D&D 5E SRD5 - A Clone of Part of D&D 5E Basic

[Sanglorian]

Hi all,

We got to talking about SRD5 in the Necromancer Games thread before someone pointed out that we were dragging that thread off topic.

From what I can see so far, SRD5 is a clone of part of Basic D&D (with the rest in the works). Like other retroclones, it relies on the fact that game mechanics and names are not subject to copyright, while re-writing or taking from the System Reference Document any prose or other creative expression.

Whether this is legal or not is something we were talking about in the Necromancer Games thread - it's also something we could talk about here (though I'm not sure that anyone knows the answer unless it's tested in the courts).

SRD5 also tries to do some interesting things around Product Identity to get around one of the quirks/huge lurking problems of the OGL - that could be an interesting discussion, particularly since I'm hoping that if Wizards does go with the OGL they release a version 2 and treat Product Identity differently.

SRD5 also encourages others to design 5E-compatible content, and will list those that are done under the SRD5 brand. Is anyone planning to take advantage of this? It would be interesting to hear from you if so!

 

[Umbran]

Whether or not it is legal, it is certainly risky. WotC didn't have much to lose in allowing clones of their past work, but outright cloning a current offering is another matter. I would not expect WotC to turn a blind eye to it.

Given that WotC already offers the Basic Rules for free, you don't even have the moral space of "WotC charges too much!" as a justification. WotC will eventually roll out licensing terms. Jumping on it mere days after initial release, without even bothering to wait to see what the license terms will be, starts smacking of trying to do an end-run around a company that put *years* of effort and major resources into design and testing, and take advantage of the work of others.

That doesn't impress me.

I would suggest waiting to see the license terms, and then deciding if you need to clone.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I do always find it incredibly amusing when someone infringes on another's copyright and then turns around and claims copyright on the thing copied. This is a slight variation of that, where they claim that what they copied is not covered by copyright law (and I'd have to look over the site in more detail to make an informed opinion on that matter!), but then the person has turned around and claimed copyright on the allegedly uncopyrightable thing!

This is just another case of wanting your cake and eating it too, or the law doesn't protect you but protects me hypocrisy.

 

[Nebulous]

I am not a lawyer or expert in any way...but this seems blatantly like stealing someone's else work they spent years working on.

 

[Mythmere1]

Thanks for splitting it off from the Necromancer Games thread -- what's being done in this SRD5 is completely different from what Necromancer is doing, and if the discussion gets into legal analysis, which it almost certainly will, they would get intertwined. Necromancer is publishing materials that require you to buy 5e rules in order to play -- which potentially increases, and does not decrease, sales of those underlying rules (assume there are legal nuances here: there are).

There is a holistic test for copyright violation, which is followed carefully by Necromancer and Frog God Games. We don't just fly out with the "game rules can't be copyrighted" law. There's more to it than just that. Formats can be copyrighted, too, even if they are part of the presentation of a game's rules.

This SRD5 is at least one step removed from supporting the new game, although I'm sure the guy's heart is in the right place and what he hopes to do is facilitate 3pps. But that's not his prerogative at this time, IMO. Whereas on the one hand, Necromancer is acting with its own existing intellectual property, and on its own behalf only, whereas the SRD5 is structured completely differently and for different purposes.

I am by no means offering a conclusion on the SRD5, just pointing out that it uses a smaller subset of the law than the Necromancer Kickstarter, has a different economic model, and doesn't use intellectual property that was self-created under an earlier license (which could potentially restrict Necromancer to using only an OGL license rather than a specialized 5e one). This is why I wanted to avoid seeing them lumped together.

 

[MoonSong]

I expect this will be met with a C&D before the week ends. At least the author should have had the decency of writing everything from scratch. Copyright doesn't cover game rules, that is for sure, and the srd covers many terms, but I can spot a couple of lines at least that are almost word for word copies of the basic rules. And for all of the legalese he makes, I think he neglected to update the copyright notice, something you ought to do when you use the OGL.

 

[Umbran]

Thanks for splitting it off from the Necromancer Games thread -- what's being done in this SRD5 is completely different from what Necromancer is doing, and if the discussion gets into legal analysis, which it almost certainly will, they would get intertwined. Necromancer is publishing materials that require you to buy 5e rules in order to play -- which potentially increases, and does not decrease, sales of those underlying rules (assume there are legal nuances here: there are).

Yes, and to be clear, my comments above were about cloning Basic outright, not using some loopholes to support 5e play while waiting for the real license agreements to come out.

 

[Abstruse]

Backgrounds kill whatever legal protection this guy thinks he has. He uses terms and descriptions straight out of the Basic D&D PDF and that's exactly what you can NOT do to exploit this legal loophole.

I also find it hilarious he's claiming copyright on work that legally can't be copy-written and that's why he's able to post it anyway.

 

[doctorhook]

I missed out on the entirety of the original discussion, but as I'm creeping the SRD5 page now, all the links I've found to his own "license.htm" page are dead. Acknowledging that there is no OGL for 5E yet (as I understand it), how is this website justified? Has "Jim Walkoski" been trying to defend his legal position on this somewhere already?

 

[Morrus]

He's very generously licensed his own name and the title of his site under the OGL for public use, though, which is gratifying.

More seriously, I wish him the best, but that's not a risk I would take.