Quote from: tuypo1;818898I am reading through these licences and am amazed that in the past people have had difficulty complying with them. in my single pass over i already have a large grasp on them sure if i was publishing something i would look over it some more and seek professional help but holy shit they are not complicated licenses.

the ogl itself boils down to dont use content thats not open game and include a copy of the licence (and a few other things but those are the main ones).

and the the d20 trademark licence is mostly if you want to use any of these terms you need to make sure its not about sex (i kinda feel sorry for wizards there they knew that making that change would cause a lot of people to lose faith in the licence but they also knew they could not get away with making the change) and does not have a videogame, character creation software or character creation rules

that is of course all a simplification but i get back to my initial point

how the fuck have people had trouble with this in the past

For gods' sake, WotC doesn't even understand it:

QuoteQ: The license is confusing and full of legal terms I don't understand. Is there a "plain English" version?

A: No, there is not. The License has been drafted with specific legal language to withstand any reasonable court challenge. An effort to simplify the text might introduce errors or omissions that would distort the License and could mislead potential users. You should consult your legal counsel if you have any questions about how to use the OGL.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f

Translation: we need lawyers to figure out what it means too.

Quote from: Technomancer;819051Translation: we need lawyers to figure out what it means too.

I take that to mean that they understand it but explaining it to you would be a waste of their expensive lawyers.

Quote from: rawma;819165I take that to mean that they understand it but explaining it to you would be a waste of their expensive lawyers.

thats the impresion i get to

that said they did have a dedicated service for helping people with it they just did not want to do all of it just help with individual peoples small problems instead

what i really want to know is what they hope to achieve by copyrighting the term dungeon master

Quote from: tuypo1;818975was fast forward the one that used fiend folio creatures in there adventures

ah it was monster manual 2

you know as foolish as fast forward was it is quite odd that wizards did not include the rights to refer to the gods in the d20 trademark licence it sounds like it would get in the way a lot

(shrugs)  A lot of lawyers have made a lot of money over the simple and eternal truth that a great many laymen cling to the fantasy that they understand how the law works.

Probably no other example of confirmation bias in action has emptied so many pockets.

Quote from: Technomancer;819051For gods' sake, WotC doesn't even understand it:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f

Translation: we need lawyers to figure out what it means too.

I don't think so. My understanding is that if they were to interpret it for you, it could, in fact, change the meaning of it; companies also often have a blanket prohibition against any employee interpretation of anything legal for self protection.

Consider for example, that WotC coffee & pastries guy gets onto a forum and says "What it means is THIS and THIS, go for it!". But in fact, they are wrong - badly wrong. WotC lawyers say "stop that". But you've already based a bunch of really expensive business decisions because a WotC representative said it was okay. Who is in the right?

Ive had this conversation a number of times with content licensing companies. Its safest to just say "it is what it is".

I don't think the terms were particularly difficult to understand, but like any legal document, you need to take it seriously.

A number of vendors went to extreme lengths to try to make it as difficult as possible to figure out what open content was in their works, and also a number of other nasty tricks to keep you from reusing it.

Quote from: Lynn;819243A number of vendors went to extreme lengths to try to make it as difficult as possible to figure out what open content was in their works, and also a number of other nasty tricks to keep you from reusing it.

Do you have a few examples from actual products?

Quote from: Lynn;819243I don't think so. My understanding is that if they were to interpret it for you, it could, in fact, change the meaning of it; companies also often have a blanket prohibition against any employee interpretation of anything legal for self protection.

Consider for example, that WotC coffee & pastries guy gets onto a forum and says "What it means is THIS and THIS, go for it!". But in fact, they are wrong - badly wrong. WotC lawyers say "stop that". But you've already based a bunch of really expensive business decisions because a WotC representative said it was okay. Who is in the right?

Ive had this conversation a number of times with content licensing companies. Its safest to just say "it is what it is".

I don't think the terms were particularly difficult to understand, but like any legal document, you need to take it seriously.

A number of vendors went to extreme lengths to try to make it as difficult as possible to figure out what open content was in their works, and also a number of other nasty tricks to keep you from reusing it.

do you really think hasbro is going to allow wizards to hire a coffee and pastries guy.

also coffee a shit

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;819250Do you have a few examples from actual products?

Nope. I was on the two publisher mailing lists and recall a number of fits over this very thing, and I recall there being plenty of complaints. Three things I do recall though -

- there was a publisher that made vague declarations about what was open and what was not, such as "all text about is product identity", but that was liberally sprinkled about throughout the book - to the point that you couldn't really avoid it in any paragraph.

- there was one that designated something as closed in a certain font, but the font was so similar to the rest of the text that it was pretty much indistinguishable.

- another was creating a product identity statement that was paragraphs long and effectively a complete advertisement, including a website URL; you couldn't use his stuff without having this very long advertisement for his product.

Quote from: tuypo1;819267do you really think hasbro is going to allow wizards to hire a coffee and pastries guy.

also coffee a shit

Maybe instead a security guy that forces you to clean out your desk just as products go to press?

Quote from: Lynn;819270Nope. I was on the two publisher mailing lists and recall a number of fits over this very thing, and I recall there being plenty of complaints. Three things I do recall though -

- there was a publisher that made vague declarations about what was open and what was not, such as "all text about is product identity", but that was liberally sprinkled about throughout the book - to the point that you couldn't really avoid it in any paragraph.

- there was one that designated something as closed in a certain font, but the font was so similar to the rest of the text that it was pretty much indistinguishable.

- another was creating a product identity statement that was paragraphs long and effectively a complete advertisement, including a website URL; you couldn't use his stuff without having this very long advertisement for his product.

wow those are all arseholish things to do

Quote from: Lynn;819243I don't think so. My understanding is that if they were to interpret it for you, it could, in fact, change the meaning of it; companies also often have a blanket prohibition against any employee interpretation of anything legal for self protection.

Consider for example, that WotC coffee & pastries guy gets onto a forum and says "What it means is THIS and THIS, go for it!". But in fact, they are wrong - badly wrong. WotC lawyers say "stop that". But you've already based a bunch of really expensive business decisions because a WotC representative said it was okay. Who is in the right?

Yes - I teach this stuff for English law - if I rely on the employee's assurance "this clause only applies to X" - then there's a good chance that either (a) the employee's assurance is taken to be a term of the contract, or (b) it could give rise to a promissory estoppel (an equitable doctrine), effectively preventing WoTC from enforcing the contract's original terms against me.

An employee could probably get away with an effective disclaimer - "Well I think it means X, but you better talk to our lawyers" but it's safest to stay silent.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;819250Do you have a few examples from actual products?

Just about anything from Necromancer Games.