted with actual lawyers about the finer points of the license) out there who doesn't believe in the interpretation of the OGL that there are three types of content (Open, closed, and PI)? Are there any drafters of the license who don't believe in the existence of closed content? Can you point to any statement from WotC in an FAQ or in a list debate where they state that they interpret the OGL to not include the possibility of closed content? Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] Section 15 Add-Ons
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think that it would be a good idea (if the OGL allows it) for > publishers to add their website addresses to their section 15 copyright declarations > so > that anyone using OGL can go there and see if there is an errata or web enhancement. The OGL doesn't forbid it, and plenty of publishers have followed WotC's example and used the Section 15 notice to give credit to writers and editors. I do believe I've seen some web addresses as well, and if there aren't any company slogans in Section 15 notices it's not because they're forbidden. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Advantages of a new version of the OGL - white out vsforbidden t...
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm not too up on when the Wizard of Oz was written so perhaps the > copyright had run out when they made the Zardos. Zardoz (with a "z", not an "s") was written in 1972. The first Wizard of Oz book is copyright 1900. I don't know when Baum died or what the copyright laws were back in '72 though. > This begs a new question: How long does any protection provided by > the OGL last? If the 3.0 SRD drops out of copyright at some point > (followed shortly by a lot of the early products) there could be > enough role playing material in the public domain to allow people to > just use that stuff *as if* it were copyleft. I doubt many of us will still be alive when the 3.0 SRD drops out of copyright. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] Roddenberry, Paramount, Star Trek
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 1) Gene Roddenberry deliberately allowed small amateur publications with Star Trek > stories > in the years after the series got cancelled (I believe that he had the "political" > motive > of building up a fan demand for Paramount to give him his job back - but this has > set some > sort of legal president that has made the characters public domain in some way) The characters in Star Trek are very much not in the public domain. A little less than a decade ago I was living in an apartment two blocks down the street from another writer named Jones. Our mailman was a lush, and he usually stopped in at the bar across the street during his delivery rounds, meaning that those of us on the post-bar half of his route tended to get less accurate service than those on the first half of the route. Which sometimes worked in my favour, as I would receive various writers magazines that were clearly addressed to the other Jones. Of course I'd walk them up the street and drop them in his mailbox, but also of course I'd thumb through them before I dropped them off. One time I came across a letter to the editor from a medium-high-level executive at Paramount. A prior issue had had an article that included words to the effect that "A great way to get into script writing for Star Trek is to send your Star Trek fan fiction to Paramount" and it included an address for people to send their fanfic. The Paramount exec was writing to request that people *not* do this for a number of reasons. Of course, the obvious one was that he didn't have the time to read through thousands of pages of Star Trek fanfic. But more importantly, sending the fiction to Paramount put them in a legal bind. Of course they had always known that there were fans writing fan fiction involving their characters; it had been going on in fanzines, on computer BBSes, and then on the Web ever since the series started. But so long as nobody at Paramount read the stuff, they could turn a legal blind eye to it and pretend that it didn't exist; if someone with a mimeograph wants to send 50 copies of a story about Kirk and Spock to some other geek friends, it wasn't going to hurt Paramount's property rights in any real way, so pretending it didn't exist was the most cost-effective way of dealing with the problem. But once copies of the fan fiction were actually sitting on the desk of a Paramount executive, they couldn't ignore it any more and expect to have any legal defense if someone tried to get away with a major infringement of copyrights or trademarks. So they found themselves in the unwanted position of having to send cease-and-desist orders to some of their most loyal fans. Hence the letter to the editor begging Star Trek fans to stop bringing their infringements to the attention of Paramount so that Paramount wouldn't be forced to stomp on them. Spike Y Jones ___ 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"
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, woodelf wrote: > Perhaps a strict, literal reading of the license would forbid > licensing PI. I don't know. It certainly wouldn't be the spirit of > the license, which is to forbid additional restrictions--letting you > use something that you can't otherwise use can hardly be considered > further restricting your rights. Except that the OGL provides a specific exception to this "no additional restrictions" spirit: "You agree not to Use any Product Identity...except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement." And just before the "No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License" there's the line "No terms may be added or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself," which would include the use of separate PI licenses. No contradiction in letter or spirit. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] Repeated Section 15 Entries
