QuoteTheir products reference the Mongoose RQ "OGLd" SRD.

Not Design Mechanism's. We don't use or issue any OGL.

Quote from: Loz;1094687Not Design Mechanism's. We don't use or issue any OGL.

That's right. We have no issue with Design Mechanism or D101.

Quote from: richaje;1094722That's right. We have no issue with Design Mechanism or D101.

Thanks for replying.

While I understand why Design Mechanism wouldn't be effected by Chaosium position, I don't understand how D101 is not effected.

On June 11th Chaosium states

QuoteQ: Can I rely on the Mongoose RQ SRD to publish material?

A: No. Mongoose's license for RuneQuest was terminated in April 2011. At that point, Mongoose lost all rights to continue using the RuneQuest trademark, or to create and publish material derivative from the previous copywritten material, or to issue any sublicenses based on that agreement. Since Mongoose no longer had any rights to RuneQuest, it has no ability to issue a third-party license to that material (which is all an OGL is).

Which is understandable considering the use of a trademark in the title of the document and it use throughout. However the first version of Openquest published by D101 Games is based on the Runequest System Reference Document.

Then there is the D100 II System Reference Document which is based on the content of the Runequest System Reference Document based on the citation of Section 15 of the Open Game License. if Chaosium claims that the Runequest System Document is not longer open content because Mongoose lost their license then the D100 II SRD is also tainted anything based on the D100 II SRD is tainted as well. Which includes the latest version of Openquest.

How are there are no issues with the RPG that D101 games publishes.

Wrapping it up

Aside from being an advocate of open content, I also seriously considered writing a Majestic Wilderlands for D100 RPGs and ran some sessions towards that end 9 years ago. Hence I am interested in what happens to the D100 based open content that Mongoose released.

Quote from: estar;1094731However the first version of Openquest published by D101 Games is based on the Runequest System Reference Document.

Did the first version of OpenQuest include any RuneQuest IP?

How about the current version?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1094819Did the first version of OpenQuest include any RuneQuest IP?

How about the current version?

Depends on what you mean by Runequest IP? There were two things licensed from Issaries, the Runequest trademark and the Glorantha IP. Greg Stafford did not have any rights to the Basic Roleplaying RPG. The problem with the Runequest System Reference Document is that it used the Runequest trademark repeatably. Not that it used any rules from any edition of Basic Roleplaying or any games based on the Basic Roleplaying Game.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1094819Did the first version of OpenQuest include any RuneQuest IP?

How about the current version?

No and No

Fuller statement over at BRP Central

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/9871-openquest-and-the-ogl/

Quote from: Newt;1094822No and No

Fuller statement over at BRP Central

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/9871-openquest-and-the-ogl/

Appreciate you sharing that.

A good move to move completely over to Legend as the foundation.

Still not sure what prompted Chaosium to talk about the OGL on June 11th when they updated their FAQ.

But it is good that a consensus is emerging hat the open content of Legend is OK to use.

Quote from: estar;1094830Still not sure what prompted Chaosium to talk about the OGL on June 11th when they updated their FAQ.

I thought it was brought up because of their shutting down the Open Cthulhu thing that was announced... on, I think, The Yog Sothoth forums. No?

Quote from: Simlasa;1094878I thought it was brought up because of their shutting down the Open Cthulhu thing that was announced... on, I think, The Yog Sothoth forums. No?

So that explains why my Google-fu failed as Yo Sothoth forums are visible only to members.

The first I heard of it was via an oblique reference that Chaosium was cracking down on Mongoose related IP. That lead me to the FAQ, commenting on the basic roleplaying forums, and my blog posts.

Quote from: SpinachcatDid the first version of OpenQuest include any RuneQuest IP?

How about the current version?

Quote from: Newt;1094822No and No

Fuller statement over at BRP Central

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/9871-openquest-and-the-ogl/

Thanks, Newt. Just to bring over the post for discussion -

QuoteI couple of things that have arisen from the recent rather heated discussion about the old MRQ SRD both here and elsewhere, that have mentioned the position of the OQ OGL that I feel need answering from me as the creator of OpenQuest (OQ).

