Then I sent this letter. You can see the date.
In fact, I've never posted this before anywhere. Here is my open letter I wrote to Scott Rouse at Wizards of the Coast as a follow up to an earlier letter I had sent him:
Open Letter to Scott Rouse and Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Re: 4th Edition D&D and the OGL
March 22, 2008
Scott,
I know you are working hard finalizing the GSL while juggling the many responsibilities you have for the launch of 4th Edition. If I may be so bold, I have a suggestion—a suggestion that I believe is a perfect solution to many of the issues you may be facing regarding the GSL.
My suggestion is simply this: Release 4th Edition D&D under the current OGL, but with a new Dungeons and Dragons Trademark License, instead of the d20STL.
In keeping with my suggestion, which I outline and explain in greater detail below, I have taken the liberty of amending the d20STL and creating the very documents that I propose you use: (1) a Dungeons and Dragons Trademark License v1.0, (2) a Dungeons and Dragons Trademark Guide, and (3) a Dungeons and Dragons Product Identity Agreement. Please find those documents attached to this letter. Please note that the attached documents have “track changes” turned on so that you can see the exact changes I have made with comments. [I haven't posted those here]
In the event that you feel it will not be possible to approve these documents in time to allow crucial third party support for 4th Edition, I would be happy to help you draft a proposed 4th Edition Gentleperson’s Agreement that would serve to allow third party publishers to support 4th Edition while the final license details are completed.
Let me highlight for you a number of the key changes I made in these documents (and in one case a key thing I left alone) and explain why I made them and why I believe adopting them is the best course of action.
• There is no need to revise the OGL
The OGL v1.0a does not need to be changed. It does exactly what you want it to do: it allows you to release Open Game Content to us, and it allows us to make products with it.
It also has the benefit of familiarity. It has been in use for years. It is simple, and well understood by the various publishers. No need to change what people already know how to use.
Further, it allows the use of Open Game Content, and it makes no restriction on where that OGC comes from, whether it be from the old 3E SRD or from the new 4E SRD. And it allows said OGC to be used in the same product, in that it doesn’t disallow such use. I think that is the biggest hurdle facing a 4E OGL/GSL—dealing with products that want to use open content from both SRDs. The current OGL would allow it, which is in and of itself a reason to keep it.
Additionally, the OGL is basically irrevocable. In my view it is a mistake to merge the terms of the STL into an irrevocable GSL: either you will have to make the GSL irrevocable, which gives up control, or you would have to make it revocable, which would be a bad PR move and would be something that would give people pause. The better idea is to keep two separate licenses—the OGL, and the “other license” that has your restrictions that you want in it and that is revocable and that you can change at will.
That brings me to my big point—the problem isn’t the OGL, the problem is the d20 STL. Here is why and how you change it.
• Change the d20STL to the “Dungeons and Dragons Trademark License”
I understand the recently stated desire to add certain controls into the GSL by merging some of the terms from the d20 STL into the OGL. My guess is the thinking behind merging the OGL and the STL is to force the acceptance of some of the limitations found in the STL into the OGL because people were making OGL-only products and not using the STL. But, as I’ve said, the problem there wasn’t the OGL. Let me explain.
The reason why the d20 STL did not continue to be used by the publishers, and thus those controls were avoided, is that “d20 did not mean D&D.” It did at first. But over time, that connection was watered down. The d20 logo as a brand and a symbol lost its value. Initially, the idea was that everyone would want the d20 license because that let people use the d20 logo, which was on the D&D books and at first had a clear link to D&D. What publishers really wanted to do was say “compatible with D&D,” but the licenses didn’t allow that and the d20 logo was the next best thing. As a result, things like standards were tied to the d20 STL because it was presumed that was the thing publishers couldn’t live without. But that didn’t prove to be true. In the end, that d20 logo didn’t just mean D&D anymore. So as the value of the d20 logo declined, so too did the need to use the d20 STL. All of a sudden, we could do D&D products without the d20 STL and just with the OGL. Once that happened, there were no longer any restrictions. But had the d20 logo had more value we would have had no choice but to accept them since we would have needed the d20 logo.
