Here The AD&D Grognard expresses concern over the lack of proper use of the OGL and where it will lead.
I'm not sure when it is appropriate to use and when you can give it a miss.
For example:
Should I have a OGL page for monsters that use a Swords and Wizardry style stat block, but are largely my own creations such as in these posts?
How about spells, like in this post?
What about my own house rules that use common gaming concepts like hit points?
Does the fact that I'm not looking for cash here make any difference?
IANAL (though I do Igor for them).
ReplyDeleteIIRC the OGL is required if you're publishing material derived from the information presented in the d20 SRD (that part of WOTC's IP that Ryan Dancey talked them into making publicly usable).
OSR publishers appear to use the OGL as a 'cover your ass' measure/ward vs. WOTC's lawyers. This is sensible and reasonable, given that much of their initial output (OSRIC, LL, S&W) largely restated rules presented in out-of-print IP legally owned by WOTC.
With your own original, not-for-profit creations you should be able to get away with no more than Creative Commons licensing. You might elect to include an OGL declaration as a courtesy, but - as with the trade-name Hoover - the genie is already well-and-truly out of the bottle.
To be honest it's all fanwork (generally beneath the notice of the Maguses of the Shore) unless and until someone starts making serious money of it.
Chris has the right of it, I think. I think most bloggers are probably safe not to include a copy of the OGL with an updated Section 15 copyright statement BUT it's still probably a good idea to do so, especially as a courtesy to anyone who might want to borrow stuff you've written to use in their own work. I have long experience using the OGL, so I include it on Grognardia and abide by its terms when posting monsters, spells, character classes, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe OGL says "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark" which means no talking about your new rules being usable with "D&D" or any of it's variations. Doesn't that mean "AD&D Grognard" and "necromancer variant for use with OD&D" would both be prohibited if you choose to use the OGL? If I were to add the OGL to my site I'd feel like I have to censor myself to avoid talking about the original game and just stick with the names of the retro clones.
ReplyDeleteI love the way these intellectual property laws create so much fear, uncertainty, and doubt in creators. They're supposed to be crafted to promote creating, right? Hah.
ReplyDeleteListen, you can't copyright rules. You can't copyright or trademark a common word like dwarf, elf or magic-user. I find it highly unlikely that most things people are sharing on their blogs are infringing in any way. Just make, share with each other, and give attribution when you use someone else's work.
Guys, the OGL is the simplest thing in the world, easy to do, protects your intellectual property and satisfies the powers that be.
ReplyDeleteAs for when to use it. It doesn't matter if it is print or post, free or commercial. If you are contributing intellectual property that is based on, derived or for use with anything from the SRD you HAVE to do it. Otherwise you leave yourself open to hassle from WotC.
A simple page (at least now in Blogger) with the license on it and you just add your creations as you go, noting them as either Product Identity (no sharing) or Open Game Content(re-use by others who follow the license) along with how you are to be credited if you choose OGC. Easy peasy.
And you can't use any other license, such as CC, if you use material based on the SRD. Once something is under the OGL you can't change its copyright status. Thus to build upon something covered by the OGL you have to do the same or not associate or use anything from the SRD in your new material. You just declare it P.I. if you don't want others to use it.
I'm just starting to get nervous about the amount of violations I'm seeing and Hasbro not happy with D&D sales. I just don't want them having an excuse to go before a judge and taking all this away. I know they would love to knock out Paizo.
I'm just saying lets be careful. We got a good thing here :)
@ Telecanter- you mean a common word like Apple? You can't copyright a word, but it can be trademarked and then challenged in court.
ReplyDeleteChris said: "IIRC the OGL is required if you're publishing material derived from the information presented in the d20 SRD. "
ReplyDeleteNo. The OGL is not required. The OGL is merely one way of legally publishing something derived from and/or compatible with the d20 SRD.
Depending on what you want to do, other options could include a different/custom licensing agreement made with WotC, or even no license agreement. (The unlicensed-but-still-legal case is viable in many typical instances. Consult an attorney for details.)
Stuart said: "The OGL says "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark" which means no talking about your new rules being usable with "D&D" or any of it's variations. Doesn't that mean "AD&D Grognard" and "necromancer variant for use with OD&D" would both be prohibited if you choose to use the OGL?"
ReplyDeleteYes, which is why I choose to not use the OGL in my published material. The OGL isn't strictly necessary for what I do, and as a result it limits me more than it helps me.
First, the d20 license was revoked so that is no longer on the table. And if you are creating work derived from or for use with any OGL licensed product or source or the SRD you must use the OGL:
ReplyDelete10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute. (from OGLv1.0a.rtf)
ADD Grognard, the terms of the license only apply if you agree to the license (i.e., use the license).
