OGL 95% of you didn't need the OGL and you don't need ORC


log in or register to remove this ad

I get that you don't understand the difference, but its pretty clear to most lawyers what the difference is.
The dragon stat blocks are copyright, you can't copy it word for word.
Hi, there. I'm a former lawyer, and though my practice did not handle IP law, copyrights and trademarks were my focus in law school. While I agree that the difference is "pretty clear to most lawyers" on a theoretical level, in terms of applying it to actual specific content in an area where there is pretty limited relevant case law it gets real dicey real fast.

While a lawyer could certainly point to many elements of the SRD or what have you that are definitely copyright protected, and could point to a few things that are definitely not, there is a vast amount of rules content that falls into a gray area of legal status too unknown to adopt or adapt with confidence that a court would not only find in your favor but refuse to enjoin you from using while the matter is being decided, and this, in fact, covers much of the exact sort of stuff that someone trying to create compatible content would want to adopt.
 

rcade

Hero
I create for Starfinder now, and nothing in Starfinder is 3e SRD.
Starfinder is derived from the SRD. Here's the Section 15 of the Core Rulebook (from a PDF I bought a few years ago):

Section 15

Open Game License v 1.0a © 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

System Reference Document © 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors:
Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, based on material by E. Gary
Gygax and Dave Arneson.

Starfinder Core Rulebook © 2017, Paizo Inc.; Authors: Logan Bonner, Jason
Bulmahn, Amanda Hamon Kunz, Jason Keeley, Robert G. McCreary, Stephen
Radney-MacFarland, Mark Seifter, Owen K.C. Stephens, and James L. Sutter,
with Alexander Augunas, Judy Bauer, John Compton, Adam Daigle, Crystal
Frasier, Lissa Guillet, Thurston Hillman, Erik Mona, Mark Moreland, Jessica
Price, F. Wesley Schneider, Amber E. Scott, and Josh Vogt.
 

For software development, the point of open source licenses was that I could take someones entire lifes work, word for word, and reuse it in my project, under the conditions of the license.

The point of the original OGL was that someone could take the 3e D&D rules, reproduce them in their entirety, add their own content and sell that final product as their own.
Examples include Castles and Crusades, 13th age, most of the OSR, etc.

But for all these third-party products, supplements, home brew campaigns, new character classes, new settings... you didn't need the OGL, and you don't need OGL 1.1
nor, in fact, will you need the ORC.

The OGL was a trick to force you on DMSGuild to give away half your profits.

The rules lawyer addresses this specifically at around 11 mins.
Ben talked about this in the past as well.


Of course, if you write an adventure and don't create your own monsters, you just reproduce all the WOTC ones,
a) That is a little lazy.
b) You need the OGL/ORC.

When you realize all this, you also learn how disgusting OGL 1.1 was, trying to steal from prominent creators like Critical Role with no legal standing to do it.

D&D will return when they innovate a 6th edition, but we must teach the Microsoft Executives a lesson. Hopefully, they will be fired.
No quite. The DMsGuild is about using WotC IP, which most definitely is protected. If you don’t understand that I really can’t take this post seriously.
 

gamerprinter

Mapper/Publisher
He can't. Spelljammer is IP and not Open Content. Thus, it can only be sold on DMsGuild, because WOTC has given permission to use Spelljammer for products sold on DMsGuild.
Otherwise I've never sought to publish anything for D&D, Spelljammer intrigues me, as I design star ships and have designed custom Spelljammer ships long ago (the latter never intended for publication). The 5e Spelljammer books are the only 5e books I've ever purchased. I wanted to get the mechanics right, despite not being a 5e system master. The maps I saw in there are arguably old school, but to me very plain, very 'blah'. And if you know anything about my maps, 'blah' isn't an apt description. So I thought fully custom ships, created in my highly detailed 3D/vector hybrid style would create a standout product for those willing to purchase a Spelljammer 3PP product. The 5e Spelljammer rules seem full of holes, so easy to avoid OGC. So now, having never created a D&D product before, and having just done that (almost done...), I cannot seem to sell it at this time... (I don't have experience with Ichio, nor expectation that it could match the sales volume that DTRPG does for now, that I thought DMGuild would do - not against the idea, but no expectations at all, uncharted territory for me.)
 



mamba

Hero
Because my most current project is a Spelljammer supplement with custom ships and setting - I don't think 2e Spelljammer is OGC, thus 5e Spelljammer isn't either. Still the Dungeon Master's Guild is where I'd normally sell it, and they aren't accepting 3PP D&D products until this OGL thing is resolved.
Huh, why is that? DMsG does not use the OGL anyway, they have their own licensing
 



rcade

Hero
That only means it uses the license, not that it is derived from the SRD
It is not required to put the System Reference Document in Section 15 of an OGL licensed work.