1. OQ is in the process of moving to the Legend OGL, The bits of Chaosium IP that were in the original MRQ SRD as in names of Gloranthan beasties (Gorps, Broo etc) never made it into OQ even in its 1st version. Elsewhere someone has argued that Ducks, Elementals and Spirits are Chaosium IP, there certainly weren't depicted as such in OQ where they were more generic fantasy in their presentation. I've had discussions with Jeff Richard from Chaosium/Moon Design over the years on this  Just to be 100%

Which leads me to the 2nd point which has always underpinned OpenQuest's legality, which folk won't be aware of.

2. Before I released OpenQuest, in Sept 2009, I showed it to Greg Stafford who quickly consulted with Jeff and they okayed it. I didn't feel the need to make a great song and dance about this because I knew at the time the MRQ SRD OGL covered the work adequately and if anyone was to use OQ's own SRD  that was the basis they had to use to keep it clear.  I then contacted them again via Jeff when the MRO License was withdrawn, because by then I had quite a stable of OQ releases (OQ + adventures, River of Heaven, The Company), plus  there was a growing number of credible commercial works built on OQ such as those put together by Cakebread & Walton and translations such as the French version of OQ. Again because I had asked before doing, acted respectfully OQ and all the works based on OQ are OK by Chaosium.

And finally, because it seems that it needs pointing out, both here and because its the no1 question from the asked by the people who contact me via email about the OGL:

3. What isn't OK by Chaosium (and myself) is if you use the OQ SRD to make your own Call of Cthulhu or RuneQuest clone, or any other game that is based upon IP that you do not have written permission to use. its worth noting that even when OQ is clearly using the Legend OGL, you would still be breaking section 15 (which is in short, only use IP you have the rights to in your games).  

When OpenQuest 3 comes out you'll see this reflected in an updated OGL and also in a "How to use OpenQuest to make your own product" section, in both the book itself and the OQ 3 SRD.

So, the strange thing here is that Lovecraft's works are public domain, and the basic roleplaying / D100 mechanics are OGL -- so someone can make a basic-roleplaying Lovecraftian horror game under the OGL. But it would be distinct from Chaosium's copyrighted Call of Cthulhu RPG.

Some people have made retro-clone games by the theory that as long as specific text isn't copied, the ideas and methods in a game can be emulated.

I'm reading the thread over at Yog-Sothoth, and about the only thing it makes clear is that the majority of the posters there know fuck-all about copyright (and I'm inclined to extend that to Chaosium).

The thing about copyright isn't necessarily who is correct, but which side is willing to engage in legal warfare to push their point.

And the thing with Cthulhu is that August Derleth essentially claimed copyright on not just HPL's stuff, but even his style. He shut down a pulp writer (C. Hall Thompson) who didn't even use anything directly from Lovecraft by sending a threatening letter to Weird Tales.

He was in the wrong, but it worked*. Seems like Chaosium is just following his example.


* Which is hilariously hypocritical because he wrote Sherlock Holmes knock-offs, Solar Pons, and the ACD estate asked him to stop and he refused.

Quote from: JeremyR;1095068* Which is hilariously hypocritical because he wrote Sherlock Holmes knock-offs, Solar Pons, and the ACD estate asked him to stop and he refused.

It also kind of shits on Lovecraft's general attitude about the Mythos and encouraging other writers to play in that sandbox.

HPL's work is public domain and game mechanics can't be copywritten (but their "expression" can be). That's the tricky part that most people don't understand. AKA, you can't plagiarize or as Estar discussed above, you can't copy their trade dress.  

However, if you were to do a D100 Open Cthulhu, you would need to avoid Chaosium's interpretations of HPL's work. Those they own as their IP. AKA, stuff like spells, monster stats, descriptions of monsters not found in HPL's work, occult tomes they created, NPCs stats, plot lines, etc.

It's not rocket science, you just need to refocus on the original source material. Kevin Crawford did OSR Cthulhu with SILENT LEGIONS and its awesome.

I suggested this over on Yog-Sothoth, but there would be value in an individual or a group hiriing an IP attorney and put together a systemless reference useful for RPGs on the available public domain content. Whether it is for Burroughs, Lovecraft, Howard, Piper and others.

Like what OSRIC did for AD&D 1st edition but for literary IP. We know public domain exist for the above there is still material that under copyright for the above.