ReplyDeleteIf you do not agree to the license (that is, you do not use it), you need not adhere to its terms & requirements.
Which also forbids you from making derivative works or distributing them from SRD derived materials.
ReplyDeleteYes, you are free to NOT use the SRD or anything based on it and create an entire new product. Otherwise, as stated in the license:
3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.
You don't enter into the license just because you read it.
ReplyDeleteIf you reference ANYTHING from the SRD or a work that is derived from the SRD in your published work then you have agreed to the license. Period.
ReplyDeleteADD Grognard, that's an interesting point, and the think the important difference might be deriving from vs. compatibility with.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, for my own needs, indication of compatibility is paramount, and so that's where the majority of my research & consultation has focused.
I believe, based on my own consultations with IP attorneys on this matter with respect to my own products, that what I already said above still holds true, minus any points about derivation.
Anybody truly worried about this ought to consult an attorney, whether they're worried about it in the context of blogging, other publishing, or whatever.
If somebody believes themselves to be at risk, they should be following the advice of neither of us. (Unless that advice is: Consult an attorney! :))
ADD Grognard said: "If you reference ANYTHING from the SRD or a work that is derived from the SRD in your published work then you have agreed to the license. Period."
ReplyDeleteThat's patently untrue. "Reference" is too ambiguous of a term for that statement to hold true.
If you reference ANYTHING from the SRD or a work that is derived from the SRD in your published work then you have agreed to the license. Period.
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely not true. Who gave you this info?
The license did:
ReplyDelete2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.
"The license did..."
ReplyDeleteADD Grognard, I see where you are going with that line of thinking. But that interpretation is complicated by the facts that
1) there exists IP outside of the Open Game Content we're discussing that is similar to that Open Game Content (thus affording use of that IP in many cases w/o the OGL), and
2) I'm going to botch the explanation of this concept (because I'm not a lawyer), but there's a certain amount of the law system that cares less about the letter of an agreement, and more about the spirit. And so it's anywhere from very hard to impossible to get into a contract unintentionally. (Big disclaimer: It's been a couple years since I've heard this concept explained to me, and I'm probably botching the details. There are a surprising number of IP attorneys in the rpg space. Perhaps one of them will elucidate the concept that I am surely fumbling.)
Concrete Example: The US court system would not uphold WotC challenging a magazine's fair use review of an OGL product that included quotes from that OGL product without the review adhering to the terms of the OGL. The existence of the OGL would not preclude the Fair Use laws from applying to such a review, regardless of whether the literal wording of the OGL might expressly forbid it.
(To be clear, this example wouldn't necessarily extend to other types of "products.")
Ok, Blogger eats my post but I have just posted the Wizards FAQ over at addgrognard and it pretty well covers what happens in most scenarios.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to argue hypothetical law concepts about this anymore. The license is simple to use and provides for cya protection. My product page is up to date and I'll let everybody else worry about lawyers and violations.
This discussion has been interesting and made me take a closer look at the OGL. I'm going to go wtih creative commons for my RPG rules unless I'm making something specifically branded for an OGL game (eg. Swords & Wizardry) etc.
ReplyDeleteI want to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion. I'll be having a closer look at the OGL myself over the next couple of days, because, if anything, I'm more confused now than I was at the beginning.
ReplyDelete@ADD Grognard, I'm completely willing to admit you may have a very good point; however, I think, regardless of their merit, you do yourself a disservice by using arguments relating to the competition between 4e and Pathfinder (as you did in the initial post I linked at the top of the page) to suggest urgency. Such arguments just push the whole issue into knee jerk reaction territory, which obscures the larger point you are trying to make. I don't care about the fate of either company or game, however, I've read so many arguments online about the relative dominance in the marketplace that my eyes kind of glaze over as soon as I see one, and any larger point is lost. I know I'm not the only one.
Anyway, all that aside, thanks for raising the issue.
Note to self: Don't game with AD&D/ADD Grognard. He's a fricking fracking rules lawyer.
ReplyDeleteAs to the point about using both the OGL and a CC license--yes you can. The OGL protects the open content, the CC protects your own declared IP. Simple. You can't preclude someone from using another license for work that isn't covered under that license. By saying "this IP isn't open" you can effectively protect the non-OGL IP under another license, protect it under copyright, or transfer/sell it under contract.
And please, stop being paranoid unless someone really is out to get you.
IANAL.
ReplyDeleteI would strongly advise against using a license if you aren't completely sure of how it works.
