I 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
Because right out the gate some publishers were ignoring it and doing as they pleased, and then others copied THEM thinking it was ok, and so on. Other just pointed at the ones lightning hadnt hit yet that this was proof it was all fine. Then freak out when they get blasted.
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
Irony meter spiking in that you're bitching about people not understanding the license when you have it wrong yourself.
For example, one of the most egregious errors that most people do, and what you're doing, is forgetting about section 8:
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.That part is easily just as important as including the license in general. And the d20 trademark license is nothing like you think it is; you're wrong on that too. It's only the license on how you use the actual d20 logo. You're talking about the d20
SYSTEM license. And even then, it's not exactly what you're describing. You're omitting a ton of stuff.
Geez, how could anyone get that wrong...
I'm considering writing some stuff of my own using the OGL and it's intimidating as hell. I'm not trained in legalize. I could easily see myself having trouble with this, I don't think it's simple for anyone without experience in dealing with this sort of thing.
You missed a very important aspect of the d20 System Trademark License (d20STL):
It no longer exists. While the OGL is perpetual and irrevocable, the D20STL was revoked in 2008. You can't use it.
Quote from: Orphan81;818917I'm considering writing some stuff of my own using the OGL and it's intimidating as hell. I'm not trained in legalize. I could easily see myself having trouble with this, I don't think it's simple for anyone without experience in dealing with this sort of thing.
In general you are not allow to use another person's work verbatim without permission due to copyright.
The OGL is permission by the author to copy a work or portions of a work under certain conditions.
The OGL has a feature where you can designate some portions of a work as open with people free to copy that portion under the OGL, and other portions as product identity which can't be copy.
Those condition are:
1) You must update Section 15 with the copyright notice of any open content you copy. Luckily this mostly involves copying pasting the section 15 from the license text of the work.
2) You explicitly agree not to copy the work's product identify without a specific set of permission from the original author.
3) You must clearly designate or mark which portions of your work is open content.
4) You can't cite compatibility or use the original work for marketing without specific permission from the original author.
And that is pretty much it.
#4 is the only right that you are explicitly giving up by agree to use another author's open content. #4 is why Wizards had the d20 trademark license. Note had, Wizards has since revoked the license and no longer gives permission to use the d20 mark or logo.
Now where it gets difficult is that people being people don't clearly mark what open content. Luckily for what most people want to do there are documents that are marked as 100% open content.
D20 SRD
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35
Pathfinder SRD
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/
The Fate SRD
http://fate-srd.com/
Swords & Wizardry SRD
http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/cleanwpfilecore4.rtf
The Blackmarsh Setting (which I wrote)
http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/blackmarsh_srd.zip
So if you want to publish your own product. Take your rulebooks put them far away from where you do your writing.
Download one of the above (or one of the many other SRDs out there). And use that as your main reference.
Then when you lay out your book, CLEARLY mark which portions are open content. The rest is product identity which you retain full rights too.
What is open content, any thing that is copied or based on the SRD.
For example this entry about the Boglings from my Majestic Wilderlands.
This has to be open content because it depends on information found in the Swords & Wizardry SRD and the d20 SRD.
QuoteArmor Class: 6 [13]
Hit Dice: 2+1
Attacks: 2 claws (1d3)
Saving Throw: 16
Special: Underwater, Jumping, Extensible Tongue
Move: 6/12 (when swimming)
Challenge Level/XP: 2/35
• May breathe underwater indefinitely
• Can Jump over 60 feet and up to 20 feet in height.
• Has an extensible tongue can immobilize a target if it fails it's saving throw.
This part can be product identity because it my own original writing.
QuoteThese are amphibious humanoids with bulbous eyes. Boglings are noted for their ability to jump long distances and for their extensible tongues. They are found in tribes in tropical swamps and rainforests as well as on several of the outer planes most notably the Swamps of Acheron home to the god Set.
Personally I made the whole thing open content just because I wanted too.
When you are done, copy the text of the open game license and alter Section 15 to be
Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
plus whatever the section 15 the SRD and then YOUR copyright notice. Like this from Blackmarsh
15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, John D. Rateliff, Thomas Reid, James Wyatt, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
Blackmarsh, Copyright 2011, Robert Conley
Quote from: estar;818950In general you are not allow to use another person's work verbatim without permission due to copyright. ...
Exactly. Good description, info and summary Estar!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;818906Irony meter spiking in that you're bitching about people not understanding the license when you have it wrong yourself.
For example, one of the most egregious errors that most people do, and what you're doing, is forgetting about section 8:
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.
That part is easily just as important as including the license in general. And the d20 trademark license is nothing like you think it is; you're wrong on that too. It's only the license on how you use the actual d20 logo. You're talking about the d20 SYSTEM license. And even then, it's not exactly what you're describing. You're omitting a ton of stuff.
Geez, how could anyone get that wrong...
as i said it was a simplification
Quote from: estar;818950In general you are not allow to use another person's work verbatim without permission due to copyright.
The OGL is permission by the author to copy a work or portions of a work under certain conditions.
Good summary, estar. As some additional resources, I have an RPGs and Copyright page, and a page on SRDs.
http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/
http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/
Quote from: Pat;818918You missed a very important aspect of the d20 System Trademark License (d20STL):
It no longer exists. While the OGL is perpetual and irrevocable, the D20STL was revoked in 2008. You can't use it.
oh i missed that
I think a big part of it was that there is basically no consequences for not following it properly.
There's no OGL police waiting to swoop down on people who make mistakes. (The exception being Fast Forward Entertainment, who used WOTC IP in their products)
Companies have flubbed the section 15 part since pretty much day 1 and are still doing it, 15 years later, usually not updating it with their product.
And then some companies deliberately make the open content declaration obtuse, so you can't use anything in it.
was fast forward the one that used fiend folio creatures in there adventures
Quote from: estar;818950The Blackmarsh Setting (which I wrote)
http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/blackmarsh_srd.zip
So if you want to publish your own product. Take your rulebooks put them far away from where you do your writing.
Wow. You open sourced
Blackmarsh. Awesome! Thank You!
come to think of it how are they handling 3rd party content for 5e are they just giving full licences to a few selected company's
I just wanted to give a huge thanks to Estar and Jhkim for their advise on this topic and the resources presented!
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.