OGL FAQ

[ersatzphil]

Funny enough, Tim Kask owns the rights to the Bulette. The way the rights went in those first days of Dragon magazine, most reverted back to the creator. He advised as such as recently as a few weeks ago.

So I think it would be hilariously funny if Tim exercised his rights and WoTC had to pull all references to the Bulette.

"The Curmudgeon in the Cellar strikes again!"

::Hasbro exec angrily shakes his fist at the sky::

 

[Lidgar]

"The Curmudgeon in the Cellar strikes again!"

::Hasbro exec angrily shakes his fist at the sky::

 

[rknop]

It seems to me that at the end of the day WotC created a big playground for people to use (OGL) which people have done so for years. But now, they are creating a smaller playground within the bigger one that will include more rules (1.1). People of course are rightly asking why they would want to play in the smaller section WotC has cordoned off, rather than just stay in the big section... and right now there doesn't seem to be an answer yet.

Most of the uproar is over the fact that WotC is trying to close the bigger playground.

They're not creating a smaller playground within a bigger playground. They're trying to close the playground (that the FAQ in the OP says they can't do), and replace it with a much more restrictive (and, frankly, unsafe) playground.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Most of the uproar is over the fact that WotC is trying to close the bigger playground.

They're not creating a smaller playground within a bigger playground. They're trying to close the playground (that the FAQ in the OP says they can't do), and replace it with a much more restrictive (and, frankly, unsafe) playground.

You are quoting a post I made back in December before all this current brouhaha came about with the leaks in January.

 

[CapnZapp]

Here's an even shorter FAQ.

Q. Should I avoid the OGL like the plague?
A. Yes. You should act as if all your current and future plans for D&D-related gaming materials, any edition, are suddenly turned into poison ash. You need to look for a completely different ruleset and set your gaming material in worlds unrelated to anything TSR or WotC have ever produced. And you need to accomplish this shift by the 13th of January this year. Good luck!

 

[GMMichael]

Is this one frequent enough to answer here?

Isn't the WOGL based primarily on WotC's SRD, which would mean that Paizo's ORC must be based primarily on something completely different?

...which might or might not be awesome. Or lame.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This isn’t always true either. Derivative work is tricky and can be a grey area. It would be up to a court to decide based on several factors. If it appears you’re trying to game the system for profit, it probably won’t end well for you.

Never underestimate playing the parody card, though as you say, its up to a court whether they buy it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is this one frequent enough to answer here?

Isn't the WOGL based primarily on WotC's SRD, which would mean that Paizo's ORC must be based primarily on something completely different?

...which might or might not be awesome. Or lame.

The core of the OGL has no IP in it at all. Its just a license for handling material that does. Various expressions of it do, but some of them have entirely different IP (which is why people completely outside the D&D-sphere are concerned about this--some of them used the OGL as a tool of convenience to tell people who wanted to make products for their games what the rules were, while including entirely different IP).

I'm assuming the ORC will similarly be basically a contract structure that tells people using it how the attached IP can and can't be used (and what parts) without including any IP intrinsic to it.