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Clark Peterson wrote: > > You don't have to list the SRD three times or Bob's > > Big Book of Bugs twice. You only have to list each work once. > > I agree with this. I think pretty much everyone agrees > with this. It would be nice to have Andy or a current > WotC guy chime in. I know that "back in the day"(tm) > Ryan chimed in and agreed. One thing that I'm wondering: if one source you borrow from was released under OGL v1.0 and another was released under OGL v1.0a, do you have to include both v1.0 and v1.0a in your own Section 15 (independent of whatever version of the license you're releasing your own book under)? Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Discouragement of reuse
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Fred wrote: > > But maybe I'm naive: I just really, really haven't seen any signs > > of someone really wanting to "cripple" their OGC and prevent > > reuse. I see some practices that some people describe as > > crippling. I see some people theorize (in a way that sometimes > > verges on paranoid conspiracy theorizing) that some of these > > practices are deliberate attempts to cripple their OGC. > > Let's take, for example, the declaration by Malhavoc that the term "Gold" is > PI, when using their OGC for weapons made of gold. Aside from > making reuse of the OGC somewhat more difficult, what possible > purpose is there in making this term PI? It's always possible that Monte's PI declaration is clumsy, not malicious. Still, when I expressed a view last year here that vague OGC statements are caused by people failing to understand the license, I was told by list members who claimed priviledged information that there were cases of people who understood full well what they were doing when they made their OGC statements vague, incomplete, or just plain wrong. I don't know if those claims are true or not, but if they are, then yes there have been cases of deliberate crippling of OGC one way or another in order to further some goal (most likely making reuse more unlikely). Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think PI is a useful part of the OGL, but don't see any point in > using it to defend something in a product UNLESS that thing is a > valuble part of your campaign setting. And if I did think something > was worth PIing then I wouldn't want to release the rules that > followed that name. Ah, but in the case of things released under the OGL you might not have a choice: if the rules are in any way derivative of the rules in the SRD (and most people would agree that it's hard to create a D20 System spell, using the D20 System standard format, referencing D20 System game mechanics, etc. without the spell being derivative of the D20 System SRD) they are required to be Open Content. > In this case, Clark seems to be defending a name that to me has no > value. What it looks like to me is that Clark is: > > 1) Giving away some rules as OGC. > 2) Saying you can't use ANY names under the OGL (whether they are > Scarred Lands specific or general names). > 3) Then saying hey here is a licence to use the names I don't let > you use under the OGL (including names that have commercial value to > the Scarred Lands). Yes, that's exactly what he did in R&R. I don't think anyone quibbles about those facts. > Clark CAN do what he wants with his own stuff, but I don't really > understand his reasoning on this yet. Perhaps I should search the > archives for postings by Clark, as I would love to know WHY he feels > this way of doing things is benificial to him. You won't have to go back very far in the archives to find his reasoning. In the last month he's said it at least three times (possibly more) in this thread alone. At the time he was trying to figure out how to protect his Product Identity in R&R while at the same time making the Open Content as easy to use as possible, he thought that the PI license he came up with was less cumbersome than the alternatives -- end of story. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Section 5
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Rob Myers wrote: > I've a question about section 5 of the OGL: "Representation of > authority to contribute". > Surely by publishing something you are implicitly claiming that you > have the right to do so? Does an explicit claim that you are the author > or hold the rights simply make this clear to the would-be licensor or > does it modify their legal position? My reading of this is that it makes explicit that you are in the wrong if you take someone else's Closed Content or Product Identity, reprint it in you book, and then declare it to be Open Content. It also makes plain that your declaration of Openness is ineffective if the material in question wasn't yours to contribute. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] PI Spell Names
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Clark Peterson wrote: > > The problem is that many of the spell names (the > > vast majority in the case of what's been submitted to me) -- are extremely > > generic names. Names that given the function of the spell, are really the > > best, most natural, names for what those spells do. > > I agree with that problem. That means we did a good > job naming the spells. :) But you have a license to > use the spell names. Given the license, what is the > seemingly desperate need to make an OGC name? The > license doesnt prohibit your use in any way, other > than that you cant designate it as pure OCG. It only > "hinders" (if you can even call it that) distribution > in a theoretical way, not in any practical way. Just > use the spell and then say "all spell names from > Relics and Rituals are used pursuant to a limited > license contained therein." In a way, what you've done is shifted the burden of typing all the PI terms into a clump off of your shoulders and onto the shoulders of the reuser. You decided that it would be easier to declare all spell names PI and then give a free license to use those PI names, than it would have been to make a complete list of all the setting-specific words in some (but not all) of the spell names, declare just those words to be PI, and allow all other spell names of parts of spell names to be Open with some license arrangement for the use of those specific PI words. Now, if someone wants to use some spells from your book and he wants to mix them in with the spells from some other book, if he wants to use the PI names *he* has to be the one to make a list of all their names or come up with some other way of clearly designating those spell names as licensed PI, so that some third publisher down the line will know which spells are subject to your sublicense and which aren't. Faced with the choice, someone might choose to come up with a completely Open new title instead of having to jump through a hoop, no matter how close to the ground the hoop is held. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] Crippled Section 15 Notice
