D&D 5E Upcoming OGL-Related Announcement!
- Thread starter GX.Sigma
- Start date
tomBitonti
Hero
About the Kobold Press modules: That doesn't seem to be licensed work, in any form. That seems to be work done for hire for WotC, with all rights retained by WotC. Perhaps Kobold Press retained some limited right to advertise the work they had done, but they don't seem to have retained any rights in particular to the work content.
Using that as a model, there is no licensing: That is WotC partnering (or perhaps just hiring temporarily) some folks to do work for them that they are, for whatever reason (too few resources, not enough talent; want to piggyback on a top designer's name; &etc), not wanting to do themselves.
I think we need to visit (or revisit) typical licensing scenarios and see how they apply to D&D products.
Thx!
TomB
Using that as a model, there is no licensing: That is WotC partnering (or perhaps just hiring temporarily) some folks to do work for them that they are, for whatever reason (too few resources, not enough talent; want to piggyback on a top designer's name; &etc), not wanting to do themselves.
I think we need to visit (or revisit) typical licensing scenarios and see how they apply to D&D products.
Thx!
TomB
Same argument holds for 5e, though. Technically, it can be done. That means nothing.
The point is: the same logical drivers so far posited for a 5e clone applied for a 4e clone. But, the 4e clone did not appear. Ergo, a 5e clone is also not somehow guaranteed to appear mere months after 5e's release, as was asserted would happen.
Yes, that's oft-stated now. It completely ignores classed characters/NPCs. So, if your adventure or product only contains monsters, you can take a stab at it, sure. Have fun with that.
I've not yet seen a publisher say, "Yeah, you know, that's attractive, and we're going to try using that!"
Somebody may have asserted it would happen "mere months" after release, but that somebody certainly was not me. Aside from folks who already have agreements in place with Wizards (e.g., Kobold Press), no 3PP is going to be producing 5E material mere months after 5E's release, not even if the Basic Set comes with a full-fledged OGL. It takes longer than that just to get the stuff written, tested, and printed.
And as my post above shows, there was 4E-compatible material published outside of the GSL, with "For use with Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons" right there on the front cover. (My understanding is that "Kingdoms of Kalamar" didn't even use the OGL, let alone the GSL. It helps that Dave Kenzer is an expert in copyright law.)
So stat out your NPCs as monsters, 4E-style. Or create "villain classes." This is not a serious problem. There is no reason why NPCs must use PC mechanics.
Last edited:
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Y'know, I missed this back in '08, but it's actually a really good example of folks skirting that legal line. Apparently David S. Kenzer knows a thing or two about IP law.
TIL about Nominative Use!
Kenzer's a weird situation. They had an official D&D license for Kalamar up until 2007 - logo, branding, everything, as part of the settlement of a lawsuit regarding the Dragon Magazine Archive instituted by David Kenzer. After that they stopped putting the D&D logo on the products, but we don't really know the exact terms of the settlement. There's a more than zero chance they're perfectly entitled to continue using that phrase.
Last edited:
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
They're coming at it from a different angle, but from my reading, it looks like anyone could really do a book essentially like that for any edition of D&D, if they knew their stuff well enough. Their D&D license for Kalamar didn't apply to this particular release, just general IP law. From DSK:
(sawrs)David S Kenzer said:
It strikes me that you still have to REALLY know what you're doing to pull this off, so it's not like this is a viable path for every Basement Bob and Staircase Suzie out there. Practically, they aren't going to face a real threat from this, in all likelihood. It does though seem to suggest that WotC's right or ability to enforce a given license in order to control for the quality of compatible products might be more of a layman's presumption than the true lay of the land.
All of which is really just points in favor of them not having a crappy licensing scheme for 5e, if they're smart.
Last edited:
That would be so ironic. They should totally do that. Stranger things have happened.
Scorpio616
First Post
OGL delayed is OGL denied. 3Era had much material to learn, but at least learning the system meant one could make use of the system with the OGL. And that was part of the deal from day 1. This delay is one more thing that reduces the value of the 5E investment. Even when Wotc flipped the table with 3.5, they at least put the table right again and only vaulted a handful of monsters. This is no better than 4E, they just are not showing the licence to the public because it would be bad PR.
Similar Threads
