General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
View Poll Results: Does your v.3.5 fan site have the OGL attached to it?
Well, my stuff is strickly fan-based stuff that I do for my own enjoyment. (I've simply found that others share my passion for creating homebrewed worlds, rules, etc.) I don't have any intention of slapping the OGL on to anything I'm doing for Kulan; however, I could do it for another world concept I've been mulling over.
Still, I do appreciate those that create free fan-based OGL netbooks as well as those who publish under the OGL. It's just not for me... right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerrick
Read your OGL sometime. It has to be attached to ANY material using the SRD, whether or not you intend for it to be open. Stuff posted on forums is exempt, but I'm fairly sure stuff on websites falls under that aegis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knightfall
So you're saying that any v.3.5 fan site with homebrewed races, classes, rules, and the like must have the OGL attached. Huh?
That doesn't sound like what I've heard from WotC in the past regarding 3rd Edition fan sites. The OGL was designed for publishers not for fans. Sure, if I was reproducing the OGL on my website (in whole or in part) then I'd need a copy attached to the site but I'm not, so I don't think I need it.
Of course, I've never truly understood every aspect of the OGL, so I could be wrong.
If I had to make my Walk the Road wiki OGL compliant then I'd just delete the damn thing! It wouldn't be worth my time or effort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
I believe the only separate document created by WotC regarding OGC use was essentially an addendum in the form of the conversion policy but that had more to do with utilizing older D&D IP in conjunction with the OGL.
As to fan websites, I do not believe that the OGL makes any exception for them in regard to use of OGC and the OGL. However, it is certainly simple enough to add an OGL with a section 15 to any website that simply has the line "[website name here] is copyright [person name here] [year(s)]" then after the "END OF LICENSE" add an OGC declaration (100% except for PI if you wish to be open or more restrictive, perhaps just to specific mechanics, if you wish to hold more control on the material) then a PI (Product Identity) declaration with a list of specific terms that you consider trademark or worth holding back from OGC, like the name of the campaign world, your own name, original names of classes or races or items, etc. It's not that difficult, really.
Okay, I'm just wondering if I'm the only one.
I'm sure that many of you have your own web sites (and/or wikis) dedicated to D&D v.3.5. So the question is...
Does your v.3.5 fan site have the OGL attached to it?
If it doesn't, do you worry that WotC might come gunning for your head? If they told to comply or shut down your site, what would you do? Do you think WotC cares about D&D v.3.5 fans since it's no longer the current edition?
__________________ Robert Blezard I write; therefore, I am!
D&D v.3.5, d20 Modern, OSRIC, Pathfinder, True20... OGL Forever! Walk the Road
Avatar by Sialia
Oh, I am sure you are no where near the only one. I think the benefits you gain from doing it right are keeping the OGL strong, making your own creations available in the OGC pool to others, and the pride that comes from doing the right thing. Let's also not forget that it isn't just a WotC issue. If you are using material from other publishers you have an obligation to them, as well.
I've attached the OGL to every iteration of my 3e website. The WotC fansite policy applied to fan use of WotC IP, like Forgotten Realms or duskblade, not game rules that are covered under the OGL. I'm not positive that my OGL declaration is up to date right now, but it's there (and extensive). I really don't think adding an OGL is all that much work, unless you have alot of WotC IP on your site. Otherwise it's just adding a declaration of OGC and an OGL page with the right copyrights.
Oh, I am sure you are no where near the only one. I think the benefits you gain from doing it right are keeping the OGL strong, making your own creations available in the OGC pool to others, and the pride that comes from doing the right thing. Let's also not forget that it isn't just a WotC issue. If you are using material from other publishers you have an obligation to them, as well.
You know, I've considered it, but I'm more worried I'd make a huge error somewhere along the way and have to scrap tons of work. Plus, my campaign world uses material that isn't OGC, so I wouldn't be able to use that material on my web site.
For example, I really like to create my own variants of older D&D races for Kulan -- rakasta, lupin, tortles, etc. Now, my web site doesn't have stats for those races on it but it does name those races. If my site was an OGL site, then I wouldn't likely be able to refer to those races at all. I'd have to use a generic name for them, which makes my campaign world less interesting to me, personally.
I also use official D&D content that isn't OGC in my world such as some locales from the Forgotten Realms and Mystara and well as Cauldron from DUNGEON Magazine. If I had a web site that was OGL-based then I'd have to take those elements out of my setting. That's not going to happen... ever!
Plus, I don't understand how we can post our own house rules here on EN World but not put it on a web site (as long as its a fan site). Or does EN World break the rules of the OGL everyday simply by existing? After all, there is a downloads section with 3e content and I'm sure not everything in the downloads section conforms to the OGL.
D&D v.3.5 fans shouldn't be forced to be masters of the OGL if they want to share their worlds with others. We might create custom content for our homebrews but we shouldn't be forced to become amateur publishers to do so. That would ruin the fun of playing the game and building my campaign world.
