It allows you to search the
messageboards, send and receive private messages, give yourself a
custom usertitle, turn ads on or off, create a custom style for your
profile, get a nifty badge under your username, and gives you a special
warm glowy feeling! Oh, and it gets rid of this annoying message, too!
RPG Legalities: OGF/4eGSL/d20STLDiscussions about the Open Gaming Movement, the Open Gaming License, along with WotC's GSL. This is the new home of the OGF-L and d20-L listserver discussions.
I recently downloaded a commercial (POD) RPG supplement for Labyrinth Lord that appears to re-use designated Product Identity from that other product (which, so far as I know, is a violation of the OGL, unless a seperate license agreement is in place with the PI owner) and does not cite the Open Game Content used from that other product (e.g., monster stat blocks) as Open Game Content (also a violation, so far as I know). Otherwise the product seems great but I am unaware of any provision in the OGL that allows these two things to occur. Am I missing something?
Sounds like the publisher has not implemented the OGL correctly. I'm assuming here that it's not the same publisher that produced the original product (in which case the PI issue disappears; even so, you have no way of knowing what licensing agreement exists between the two publishers).
Certainly re-used OGC must be cited. You ask if the terms of the OGL have changed - presumably the OGL is printed in that book for you to view? The short answer, of cours, is that they have not (although there is more than one version of the OGL out there, but that element is identical in each).
Sounds like the publisher has not implemented the OGL correctly. I'm assuming here that it's not the same publisher that produced the original product (in which case the PI issue disappears; even so, you have no way of knowing what licensing agreement exists between the two publishers).
Correct. It's not the same publisher who produced the source text. There may be a seperate license in place, though if there is, it's not cited in the work itself and it made me wonder why, if a seperate license is in place, would the publisher of the derivitive work include an additional PI statement (encompassing the original publisher's PI) in the attached copy of the OGL.
Quote:
Certainly re-used OGC must be cited. You ask if the terms of the OGL have changed - presumably the OGL is printed in that book for you to view? The short answer, of course, is that they have not (although there is more than one version of the OGL out there, but that element is identical in each).
Yeah, re-used OGC stuff is absolutely not cited (though granted, there isn't a lot of it). The entire body of content is, in fact, specifically declared as not being OGC in the OGC statement, though there is a seperate withstanding rider of sorts that allows re-use of all proper names and such therein provided that credit is extended to the author of the derivative work.
The reason I asked is because, despite these potential license violations, I really like the product and had wanted to expand on it a bit. That said, after doing some more research, I've decided to build directly on LL and Northern Crown as their licenses seem to be genuinely open and not subject to the aformentioned potential violations and unusual withstanding riders.
I guess, what caused the confusion, was that I couldn't figure out why somebody would release under the OGL only to negate the license, either by unintentional violation or by design (declaring all content to be not OGC, and adding the withstanding rider to facilitate re-use). Still can't.
Well, certain elements are OGC whether they declare it or not - anything derived form the SRD. They don't get to declare that not-OGC; it's not theirs to declare.
Well, certain elements are OGC whether they declare it or not - anything derived form the SRD. They don't get to declare that not-OGC; it's not theirs to declare.
I'm aware of that. I do not think that there is any actual material from the SRD in the product, though (so it's not a concern). It was the previously declared OGC from the source work (again, several stat blocks) not being declared as such and then the entire text of the dervied product very specifically being declared as non-OGC that threw me for a loop.
At any rate, it's a non-issue now because I am certain (after conferring with several other parties) that the license is not in order there, thus I'm pursuing different avenues of publication via OGL licenses that don't seem to be teeming with unusual exceptions and probable violations. It's just going to be much less of a headache for me, even if it means more work on the world building front.
Well, any stat block is by definition derivative of the SRD, so is OGC whether they declare it or not. They're in violation by not declaring stat blocks OGC.
I guess, what caused the confusion, was that I couldn't figure out why somebody would release under the OGL only to negate the license, either by unintentional violation or by design (declaring all content to be not OGC, and adding the withstanding rider to facilitate re-use). Still can't.
I know several reasons why, but none that I can express on these boards.
Basically, people keep doing this. I got a beautifully done, well-written, free, 200+ page True20 campaign setting last week, that I'd love to use material out of -- but the OGL listed in the back doesn't cite any sources. The S.15 lists only the license itself. Go figure. All that work on the document, and zero on the license itself.
(on the flip side, I also got a discounted copy of the Lost Realms setting, which is 600+ pages and pretty good, and the S.15 there is scary as hell. I mean, I thought the one on my website was pretty extensive since I've just been adding books as I get them on the theory that I might very well use some part of them someday, but this guy's S.15 blows mine -way- out of the water.)
I recently downloaded a commercial (POD) RPG supplement for Labyrinth Lord that appears to re-use designated Product Identity from that other product (which, so far as I know, is a violation of the OGL, unless a seperate license agreement is in place with the PI owner) and does not cite the Open Game Content used from that other product (e.g., monster stat blocks) as Open Game Content (also a violation, so far as I know). Otherwise the product seems great but I am unaware of any provision in the OGL that allows these two things to occur. Am I missing something?