This is especially true of a license that, as in this case, requires you to agree not to 'indicate compatability' ie not to say "here's a monster for D&D."
I read the post you linked to, and I'm not sure it's right. For example it states that "showing that people are not following the license properly is enough to have the license overturned." I would have thought it might be enough for WotC to take action against infringing entities, but I can't think of any reason why it would effect other people who are using the license properly.
I'd also dispute that "the majority of people in the community of the OSR are using the OGL and some variant based on the SRD." The majority of published products maybe, but certainly not the majority of bloggers. In fact grognardia is the only one I can think of.
In any case, that post is about people using the license, but not doing it right. You're not using it at all, so nothing in that post is about you.
You guys really need to look at this
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f
I am not a 'rules lawyer'. I am a publisher. There are rules you have to follow if you plan on using OGC/SRD material. You can't go around them change them or ignore them. Count the number of times the word 'sue' comes up in that FAQ. They are not joking around. You will see that it refutes most of the statements made here today.
What I'm pointing to is the fact that publishers are being careful to not violate the license while hobbyists are playing fast and loose with it. This can be used to aid in revoking the license which puts Paizo and a lot of other publishers out of business. No more OSR. End of game.
The other thing is you have to understand, and if you read the entire FAQ you will, that you are waiving certain rights in order to use material from the SRD and other OGC products. As it says if you disagree with this just don't use the material. No one is forcing you to do anything.
And you can't insert any other license into an OGC work. That's in the license too. You have to choose either closed (P.I.) or open (OGC) but no other for your material that you created. This is another thing you are agreeing to when you use their property which is what we are doing.
I really want people to understand that this isn't my 'opinion' or 'interpretation'. This is the license word for word.
Here is the link:
www.wizards.com/d20/files/oglv1.0a.rtf
I studied this thing for 3 months last year before I decided to agree to it.
"hobbyists are playing fast and loose with it. This can be used to aid in revoking the license which puts Paizo and a lot of other publishers out of business. No more OSR. End of game."
ReplyDeleteAgain, I don't see how A violating an agreement with B is supposed to allow B to break their agreement with C. When your neighbour falls behind with the rent, you don't get evicted.
"you are waiving certain rights in order to use material from the SRD and other OGC products."
This is surely an argument against using the license at all, whereas you seem to be arguing that everyone should use it.
Since we're talking about game rules, copyright, trademarks and WotC/Hasbro I think it's worth looking at the recent Scrabulous case:
ReplyDeleteScrabulous faced legal issues due to its resemblance to Scrabble along with a similar name. It also copied the board layout, rules, and at one stage the number of tiles. These issues forced the removal of the game from Facebook in mid-2008 and its eventual rebranding. The rights to Scrabble are currently owned within the US and Canada by Hasbro, and throughout the rest of the world by Mattel.
According to Anthony Falzone — head of the Fair Use Project at Stanford University — copyright laws do not allow someone to freely copy the particular expression of an idea. In his article in the Wall Street Journal, Jamin Brophy-Warren has said that Hasbro Inc. has refused to comment on legal matters, while the creators have mentioned informing the company about their site. The former Scrabulous website made several references to Scrabble, and previously provided a link to the rules of Scrabble and promoted itself as the best place to play Scrabble online.
It was reported that Hasbro made an attempt to acquire Scrabulous in January 2008 for an undisclosed sum in the range of $10 million. The game had been generating advertising revenue of over $25,000 a month for the Agarwalla brothers, however they refused to sell their application to Hasbro, instead requesting a "multiple" of $10 million. It was reported that the Agarwallas had also been looking for other potential suitors who would be willing to pay higher premiums.
3 years later... it's still around but they changed the name to Lexulous and made some minor changes to the game rules (# of tiles) so it's not a 100% copy.
anarchist said, "I would strongly advise against using a license if you aren't completely sure of how it works"
ReplyDeleteI agree. I also question the idea that if one entity misuses the license it can be revoked across the board. Such a thing would seem to contradict the entire idea of having license in the first place. Also ADD G states on his blog that it is easy to use the license, but then here he claims to have studied it for three months before he decided to use it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that doesn't sound all that easy to me.
I studied it for 3 months because I am careful. Being a musician I am used to having to go line by line through a contract. If you have ever been approached by an A&R guy and given a 'thin' only then after agreeing to that being given the 'thick' you would know how cautious I am. That is why I took 3 months. But at the end I decided it was best to choose between a decade long project and not just abandon it.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, if you disagree I wholeheartedly recommend you not agree to it. Don't use their product, trademarks, SRD or any of the derivatives in your work. I know lots of people who don't and are fine with that. But if you are posting things online or creating things other than for personal use and you see it contains a copy of the OGL then you are agreeing to that license the minute you use that material.
