Effete, a collection of game mechanics can be *copyrighted*, but they are not generally trademarked. Trademark applies only to distinct text or images that are used in marketing - so for RPGs, trademark is only distinctive content that is on the cover of the book, not in the interior. The Open Game License is a *copyright* license, not a trademark license. It is explicitly *not* a trademark license, as specified in item #7 of the OGL.
No. The specific collection of game mechanics constitutes a "design" that identifies a particular system with a particular brand. That falls under trademark protection. Copyright protects the specific phrasing of such a design. To use your own words, from your website (emphasis mine):
"A board or role-playing game relies heavily upon ideas. Ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted -- only specific text which explains the idea. The same game rule, expressed through totally different text, is not an infringement."Why would the OGL need to grant "copyright permission" if the law already recognizes that simple rephrasing does not constitute a violation? Because copyright is not the issue; trademark is.
I will grant that there is some minor overlap. The SRD is considered "open content" and can be reproduced verbatim (under the terms of the OGL) without copyright infringement, but the OGL
does not grant license to reproduce anything not expressly allowed in the SRD. Item #7 of the the OGL is referring to Product Identity, which is a term used in the licensure, not the law. Product Identity lists the trademarks which are excluded from the license. A creator can include demons and devils in a product, but they cannot use "Tanar'ri" or "Baatezu." A creator can write an adventure called 'Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder' just as long as "beholder" is not a reference to the monster in any way shape or form. "Beholder" is a protected trademark; the literal written description and statblock of a beholder is protected by copyright.
First of all, mechanics are copyrighted, not trademarked as I said.
And your understanding of the distinction is flawed.
(In theory, a mechanic could be patented, like WotC's patent on collectible card game "tapping" mechanic - but as far as I know, no tabletop RPGs has ever had a patent.) I would invite you to look into the lawsuit between TSR and GDW over publishing of Gary Gygax's Dangerous Journeys. Dangerous Journeys wasn't even close to a retroclone of D&D, but it had some similar mechanics - and especially the ones which took some text gave pretext for the lawsuit.
1) I am advocating that the law should be different, such that copying a 40-year-old RPG should be considered the same as copying a 90-year-old H.P. Lovecraft story. I believe that the current terms of copyright law are excessive to the point of inhibiting creative expression rather than enhancing it. Authors benefit from being able to freely use public domain works like Homer and Shakespeare. Authors like A.C. Doyle and H.P. Lovecraft and others of their era should be free to use from.
This is a complex topic that probably deserves it's own separate post, if not a dedicated thread. I'm not going to get into it here.
2) The *only* retroclone that is legalized under the OGL is a retroclone of 3rd edition D&D that doesn't include the experience table. It does not, for example, allow a retroclone of 1st edition AD&D, which has a lot of text and mechanics that are unique and were never made into open game content.
I spent a good deal of time trying to find the relevant information off the Wizards website, but couldn't. For what it's worth, this was taken from wikipedia:
"Dungeons & Dragons retro-clones are fantasy role-playing games that emulate earlier editions of Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) no longer supported by Wizards of the Coast. They are made possible by the release of later editions' rules in a System Reference Document under the terms of the Open Game License, which allow the use of much of the proprietary terminology of D&D that might otherwise collectively constitute copyright infringement. However, as per the license, these games lack the brand names Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, and all the other trademarks associated with those brands.
3) You reference the OGL in relation to Star Frontiers, but nothing in the original Star Frontiers was ever released under the OGL, so the OGL is irrelevant to releasing Star Frontiers.
The OGL was drafted by WotC when they acquired all those old properties, and according to wikipedia, those properties use the OGL for open gaming. This would explain why OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, ACKS, et al include the OGL in their products. The OGL is the license needed to use Wizards' properties.
Also, Star Frontiers is not in any sense "D&D in Space" like Spelljammer. It has mechanics and background entirely unrelated to D&D.
Fine... "roleplaying in space", since you want to be pedantic.