Could you PM me? As the publisher of Labyrinth Lord I'd like to be made aware of anything funky going on. Likely the publisher of the material you're talking about simply made a mistake, but I'd like to find out so we can get it all worked out.
(on the flip side, I also got a discounted copy of the Lost Realms setting, which is 600+ pages and pretty good, and the S.15 there is scary as hell. I mean, I thought the one on my website was pretty extensive since I've just been adding books as I get them on the theory that I might very well use some part of them someday, but this guy's S.15 blows mine -way- out of the water.)
LOL. Thats great! And that glad you like it. An update is coming soon for it also. Got some new stuff that was added.
Honestly, with the S.15 if you use OGC from a source you have to include their S.15 in your S.15, minus the repeats references. So while I know I did not use OGC from most of the references in my S.15 I was still bound to list them from others S.15 I used or violate the license. Hence why my S.15 was so dare long and "scary". I would have just prefered to simple list the book I used OGC out of, but from what I understand from the ePublishers d20/OGL Guide I could not just do that.
LOL. Thats great! And that glad you like it. An update is coming soon for it also. Got some new stuff that was added.
Cool!
Quote:
Honestly, with the S.15 if you use OGC from a source you have to include their S.15 in your S.15, minus the repeats references. So while I know I did not use OGC from most of the references in my S.15 I was still bound to list them from others S.15 I used or violate the license. Hence why my S.15 was so dare long and "scary". I would have just prefered to simple list the book I used OGC out of, but from what I understand from the ePublishers d20/OGL Guide I could not just do that.
That's exactly right, and I don't have a problem with it at all. Eventually, someday, it might be an issue - but it's not now. There's no font limits or formatting limits on the S.15.
There's no font limits or formatting limits on the S.15.
Thanks the Gods for that! I couldn't imagine the S.15 on it with a 10 font requirement.
On a side note I did separate at the book into two like you suggested, a PHB (which will be the upcoming update) and a setting book (which you will receive a free download coupon for once it goes up).
LOL. Thats great! And that glad you like it. An update is coming soon for it also. Got some new stuff that was added.
Honestly, with the S.15 if you use OGC from a source you have to include their S.15 in your S.15, minus the repeats references. So while I know I did not use OGC from most of the references in my S.15 I was still bound to list them from others S.15 I used or violate the license. Hence why my S.15 was so dare long and "scary". I would have just prefered to simple list the book I used OGC out of, but from what I understand from the ePublishers d20/OGL Guide I could not just do that.
That is one of the few things I don't like about how the OGL handles things. I am perfectly okay with the viral nature. But publishers that use content from other publishers it simply builds on top of the existing Sec. 15.
I suggested to Scott Rouse that one of the terms in the new GSL be that the publisher is required to create a index/OGC declaration etc of every piece of OGC they used and where it came from in addition to the Sec. 15's. (Note: I suggested that this be hosted on the publisher website to keep page count down). This would help other publishers reuse works from other publishers, keep accurate Sec. 15's and identify commonly shared ideas and concepts.
__________________ Paul "Yes that Paul" Grosse
PCGen BoD - OGL SB & LST Lemure-in-training
ICQ: 14397299
AO: Nylan
Forums: Nylan (or Nylanfs)
[quote=Nylanfs;4338117]That is one of the few things I don't like about how the OGL handles things. I am perfectly okay with the viral nature. But publishers that use content from other publishers it simply builds on top of the existing Sec. 15.
I suggested to Scott Rouse that one of the terms in the new GSL be that the publisher is required to create a index/OGC declaration etc of every piece of OGC they used and where it came from in addition to the Sec. 15's. (Note: I suggested that this be hosted on the publisher website to keep page count down). This would help other publishers reuse works from other publishers, keep accurate Sec. 15's and identify commonly shared ideas and concepts.[/quote]
I've heard that before, and I just don't see it as workable. OGC doesn't exist solely as discrete units of information. Even a single feat could be rewritten, edited, and combined with another feat from another publisher - by three different contributors after the first. Doing that for every feat, spell, race, skill use, and prestige class? It'd be insane. Instead of a single S.15, you'd supplement (not even replace!) it with an index tracking every piece of OGC? That's in no way easier.
It is if it's started out from the beginning of a new license. I would NEVER suggest it for the current OGL. But if everyone starts listing where their items come from for their books, then it's fairly easy to keep a) accurate & correct sec. 15's and b) gives better credit to the original authors of said items.
__________________ Paul "Yes that Paul" Grosse
PCGen BoD - OGL SB & LST Lemure-in-training
ICQ: 14397299
AO: Nylan
Forums: Nylan (or Nylanfs)
Sure, if you dump all the old stuff it'll be great for a little while. Then you'll have the same problem again, unless you institute a rule that no one can edit feats, spells, monsters, classes, etc. Just rebooting doesn't solve the problem I outlined above.
Linear Mode
