gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
Delete this post...
Last edited:
But Greggy watched some YouTube videos and so everyone can totally trust their livelihoods to his legal expertise. And if WotC sues you, all you would have to do is send them that video and WotC would totally say "oopsie! Our mistake" and leave you alone.You do understand that most content producers are not lawyers and cannot afford to hire one, right?
Here's the fundamental problem with your argument. If WotC is willing to try to steamroll people for using OGL 1.0(a), then they would be willing to steamroll people for not using using the OGL. And if people can't afford to defend themselves, then it doesn't matter if your argument would hold up in court, because they would be crushed before the case got that far and so their business would be ruined.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.
I don't understand why you posted that.
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.
For the same reason he produced the OP, which is, to be as charitable as possible, poor reading comprehension.I don't understand why you posted that.
Good way to spread your own misunderstandings and confusion about the issue OP.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.
The Mythus lawsuit was clearly at least 95% BS. It had a list of hundreds of "violations" on par with the above. The problem is that you still have to convince the court on each and every one of those points that the complaint has no merit.My statement or theirs? I got it from here:
"(36) The "First Aid" skill in MYTHUS (pages 28 and 165) is
derived from the AD&D "Cure Light Wounds" spell in the AD&D 1st ed. PHB
(page 43) and the AD&D OA (page 57)."
Yeah, they didn't want a Gygaxian rival game, but the methods they used weren't really nice. I don't know how the case law in the last 30 years since that has moved on, but I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of the lawfare stick. Which is why I'm always a bit wary when it comes to "this clearly can't be copyrighted".
Right. As a non-lawyer, I'm almost certain you can't copyright "roll d20+attack bonus above or equal to the target's armor class to hit." I am also almost certain that you can copyright "Xorn" as a trilaterally symmetrical creature mainly composed of elemental stone and that can swim through earth and stone as easily as a fish can swim through water. Somewhere between these two there is a line defining what can and can't be copyrighted, but I would not take my chances as to where that line is.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.
A few years ago, there was a lawsuit about Tetris, and I would say that if we get 20 people to divide its features between "mechanics" and "presentation", we'd get 20 results (more if lawyers in that group), and probably none would match with the distinction made in the case.Somewhere between these two there is a line defining what can and can't be copyrighted, but I would not take my chances as to where that line is.
The thing that's worth noting here is that this very much a double-edged sword. Both parties are at risk.Somewhere between these two there is a line defining what can and can't be copyrighted, but I would not take my chances as to where that line is.
There is a lot of new stuff in Starfinder, certainly, but it's foundation is the 3.5 SRD. You can see it in the ability scores and the feats and the saves and such. Whether that is enough for a judge is another matter, of course, and we can't really know.That only means it uses the license, not that it is derived from the SRD
Frylock: Loremaster Article: To GSL or not to GSL?I love how everyone is declaring this now, as if it is so blindingly obvious that only a simpleton wouldn't realize it. Where, I wonder, were all these sages 3 or 7 or 12 years ago?
Despite the fact that the DMsguild doesn't use the OGL, but a completely different license?The OGL was a trick to force you on DMSGuild to give away half your profits.
Is its foundation the 3.5 SRD though? I thought SF was based on PF2, which is not based on the 3.5 SRD as PF 1E is.There is a lot of new stuff in Starfinder, certainly, but it's foundation is the 3.5 SRD. You can see it in the ability scores and the feats and the saves and such. Whether that is enough for a judge is another matter, of course, and we can't really know.
Starfinder predates PF2 by 2 years.Is its foundation the 3.5 SRD though? I thought SF was based on PF2, which is not based on the 3.5 SRD as PF 1E is.
Nothing is as simple as you want to believe unfortunately. You have to remember that an SRD included rules mechanics (not copyright able) and expressions (copyright able). The OGL allows you to use both. PF, SF, and PF2 all have some items that could potentially infringe on WotC’s expressions.Is its foundation the 3.5 SRD though? I thought SF was based on PF2, which is not based on the 3.5 SRD as PF 1E is.
(I’m fully prepared to be proven wrong on this point. I haven’t followed Paizo products close enough to be sure of the timeline.)
Including the OGL for PF2, to my understanding, was basically a CYA move, as it couldn’t hurt. The license is perpetual, right? Plus it then allows people to create content based on their own PF2 SRD.
Now even if SF is 3.5 SRD derived (and therefore using the OGL 1.0), Paizo could still remove the license from it, establish the ORC license, then create their own SF SRD and offer it using the new license.
It’s possible WotCbro might go after them for copyright infringement at that point (or maybe breach of contract if the OGL 1.0 is still standing then? I dunno, IANL), which might get interesting.
Starfinder is, I believe, in a situation similar to Star Wars SAGA edition. SWSaga was based on 3e (or more properly, d20 Modern), but explored some areas of game design that were considered for 4e, and some of those got included in 4e as well (e.g. static defenses instead of saves). Similarly, Starfinder explored some game design paths that got included in PF2, such as backgrounds and class talents/feats. But it's still rooted in PF1, which in turn is rooted in 3.5e.Is its foundation the 3.5 SRD though? I thought SF was based on PF2, which is not based on the 3.5 SRD as PF 1E is.
I agree with you. Whether a court will judge a work is derivative or not seems to me hard to predict. Adventures and bestiaries that invoke the D&D mechanics seem particularly at risk.Telling people they never needed OGL and they can do whatever they want as long as they don't reproduce word for word is dangerous advice. It completely ignores just how much of something can be called derivative work (which is mentioned in the very video you link but seem to have forgotten about).