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, jdomsalla wrote: > A source I'm drawing from has the following S15 entry: > > [Product Name] and the above designated Product Identity are Copyright > [Year], [Publisher]. > > Now, is it just me, or is there a problem with putting this line into my > material? After all, the "above designated Product Identity" is going to be > *my* Product Identity, and I don't see this line doing anything except > causing issues. In my review of Vigilance: Absolute Power, I predicted that few publishers would want to borrow any Open Content from the book, because they wouldn't want to deal with the crippled Section 15 notice: the notice claimed all artwork as copyright Mystic Eye Games. Not only is the notice misleading, but since the art wasn't included in the Open Content designation (which was fairly poor intself), but was specifically included in the Product Identity declaration, it really had no place being in the Section 15 notice since the art wasn't among the things that could potentially be borrowed. > Yes, I have sent emails. No, I have not gotten a reply. Now I'm > half-tempted to hit all the publisher forums I know (ENWorld, Mortality, > WotC d20 page, etc.) and just post a "public announcement" that I'm removing > the stupid part for obvious reasons. You'd still be in breach of the license; morally right, but legally wrong. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] "compatible" claims
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004, woodelf wrote: > If i put on my book "This game product is not > compatible with Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd Edition." am i in the clear > with the "no trademarks for compatibility/co-adaptability" clause? > Assuming this is a true claim--i'm envisioning a game book that is > derived from the D20SRD, but is sufficiently far removed that making > it work with most other D20 System products would be arduous, at > best. Thus, this would be a truth-in-advertising warning, so that > those who recognized it as D20 System (such as by reading the Sec.15) > wouldn't then just assume it was "same old, same old", get it home, > and be frustrated with not being able to slot it into their > Spycraft/Midnight/Greyhawk/whatever game. > > Yes, i'm aware that this would also be sneaky backhanded advertising, > using someone else's trademark to possibly get the customer's > attention. But is it forbidden by the letter of the WotC OGL? If someone tried to get on your case, accusing you of breaching the compatability claims clause, you'd have to be able to prove incompatability in order for this argument to hold up. That would probably mean that the system would not only have to be different from all other D20 System games, but *more* different than all the games that are assumed to be compatible with D&D no matter how variant they are. If your game is only at the same level of incompatability as, say, the Scarred Lands, then it's really more compatable than incompatible. If there was a numerical method for measuring compatability, your game would have to have a score of less than 50% compatible in order for you to be able to argue that your incompatability claim doesn't breach Section 7. Spike Y Jones, tongue only partly in cheek ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
[Ogf-l] OT: Magazine Self-Sustainability
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, woodelf wrote: > > Well, i'll presume that Dragon is now a self-supporting entity--i > believe the editor has said as much--since i don't think Paizo has > any non-magazine game revenue to prop it up with. But for the > majority of its history, scuttlebut has it that it was a money-loser. > Ditto for every other RPG mag out there that has ever been--they were > all kept afloat by profits from other ventures, due to the perceived > gains in advertising, market presence, attracting new players, > keeping fans/consumers happy, etc. (or, at least, that's what i've > always been told, sometimes by people in the know). Except Arcane. > Which, probably coincidentally, was the most generalist mag of any of > them that i've seen--the only one to *focus on* non-system-specific > articles, including an entire scenario in every issue that was > written up entirely without game stats (the game stats for several > systems were then tacked on at the end). I've been told more than once that Shadis would have been a successful self-sustaining entity if all of the companies that took out ads in it actually paid their bills. I've been told similar stories (different only in which companies were the deadbeats) in relation to other failed magazines. As for Shadis (or any other magazine) only being maintained as a parent company advertising venue, or a loss-leader to attract new players, or as a tax dodge, or whatever, remember, for a number of years Shadis was the only product that Alderac put out, and it had to sustain itself. Same with White Wolf magazine, which was around for a number of years before Vampire came out. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] OGL vs D20
