Question for Scott Rouse re: Retroclones

[joethelawyer]

Does WOTC have any official position on the question of whether or not OSRIC, Swords and Wizardry, or Labyrinth Lord violates WOTC's intellectual property rights in any way? How about retroclones in general?

If there is no offical position on this question, is the question still under legal review? Is the question on the legal department's radar at all? Might it be in the future?

In other words, are the developers and sellers of the retroclones and those who produce retroclone compatible material ever going to face the threat of legal action from WOTC/Hasbro for violating WOTC's intellectual property rights for what's already been produced as of now?

Thx.

 

[ggroy]

I would be quite surprised if anybody at WotC would officially answer this type of question, short of a subpoena.

 

[joethelawyer]

I would be quite surprised if anybody at WotC would officially answer this type of question, short of a subpoena.

Even that's an answer of sorts, isn't it? Everybody keeps dancing around the issue. I figured I'd just ask the question many many others want to know the answer to.

 

[jdrakeh]

Even that's an answer of sorts, isn't it? Everybody keeps dancing around the issue. I figured I'd just ask the question many many others want to know the answer to.

I'm sure they do have some kind of official position on the issue, though whether they're willing to openly talk about it is another question altogether.

 

[Belorin]

Does WOTC have any official position on the question of whether or not OSRIC, Swords and Wizardry, or Labyrinth Lord violates WOTC's intellectual property rights in any way? How about retroclones in general?

If there is no offical position on this question, is the question still under legal review? Is the question on the legal department's radar at all? Might it be in the future?

In other words, are the developers and sellers of the retroclones and those who produce retroclone compatible material ever going to face the threat of legal action from WOTC/Hasbro for violating WOTC's intellectual property rights for what's already been produced as of now?

Aren't these all published under the OGL?

Bel

 

[Lanefan]

Aren't these all published under the OGL?

Ah, but does the OGL cover pre-3e product, or just the 3e/d20 system?

Lanefan

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

well many use d20 structures and terms just kinda rearranged to pre 3e rules

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Ah, but does the OGL cover pre-3e product, or just the 3e/d20 system?

The OGL covers the use of "open content." The 3e rules and the d20 system build on top of that, defining some open content (e.g. the SRD). You can use the OGL (and the open content from the SRD) without using the d20 license. Using the OGL, by itself, doesn't wed you the d20 system or 3e at all. (The d20 system license is separate from and much more restrictive than the OGL.)

Given some open content (e.g. stuff from the SRD), the OGL gives you permission to use it (i.e. Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content). Also, the OGL defines "Derivative Material" as "derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted."

The above use of the OGL is what allows games like Mutants & Masterminds, True 20, Pathfinder, Castles & Crusades (which edges towards retro-clone territory), et cetera.

The idea behind the retro-clones is that the OGL gives you permission to use open content terms and descriptions (e.g. classes, spell names, monsters, hit points, armor class, etc) and then edit/modify/extend/abridge/adapt/transform/and format them. The specific form into which the retro-clones modify the open content happens to match the algorithms and such used in other games. Since copyright does not apply to such game formulas and rules (only to their presentation), and the retro clones present the formulas and rules with a combination of original description and open content, no legal rights are infringed. (Subsystems or elements which are deemed to be unique expressions, rather than uncopyrightable algorithms/rules are avoided or changed -- this is why there are minor differences between the originals and the retro-clones, in certain areas.)

That's my understanding, anyway.

 

[Derulbaskul]

@OP: You're a lawyer so why are you asking these things in public? And, more particularly, calling out a specific WotC manager to answer?

What if you provoke one of the WotC's lawyers into issuing a policy that the community doesn't like? Some things are simply best left unasked.

 

[Belorin]

@OP: You're a lawyer so why are you asking these things in public? And, more particularly, calling out a specific WotC manager to answer?

What if you provoke one of the WotC's lawyers into issuing a policy that the community doesn't like? Some things are simply best left unasked.

QFT

Bel