Solution: license the Dungeons and Dragons name and logo and let us say “compatible with Dungeons and Dragons” or “for use with Dungeons and Dragons, Fourth Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.” That license should contain the content restrictions. That license should be separate from the OGL and should be revocable and changeable by you at your whim, like the STL.
I have made some basic modifications to the d20 STL and have created the “Dungeons and Dragons Trademark License v.1.0,” (“DDTL”). Here are a few of the changes:
I kept the “License” and “Guide” format, which incorporates the content from the Guide into the trademark license and allows you to make changes you need to make. The DDTL lets you use the D&D logos, the Guide tells you what you have to do and contains the restrictions. See below for more on changes to the Guide.
I deleted reference to the d20 Modern game, because this license is about promoting D&D.
Each license—the d20 STL and the DDTL—are independent and independently useful. You can’t use the d20 logo without using the d20 STL and you cant use the D&D logo without using the DDTL.
The DDTL can be used with the d20 STL if someone wants. One doesn’t supersede the other. I also suggest that you leave the d20 STL and Guide in place so people can keep making Third Edition products. At this point, they can whether you do or not so you might as well.
• Change the d20 System Trademark Guide to the “Dungeons and Dragons Trademark Guide”
The Guide is a flexible way for you to make changes to the content controls that you want in any products that will use the D&D logo. Most of the changes come here, in the Dungeons and Dragons Trademark Guide (“D&D Guide”). Here are the changes in my proposed version of the new D&D Guide:
I deleted references to the d20 STL and logo, as those are still covered by the d20 STL which continues to be valid.
I deleted references to d20 Modern and other games and settings, as this is about supporting D&D. Plus, those references are still in the d20 STL and people would want to use that license with those games.
I tied the license to OGL v1.0a or later, so that an earlier version cannot be used. I did this just to clarify things in the event an updated version of the OGL is ever introduced.
I deleted all the “defined game terms.” Those restrictions for a d20 license made sense when the point is to support a core game system and to have similarity among game systems, because the d20 system means a certain thing. However, you are no longer licensing d20 with this license, you are licensing Fourth Edition D&D. So none of those terms need be in the license, and frankly the 4E definition of many of those terms is different from the 3E versions and would cause conflict.
I kept the restriction of describing character creation and describing applying the effects of experience. In my view this was valid restriction in the d20 STL and it is an even more valid restriction now. This was one of the key restrictions that drove people to abandon the d20 STL. It will also make people who want to use the license to make alternate game systems abandon this license—which, in my view, is exactly what you want to happen. You don’t want people to make alternate games like Mutants and Masterminds to have the D&D logo on those products.
I deleted the “you may not change the definition of a defined game term” restriction, as the game terms were deleted. Again, the d20 STL had those terms to make sure all d20 games are consistent. That isn’t the point of this license anymore. This license exists to support D&D.
I added a new term that “A minimum of fifty percent (50%) or more (word count or letter count) of the Open Game Content used in a Covered Product must be from the Fourth Edition System Reference Document (“4ESRD”).” The reason I added this is because the logo we are licensing is the Fourth Edition D&D logo. You want to make sure that the majority of the open content used in your product comes from the 4E SRD.
I changed the mandatory trademark usage to allow publishers to say “compatible with” or “for use with Dungeons and Dragons,” which will solidify the value of this license and prevent the problem that plagued the d20 logo insofar as that license failed because d20 did not properly equate to D&D.
I changed the text block requirement to delete the maximum size. I never understood why Wizards didn’t want us putting in as big of words as possible that our product required the use of its core books.
