D&D 4E A couple of things that suck about the 4e SRD/OGL

[3catcircus]

But does anyone believe that WotC would be "OK with that"? Spycraft uses a lot of the same mechanics and text as the current d20 OGL. If they did that in 4e, .y take is that they'd get smacked down if they did it outside the 4e OGL. "Heavily Altered" is still "Derivative" in copyright terms.

Do we really need to keep reminding people that the mechanics are not copyrightable? The majority of what is in the 3.5 SRD is mechanics.

Where Spycraft (or any d20-based game published using OGL 1.0 or 1.0a) is derivative is in the application of the open content.

The Fighter has a certain class progression and it is open content listed in the SRD. Spycraft decides that they want a "Soldier" class to use similar mechanics. For another example of derivative works, look at the names of various feats in Spycraft - feats that have names that are completely original, evocative of, for example, a chase scene out of a James Bond film, yet, mechanically, the same as any other feat that gives you a +2 bonus to something.

 

[Delta]

If they still plan to call this the Open Gaming License, I wonder how this section impacts it:

As I pointed out in the other thread, the long-time WOTC OGL FAQ makes explicit that their interpretation of that section is about forward-transfers only. The word "originally" was perhaps poorly used in that section.

 

[3catcircus]

As I pointed out in the other thread, the long-time WOTC OGL FAQ makes explicit that their interpretation of that section is about forward-transfers only. The word "originally" was perhaps poorly used in that section.

Yes, but it doesn't really matter what their intent was. What matters is what the legalese is interpreted to mean - which is an entirely different thing altogether.

Look - if WotC decides that Reflex Saves are now suddenly closed content and someone brings suit, WotC will most likely lose. The OGL is an anchor around WotC's (Hasbro's) neck (at least that is the impression I am getting) that they'd just as soon be rid of moving forward into 4e. What this tells me is that Hasbro really doesn't understand the publishing industry and how it is different than trying to prevent someone from making knock-off Barbie dolls in a Malaysian sweatshop.

 

[Glyfair]

Yes, but it doesn't really matter what their intent was. What matters is what the legalese is interpreted to mean - which is an entirely different thing altogether.

What matters is what the legalese is interpreted to mean by a court of law. I really don't see that being tested, so that point is pretty much moot. The important thing is what WotC interprets it to mean, and decides to enforce.

 

[Henry]

As I pointed out in the other thread, the long-time WOTC OGL FAQ makes explicit that their interpretation of that section is about forward-transfers only. The word "originally" was perhaps poorly used in that section.

I honestly think a person could not make that kind of interpretation out of it, no matter how much stretching of the English language. If the OGL released is another version of this license (anything from 1.0b to version 999.0) then the clause applies to any open content opened by it. On the other hand, if it's a different "Open Game License", as spelled out specifically in the license that it has no attachment to the previous one, then the point is moot.

 

[Delta]

I honestly think a person could not make that kind of interpretation out of it, no matter how much stretching of the English language.

As much as I wish I could agree, my point is twofold: (1) WOTC has been explicit in what legal standpoint they're willing to defend publically (and presumably in court); (2) if you were in court, then you'd really have to answer the argument "what does the word 'originally' mean in Section 9, if not to imply an earlier-and-not-later license?".

I can imagine a rational argument over that, but I'm not sure how many thousands of dollars in lawyers' fees I'd care to bet on it. Definitely not a "slam dunk" case.

 

[Ranger REG]

Here's some more things that suck about the 4e OGL.

1. "Community Standards" in it. Screw that.

Good for some gaming parents. Sucks for the rest of us.

2. We can't even see the real OGL. Only potential companies with $5k that sign an NDA can even read it. What does that make it hard for me to trust?

Only serious business can see it early with NDA. But this is only temporary.

3. No significant vairants like M&M, Spycraft.

Don't know if Mutants & Masterminds would be affected but as an off-shoot of the SRD-based rules engine, it did pretty well. I daresay more than Chamion/HERO.

As for Spycraft, they can always reverse-engineer from both the SRD and Modern SRD (from which talents and talent trees came from) and make a new Spycraft, which is ironic since it consider d20 Modern as its competitor product.

 

[Ranger REG]

But does anyone believe that WotC would be "OK with that"? Spycraft uses a lot of the same mechanics and text as the current d20 OGL.

SRD. The mechanics & text you referring to come from the SRD, not the license.

AFAIK, the 3.0e SRD is not replaced by the 3.5e SRD. You can still use the 3.0e SRD (some of us smart enough to download them and archive them) since they contain OGC.

 

[Kevin Brennan]

As much as I wish I could agree, my point is twofold: (1) WOTC has been explicit in what legal standpoint they're willing to defend publically (and presumably in court); (2) if you were in court, then you'd really have to answer the argument "what does the word 'originally' mean in Section 9, if not to imply an earlier-and-not-later license?".

I can imagine a rational argument over that, but I'm not sure how many thousands of dollars in lawyers' fees I'd care to bet on it. Definitely not a "slam dunk" case.

Don't read too much into the wording of the FAQ. It's not a legally binding document and probably hasn't even been reviewed by a lawyer. I know (because I was on the OGL lists back then) that the language was written with the intention that you could use an earlier version of the license with stuff originally released under a later version. Check Section 9 of the GPL to see a license that WAS written to allow the sort of thing you're discussing. The OGL was modeled on the GPL and this is an intentional difference.

 

[Delta]

Don't read too much into the wording of the FAQ. It's not a legally binding document and probably hasn't even been reviewed by a lawyer. I know (because I was on the OGL lists back then) that the language was written with the intention that you could use an earlier version of the license with stuff originally released under a later version. Check Section 9 of the GPL to see a license that WAS written to allow the sort of thing you're discussing. The OGL was modeled on the GPL and this is an intentional difference.

That's interesting. Can you cite a quote to counterbalance the WOTC FAQ statement?

Nontheless, you've still got WOTC publically stating what they're willing to defend in court, and to date no one's been able to fund a court case against them. I guess I'd be interested to see this specific question posed to them ("What's your position Section 9 and 4E?"), but I'm pretty sure I can bet on what their position will be.