Search results

The catching point seems to be not only the line between “any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied” and "expression," but also "product identy." The U.S...

Some more, not lawyer quotes, but WotC material: Software FAQ, Version 1.0 -- January 26, 2004, from wizards.com Other Licenses: Frequently Asked Questions, Version 2.0 -- January 26, 2004 Open Game License: Frequently Asked Questions, Version 2.0 -- January 26, 2004 (note: this page was live...

Based on what? Is there a specific U.S. game copyright case?

Yes, and text of the link says v0.1. Link to v0.2, just for fun.

Adding to this terrific summary, an page from the WotC website, c2001:

Might be the link, but quick not, the document linked it v1.0a, the link text is "v0.1." As there was a v0.2 that was put up on opengamingfoundation.org for community comment, there surely was a v0.1, and like v0.2 was never put into use. Edited for clarity

Based on the above, using the OGL for the 3.x SDR never actually not allowed cloning of earlier content. The theory of clone designers (if I understand correctly), is that the OGL for the 3.x SDR gave access to certain phrasings that remained from the earlier editions to 3.x, and the mechanics...

It sort of feels like people are jumping the gun, or trying to have it both ways.

Questions for the contract lawyers here. Does the situation around OGL 1.1 fit the definition of coercion for designers and publishers? Does the situation around OGL 1.1 fit the definition of undue Influence for designers and publishers? Does the situation around OGL 1.1 fit the definition of...

Now wish I had backed Drakar och Demoner/Dragonbane. Don't forget Runequest, which can be played as a generic FRPG.

This begs two questions: Can a publisher even revoke the OGL for their own work? Wizards of the Coast carefully attaches the OGL to an SDR and not the published books. In fact, WotC makes sure to note in 3.5 and 5e books that those works contain no open game content. Have game designers and...

Does the OGL 1.0/1.0a's creation and promotion to be useable by 3rd parties for their own non-derivative works just as much as those creating works that were based on D20, have any bearing here? If the OLG was strictly for the licensing of D20 or other WotC material, then surely being able to...

Makes sense, thank you.

The draft was a license produced by WotC or its agents. Draft v. authorized seems like the language used to indicate which licenses are available for use and which were released for other purposes, such as discussion. This is of course based on the license being open. Again, laymen here and...

To give some perspective on the leaked OGL 1.1 here is a March 19, 2000 interview with Ryan Dancey.

Layman here, however looking at the www.opengamingfoundation.org site using the wayback machine on archive.org shows there were early drafts posted for comment ( example: OPEN GAME LICENSE (Simplified), Version .02). Was the intent of "authorized" to differentiate between the draft version and a...

Also not quotes from lawyers, but may be helpful. OPEN GAME LICENSE (Simplified), Version .02 this is a draft, show to distinguish what an unauthorized draft versus an authorized version means. OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0 includes an FAQ, might be the same as the one later found on the...

Thanks for the clarification.

Check out DaVinci Editrice S.R.L. v. ZiKo Games, LLC: For Lawyers: Davinci Editrice S.R.L. v. ZiKo Games, LLC, 183 F. Supp. 3d 820 | Casetext Search + Citator For the rest of us: Texas court affirms game mechanics not protected under copyright law

Not quotes from lawyers, but relevant: U.S. Copyright Office's factsheet fl-108 on Games. DaVinci Editrice S.R.L. v. ZiKo Games, LLC: case law from a tabletop card game with some similarities to an RPG, showing once again that a system (collection of mechanics) can't be copyrighted, and that...