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Leroy Van Camp III wrote: > > *If* Ryan is correct and WotC is still following that opinion, and > > lots of products start showing up that describe chargen in other ways > > (such as through point builds), they'll just change the license. > > Unlike the WotC OGL, they can change the D20STL at any time, with > > essentially no warning. > > I agree, one must be careful. If one hews close to the line drawn by > WotC, they may find that line moved. > > I am sure WotC could find ways to limit products like mine, though it > would have to be rather specific, such as specifically saying no > point-based system for acquiring feats, for example. When evaluating the risk that WotC might change the chargen and leveling-up restrictions in the d20STL, it's helpful to consider the reason why those restrictions were initially put in place. WotC wanted the existence of d20 products to drive the sales of their own core D&D rulebooks, especially the Player's Handbook (since that's the one that has the largest potential audience). Thus they protected two elements of the game system that would force those not already in the know about how D&D character generation and experience applying work to have access to the PH. Publishers who find ways to circumvent this plan of WotC's have to guess whether or not WotC thinks that plan is still worth pursuing. Is the cat already out of the bag? Are D&D character creation and XP rules already so well understood and so much a part of the gaming culture that one no longer needs a PH in order to figure things out just from the material available in D20 products? Do those restrictions (either the current ones or broader ones that WotC might be contemplating) actually produce the result WotC wants? Personally, I don't think those restrictions are worth WotC's time anymore, but my answers to those questions aren't the answers that count. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > If that's the case, and your scope argument is interesting, then the vast > majority of PI is trivial to circumvent unless it is already protected by other > laws (like trademark or copyright). > > Because honestly, if you can source exactly the same thing (like a name) from > the public domain (and since the name can't be copyrighted by itself, only > trademarked) then people could have their buddy (who hasn't read the OGL'd > product) write a one paragraph story using the name, license it from him or grab it > from the public domain, and utterly circumvent all protections for PI'd > character names except those which are established because the name is a trademark. "Trivial" apparently meaning "through the use of a time machine." In order for you to make a claim to sourcing a term to the public domain, it has to be the *pre-existing* public domain; your buddy has to write his one-paragraph story *before* the book with that same name PI'd comes out. Otherwise the hypothetical judge in the hypothetical case is likely to laugh in your face as he rules against you. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] "D20" as Product Identity
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I believe that either the license needs to be reformed to > drop things that can't be trademarked or copyrighted from the PI list > > OR > > The list goes far beyond normal copyright and trademark protections and can > extend to things which normally have no protection under copyright or trademark > law, and you can stop someone from using things that you normally have no > right to stop them from using I think the license matches your second possibility, that it does extend beyond copyright and trademark protection, and that it can be used to stop someone from using things that couldn't be stopped outside of the strictures of the license. But I point out that you enter the license voluntarily, and in so doing you enter into a contractual agreement with the licensor in which you give up certain things (e.g., some fair use provisions of copyright law) in exchange for other things (e.g., the right to borrow OGC from other publishers and, if you also voluntarily enter into the D20STL, to use the D20 System logo on your products. Yes, the license goes beyond trademark and copyright law, which is just fine; if it didn't do something different than standard trademark and copyright law, there'd be no reason to have a license in the first place, since you could just resort to said trademark and copyright law. > If concepts are protectable, then whether or not they exist > outside of the OGL (and concepts will always exist outside of the OGL) will not > matter. Concepts in general, yes. But a specific concept that I came up with that nobody else has ever come up with before, no. Have I ever done so? Maybe, maybe not. But it's obvious that someone at sometime somewhere has come up with a novel concept or two, because if they haven't, then all concepts existed prior to the inception of the universe. Therefore, it's possible for someone to come up with a novel concept. That concept cannot be trademarked or copyrighted, and therefore it cannot be protected under those bodies of law. But it can be covered under the OGL, because the OGL is separate from copyright and trademark law; by voluntarily publishing a work under the OGL, you're agreeing to the proposition that concepts can be afforded some measure of protection as PI, but only insomuch as they don't already exist in valid OGC or in the pre-existing public domain (in which case I'd be able to use the former to show that your PI claim is invalid, or the latter to circumvent your PI claim). Has any d20 publisher claimed a concept as defendable PI? Not that I know of, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for a situation to arise in which such a claim can be made. And *that* being the case, the inclusion in the license does nobody any harm, and can potentially benefit someone who makes proper use of it. Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] "d20" as Product Identity...
Isn't this whole discussion mooted by the fact that a WotC representative was quoted about 15 or 20 posts ago as saying words to the effect of, "Yeah, it's a mistake; we'll have to fix it"? Spike Y Jones ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