__________________ Robert Blezard I write; therefore, I am!
D&D v.3.5, d20 Modern, OSRIC, Pathfinder, True20... OGL Forever! Walk the Road
Avatar by Sialia
I also use official D&D content that isn't OGC (. . .)
I'd rather not mix that issue with the one I am quoted discussing above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knightfall
Plus, I don't understand how we can post our own house rules here on EN World but (. . .)
Again, a separate issue and one I think best left for a different thread, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knightfall
D&D v.3.5 fans shouldn't be forced to be masters of the OGL if they want to share their worlds with others.
What you have quoted by me in the first post is as simple as it can be and no need for any type of mastery. Even so, I feel it would be better to try than to just throw hands up in the air. Minor errors can be corrected as they are discovered.
I'd rather not mix that issue with the one I am quoted discussing above.
Again, a separate issue and one I think best left for a different thread, IMO.
Okay...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
What you have quoted by me in the first post is as simple as it can be and no need for any type of mastery. Even so, I feel it would be better to try than to just throw hands up in the air. Minor errors can be corrected as they are discovered.
You know, it might seem simple to you, but I don't think that applies to everyone. Also, were you speaking only as a fan or as a game designer/publisher as well? For the above discussion, I was speaking only as a fan of D&D v.3.5 and 3pp books for that game.
I have written material for the d20 system in the past and might do so again in the future. However, I did that as a freelancer for two different gaming companies. If I'm going to write OGC then it's going to be as a freelance writer.
World of Kulan is my flagship D&D v.3.5 campaign world that also uses many 3pp references in play (i.e. Mythic Races). However, it's not meant as an OGL world and never will be. For while I like sharing what I create for Kulan here at EN World, I'm not comfortable attaching the OGL to any part of it.
Now, I have a few other worlds brewing in the back of my mind that I could see myself making available under the OGL but, for right now, I have other concerns that take priority over designing an OGL world.
__________________ Robert Blezard I write; therefore, I am!
D&D v.3.5, d20 Modern, OSRIC, Pathfinder, True20... OGL Forever! Walk the Road
Avatar by Sialia
I'm not comfortable attaching the OGL to any part of it.
You only need an OGL if there is OGC used, but I think you already know this and I am just spinning my wheels, so I am bowing out of this conversation.
You only need an OGL if there is OGC used, but I think you already know this and I am just spinning my wheels, so I am bowing out of this conversation.
No worries.
I think we understand each other in this regard.
__________________ Robert Blezard I write; therefore, I am!
D&D v.3.5, d20 Modern, OSRIC, Pathfinder, True20... OGL Forever! Walk the Road
Avatar by Sialia
Plus, I don't understand how we can post our own house rules here on EN World but not put it on a web site (as long as its a fan site). Or does EN World break the rules of the OGL everyday simply by existing?
This.
EN World exists by the grace of WotC. As does Canonfire and the Planescape website. And your site.
I don't really understand what is confusing. You are using WotC's property without a license or permission. You are free to continue doing so, and it's quite probable that WotC will continue to ignore it, but that doesn't convey some kind of magical legality on you. And before it gets brought up, neither does money. Your status as an "amateur" or "professional" as nothing to do with it.
Quote:
After all, there is a downloads section with 3e content and I'm sure not everything in the downloads section conforms to the OGL.
Maybe, maybe not. That's between Morrus and WotC. But maybe you remember the whole conversion section disappearing when the official conversion policy came out?
Quote:
D&D v.3.5 fans shouldn't be forced to be masters of the OGL if they want to share their worlds with others. We might create custom content for our homebrews but we shouldn't be forced to become amateur publishers to do so. That would ruin the fun of playing the game and building my campaign world.
They aren't, really. WotC hasn't really pushed the issue. That said, you don't have a magical right to "share" WotC's property with other people via the internet. You can write up your own Kulan ruleset, or make it systemless - WotC isn't holding a gun to your head to use D&D.
I use the OGL, but I certainly don't think of myself as a publisher.
Personally, I think it's silly to expect fan sites to use the OGL. Why limit yourself? If you use the OGL then you can't reference things like warlocks, goliaths, and all that other good closed stuff. So, you're constraining yourself for no real reason. It's not like you're going to publish it. WotC isn't going to say anything or try to stop you unless you actually post the stats of those non-OGL things.
I think it defeats the whole purpose of a fan site to use the OGL.
__________________ "If you map Pokemon to cyberpunk themes and assume the bright and shiny veneer of the show and games is simply what the megacorps want you to see, it's a perfect fit. Genetically engineered monsters, some of them of human-level sentience, engage in brutal pit fights at the behest of malnourished vagabond adolescants while shadowy corporations operate in the background and superficially cheerful female nurse clones (or androids) tend to the every need of monster and trainer alike..."
- MoogleEmpMog
You only need an OGL if there is OGC used, but I think you already know this and I am just spinning my wheels, so I am bowing out of this conversation.
Aha. I've never seen (or heard of) an actual fansite policy regarding 3.5, so I figured the OGL applied there as well. FWIW, I've got a copy attached to mine, but since it's a) a total conversion of the 3.5 system, and b) all OGC, I kind of need it.