The only reason to list the SRD there is to indicate that your work is derived from it.

There are OGL-licensed games that do not include the WOTC SRD in Section 15. An example is D6 Fantasy:

Section 15

Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast,

D6 Fantasy (WEG 51013), Copyright 2004, Purgatory Publishing Inc
 
Last edited:


mamba

Hero
It is not required to put the System Reference Document in Section 15 of an OGL licensed work.

The only reason to list the SRD there is to indicate that your work is derived from it.

There are OGL-licensed games that do not include the WOTC SRD in Section 15. An example is OpenD6 Fantasy.
Fair, but that still does not mean Starfinder is derived from it, as according to Paizo it is a completely separate system (I do not know it so cannot argue either way)
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
Fair, but that still does not mean Starfinder is derived from it, as according to Paizo it is a completely separate system (I do not know it so cannot argue either way)
I'm pretty sure that's what Paizo said about PF2, not Starfinder. (Even then, having the 3E SRD in their Section 15 kind of looks like an admission that it uses Open Game Content from said SRD, so I'm not sure how well the idea of "it's not really a derivative game at all; we just used the OGL for compatibility" will fly. If that were the case, they could have used the OGL without adding a copyright notice for the SRD.)
 

rcade

Hero
Fair, but that still does not mean Starfinder is derived from it, as according to Paizo it is a completely separate system (I do not know it so cannot argue either way)
Paizo describes Starfinder as being built on Pathfinder which was built on the SRD.
 

mamba

Hero
Paizo describes Starfinder as being built on Pathfinder which was built on the SRD.
Yes, but they also said this in the announcement

"Of course, Paizo plans to continue publishing Pathfinder and Starfinder, even as we move away from the Open Gaming License. Since months’ worth of products are still at the printer, you’ll see the familiar OGL 1.0(a) in the back of our products for a while yet. While the Open RPG Creative License is being finalized, we’ll be printing Pathfinder and Starfinder products without any license, and we’ll add the finished license to those products when the new license is complete."

So they do not seem to believe that they need it
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
The OGL was a trick to force you on DMSGuild to give away half your profits.

Dude, the OGL was published in 2000.
DMs Guild was launched in 2016.
And the stuff on DMs Guild is under a different license anyway.

They played a long game, for a decade an a half, through two edition changes, to trick you into... a different license altogether? Not the least plausible thing I've seen on this site, but we talk about dragons and teleporting a lot.
 

rcade

Hero
Yes, but they also said this in the announcement

"Of course, Paizo plans to continue publishing Pathfinder and Starfinder, even as we move away from the Open Gaming License. Since months’ worth of products are still at the printer, you’ll see the familiar OGL 1.0(a) in the back of our products for a while yet. While the Open RPG Creative License is being finalized, we’ll be printing Pathfinder and Starfinder products without any license, and we’ll add the finished license to those products when the new license is complete."

So they do not seem to believe that they need it
When you've created a game derived from the SRD and licensed under the OGL, you can only publish it without the license by replacing everything protected by copyright that was derived from the SRD. Otherwise you're publishing something that you have already admitted is a derivative work without a license to publish it.

If Paizo believes it has achieved this prior to Hasbro's attack on the OGL, it is unfortunate that it kept the System Reference Document in Section 15 of the books it published.

I think Paizo is better prepared to chew its leg off to escape Hasbro's bear trap than most SRD reusers. Its games are full of unique IP that is nothing like the SRD. But I'll be amazed if things are as simple as "we'll just print without the license."
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I'm having trouble seeing how Cure Light Wounds is so distinctive that another game having a healing spell under a different name would be an infringement. Every fantasy RPG I've ever played on a table or a computer had healing spells.

Gary Gygax believed TSR's lawsuit to stop Dangerous Journeys was meritless but the legal costs became so high that the parties reached a settlement. He also said the settlement entitled him to a six-figure payment from TSR.
I own Dangerous Journeys and while I know how to play D&D, I still don't know exactly how to play it. It's confusing as hell and very different. I'm inclined to believe Gygax on his claim that the suit was meritless.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top