There are a lot of legal reasons to just not go there (like do you have a lawyer skilled in this area on retainer? Wizards has lots and most of the ones I have run across want a $5k retainer up front) and companies that don't want to be asshats but have to be if they intend to protect their intellectual property in the future.
Example: Let's say I decide to release a product called Swords & Wizardry Ultimate. They HAVE to sue me because I am infringing their trademark and if they don't file suit against me then it gets harder in court when the next guy comes along and infringes on their property again.
Again I will say-read the material:
www.wizards.com/d20/files/oglv1.0a.rtf
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f
http://www.earth1066.com/D20FAQ.htm
They don't want us. They want Paizo. Out. For good. As for how this affects a b c look at the d20 being revoked and tell me how many new products have come out under that license recently. Revocation is across the board. Single violators are handled in court.
And guys I'm sorry. I don't want to be an ass but I'm not making this up just to mess with your head or cramp your style. I'm doing what I think is right. We need to clean our own house before Hasbro and Wizards do it for us.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revocation
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q048.htm
"But if you are posting things online or creating things other than for personal use and you see it contains a copy of the OGL then you are agreeing to that license the minute you use that material."
ReplyDeleteThis is clearly wrong - at least as an absolute rule.
Fair Use and Nominative Use are two cases in which you can use copyrighted or trademarked material without permission and without exposing yourself to legal consequences.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revocation
ReplyDelete> http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q048.htm
These two links are just general discussions of 'revocation'. They don't contain any proof that Wizards of the Coast can cancel the OGL.
You've stated that
a) People are violating the OGL by not using it properly.
b) Wizards can cancel the OGL if people violate it.
c) Wizards wants to cancel the OGL.
If all three of your statements are true, then Wizards would have revoked the OGL already.
Since Wizards hasn't revoked the OGL already, at least one of your statements must be untrue.
"As for how this affects a b c look at the d20 being revoked and tell me how many new products have come out under that license recently."
ReplyDeleteThis is also clearly wrong. The d20 license was different to the OGL, precisely in that Wizards of the Coast was allowed to change it at will. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/d20_System for example.
Copyright and music recordings and copyright and game rules are also very different things. Eg. you can't copyright game rules.
ReplyDeleteADD Grognard said
ReplyDelete"And guys I'm sorry. I don't want to be an ass but I'm not making this up just to mess with your head or cramp your style. I'm doing what I think is right. We need to clean our own house before Hasbro and Wizards do it for us."
I'm sorry, but you are coming across as patronizing and alarmist. Also as Anarchist posted above, you are contradicting yourself.
Jesus guys, I'm not going to do this anymore. This isn't law theory 101. It is documents that involve us all. If you wish to dream up your version of what it means then I can't fix that.
ReplyDeleteWhat I said:
But if you are posting things online or creating things other than for personal use and you see it contains a copy of the OGL then you are agreeing to that license the minute you use that material.
What the license says:
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.
Ok, you guys haggle it out. I've got a product to get ready for GenCon.
Have a good day and may your dice always roll true :)
(No, I'm not mad at anybody here. I just got stuck with this license because I lost my #1 assistant last year and needed a way to work faster. That's how I got involved in the OGL and learned it backwards and forwards-hell, I could probably be an OGL lawyer at this point...hey maybe I am a 'rules' lawyer :)
Well now everything is clear, anyway.
ReplyDeleteADDG has apparently decided to move the conversation here: http://addgrognard.blogspot.com/2011/03/our-house.html
ReplyDelete"3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License."
ReplyDeleteWizards of the Coast don't decide what counts as 'offer and acceptance', the law does.
If you use Wizards' material, Wizards can't successfully claim that you've agreed to the contract, because you could be (and probably are) using it under Fair Use, Nominative Use, or some other doctrine which 'trumps' Wizards' contract.
If this wasn't so, companies could effectively destroy Nominative Use and Fair Use, simply by creating a contract which stated that "any use of our copyrights counts as you agreeing to this contract."
Since they would like to do this, and haven't done it, it follows that they are legally unable to do it.
After reading the back and forth at the post I linked in my comment above, I've come tot he conclusion that this is at best some kind of crazy over reaction. I suspect that there is more to it than that, but I'll forgo speculating on what that might be.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, this whole thing is making me pine for the simple days of pornogate, which was at the very least honest hysteria.
ReplyDeleteAos, you have the patience of Job.
ReplyDelete