I have seen WotC IP posted on other sites (one place has pretty much all the spells from all the books) and wondered how they got away with it; now I know.
Agamemnon: "Their process of building each edition atop the previous ones has resulted in 3.5 being the Michael Jackson of RPGs, desperately improving itself to ward off obsolescence but attaining only a kind of perverse lichlike state as a mockery of healthier games."
No, as WoTC informally stated a while back, the OGL was intended for publishers, not fans.
Besides, I teach both Contract and IP law (IAAL). I know better than to enter into a complex unilateral contract like the OGL for no good reason. Frankly, I think you are very unwise to have done so.
Edit: You need to understand that it is MUCH easier for a court to find breach of contract than for it to find non-literal copyright infringement. I don't think you understand what you're getting into here. Using the OGL when you are not a real publisher is, IMO, risky, dangerous and foolish.
Of course if you are actually reproducing chunks of the SRD then, yes, you need to use the OGL. Why you would want to do that though I have no idea.
I have seen WotC IP posted on other sites (one place has pretty much all the spells from all the books) and wondered how they got away with it; now I know.
Um, reproducing chunks of text from WoTC books is copyright infringement, pure and simple. Don't do it.
OTOH, if you as a fan are putting online adventures featuring drow, beholders, mindflayers and new prestige classes; WoTC may waffle about 'PI' but as long as you're not literally reproducing chunks of their text or art a copyright claim is highly questionable, and they are not likely to bother you.
No, as WoTC informally stated a while back, the OGL was intended for publishers, not fans.
Does that have bearing if WotC decides to take, or imply taking, legal action?
Quote:
Besides, I teach both Contract and IP law (IAAL). I know better than to enter into a complex unilateral contract like the OGL for no good reason. Frankly, I think you are very unwise to have done so.
I'm confused here. I think I understand the OGL pretty well. I don't have anything in violation of the OGL on my website that I know of. I do use material derived from the SRD (game mechanics) on my site. Given the choice between a legal way of handling that material and an illegal way that relies on WotC's good faith, why is it wiser to ignore the legal channel? I'm not trying to be snarky or something, I just honestly don't get it.
Quote:
Of course if you are actually reproducing chunks of the SRD then, yes, you need to use the OGL. Why you would want to do that though I have no idea.
Um, houserules? Changes to existing races and classes? Keeping information in one spot rather than spreading it over a multitude of sites? I guess I don't understand why you need the OGL to reproduce SRD material, but it's OK to use stuff that WotC hasn't released at all.
I should clarify: if you're going to go ahead and use WotC's IP anyways, there's no point in using the OGL. IMO. But if you're not, or don't have to, I think it's a better choice, and friendlier to the gaming community.
In places. Some of my content derives directly from the SRD or other OGC and I've put a copy of the OGL on each of those pages. It's courteous to give proper credit, and good practice for published work.
Other items are entirely my design and text, even if they use formats based on OGC, or, frankly, couldn't be licenced under the OGL because they refer to non-open sources. Thus, I've explicitly said that nothing on the site is open content or licenced by WotC unless so stated.
For commercial publication, I'd be more cautious, and also I think there's a fair expectation that such work should contribute to the community.
I guess I don't understand why you need the OGL to reproduce SRD material, but it's OK to use stuff that WotC hasn't released at all.
There are various ways you can use stuff without infringing copyright in it. Finding non-literal copyright infringement is not easy.
I guess if you are putting a lot of effort into complying with the terms of the OGL, fine. But it's really easy to be in breach of contract, and that is much easier to prove than that your adventure about (say) Beholders infringed any copyrights relating to Beholders.
There are various ways you can use stuff without infringing copyright in it.
Do most amateur websites utilize those ways?
Quote:
I guess if you are putting a lot of effort into complying with the terms of the OGL, fine. But it's really easy to be in breach of contract, and that is much easier to prove than that your adventure about (say) Beholders infringed any copyrights relating to Beholders.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that -if- WotC were to go on the warpath (not that they are or will) against amateur websites, they're more likely to target websites trying to play by the OGL than those openly flaunting it, because it'd be easier to prove breach of contract via the OGL than some kind of copyright infraction?
I think we're in pretty hypothetical territory here, so I'm not overly concerned about it, but it's something I'll consider.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that -if- WotC were to go on the warpath (not that they are or will) against amateur websites, they're more likely to target websites trying to play by the OGL than those openly flaunting it, because it'd be easier to prove breach of contract via the OGL than some kind of copyright infraction?
I think we're in pretty hypothetical territory here, so I'm not overly concerned about it, but it's something I'll consider.
1. Yes, IMO most amateur D&D fansites are not (c)-infringing. It can depend on the judge though!
2. It is very hypothetical. In reality the ISP gets a C&D letter, they pull the plug on the content to avoid liability under the DMCA, it never goes to court. The actual content doesn't matter.
It wouldn't be worth my time or effort.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