I permitted users to reference other works by Wizards of the Coast by name and page number, and I also required that any such titles of works be included in the legal disclaimer text block indicating that such titles are used with permission and are owned by Wizards. It was always silly that we couldn’t refer to a specific page of a core rule book.
• Suggestions for the 4E SRD
My suggestion is that the 4E SRD be a text file for each book and that for the most part the entire book be open. I see no reason why Wizards should provide, for free, pre-typed versions of all the books. Plus, the process of stripping the content seems to be far too time consuming and in my view was one of the reasons why subsequent products were not released in the SRD. Using this approach would allow all subsequent books to be added to the 4E SRD. It is foolish, in my view, to let us support 4E but not let us help you sell the splat books for that edition. Further, if you want, you could include a list of “Product Identity” for each book.
Here is how I would do it. I would simply do an open game content designation for the book as if you were using the OGL, complete with a designation of Product Identity. It is literally that easy. This, then, would be the 4E SRD entry for the Player’s Handbook:
Player’s Handbook
All written rule-related game content within this book — excluding any text on the inside or outside of the front or back cover or on the Credits page and further excluding content related to character creation and to applying the effects of experience to a character, as defined in the Dungeons and Dragons Trademark License, v1.0 — is hereby designated as Open Game Content, subject to the Product Identity designation below, including by not limited to all races, classes, monsters, templates, spells, feats, powers, mundane items, magic items, deities, divine powers, [and all other stuff you want to add] and including the proper names of any such new content and related stat blocks but not any text descriptions other than that which contains game-related information is hereby contributed as new Open Game Content.
Inadvertent Inclusion or Failure of Designation: Any inadvertent inclusion of content in this product which is otherwise not Open Game Content shall not cause such content to become Open Game Content by virtue of its inadvertent inclusion here.
Designation of Product Identity: The following items are hereby designated as Product Identity as provided in section 1(e) of the Open Game License:
Any and all material or content that could be claimed as Product Identity pursuant to section 1(e), below, is hereby claimed as product identity, including but not limited to:
1. The name “Wizards of the Coast” as well as all logos and identifying marks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., including but not limited to the Wizards logo and the phrase “XXX” as well as the trade dress of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., products;
2. Any and all Wizards of the Coast, Inc., product names, including but not limited to Player’s Handbook, [list any other names];
3. All artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, illustration, graphic design, maps, and cartography, including any text contained within such items;
4. The names, personality, descriptions and/or motivations of all artifacts, creatures, characters, spells, enchantments, powers, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities, places, locations, environments, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, gods, races, countries, cities, city states, political or geographic features, historic events, groups, feats, spells, skills, organizations, items, monsters, planes or deities in this book as well as the name of any other thing originating from other Wizards of the Coast, Inc., products, but not their stat blocks or other game mechanic descriptions (if any);
5. All stories, storylines, histories, plots, thematic elements;
6. Any other content previously designated as Product Identity is hereby designated as Product Identity and is used with permission and/or pursuant to license.
Literally, there is your 4E SRD entry for the Player’s Handbook. Of course, I would be more specific if I actually had reviewed the book. Note that I exclude from open content any character creation information as well as describing the effects of applying experience, which ties into the D&D Trademark Guide restriction.
• Add a Product Identity License Agreement
Then, in addition to the above, allow Product Identity to be used. My attached Product Identity License Agreement allows people who use the D&DTL (and only those who use the D&DTL) to use some of the key D&D PI, such as beholders and githyanki and mind flayers and the new gods, etc. Now more than ever, the core D&D books include and are tied to certain setting concepts. If you do not allow us to support those things, you fragment the market drastically and force rather transparent work-arounds that serve little purpose other than to annoy the readers. In my proposed PI License, I provide further notes on the reasons behind such a license.
• Conclusion
I hope I haven’t overstepped my bounds in taking the liberty of drafting these simple changes and submitting these solutions. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help in this process.
Sincerely,
Clark Peterson
President
Necromancer Games, Inc.