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

[Cergorach]

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.

You made me search! ;-)

WotC doesn't say anything about what they are actually willing to defend in court (in that FAQ atleast).

 

[Delta]

But it does clearly say what their legal interpretation is.

 

[Sacrificial Lamb]

The 4e OGL is irrelevant. Hasbro wants people to forget that the OGL for 3e doesn't exist, but that won't work...

You can use the original OGL based on 3e to create a roleplaying game that's mostly-compliant with 4e. They can't copyright game mechanics for rpgs, only the expression of them. If we don't violate their trademarks, and write a game in our own words, then we're cool. We can save ourselves the headache of the 4e OGL, and use the OGL for 3e.

It's funny. I remember when people thought d20 was forever, and that there was no future in the OGL, but I always knew better. The 3e OGL will always keep the game in OUR hands. So lets not let this baloney about this 4e license masquarading as an OGL. The 4e OGL is useless. In two years or less, no one will be using it. Instead, they'll be using the OGL from 3e to make their own 3e and 4e-compliant games. So all is well.

 

[Psion]

Don't think it means no variant rules, but for sure it means no "4e updates" for M&M, Spycraft, Arcana Evolved, or anything else of the same vein.

I don't think any of these were ever in the offing regardless of what happened to the 4e (not so)OGL. Games like these that break away and establish their own identity didn't come about by tugging on 3e's apron strings; games like M&M and Spycraft are as much or more different than 3e as 4e is.

What is does mean is we won't see a next generation of such great games come out of 4e D20.

 

[Kevin Brennan]

But it does clearly say what their legal interpretation is.

No it doesn't. A FAQ is just a set of responses to frequently asked questions. Until recently this question wasn't being asked. It tells us broadly what WotC thinks about using older material with a new version of the OGL, but says nothing about the reverse. FAQs are not legally binding; only the OGL itself is legally binding.

Regardless, I'm going to stop arguing this one because I have faith in WotC's lawyers--I'm sure that they can find ways to avoid being impacted by this if they care to do so. I suspect that the new license will be a legally different entity from the old, which makes section 9 irrelevant.

BTW, here's a review of the OGL by an actual lawyer familiar with open source licensing. http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/11/04/os_licenses_part3.html

 

[Delta]

Again, we all have our own interpretations of the OGL -- you, me, and your lawyer actually all agree on that. But that's not the point.

The point is that WOTC has gone on record with a different interpretation. So again, what hasn't been answered here -- how many thousands of dollars in legal fees would you be willing spend to defend your interpretation vs. WOTC's FAQ interpretation in court? Some? None?

 

[trancejeremy]

The 4e OGL is irrelevant. Hasbro wants people to forget that the OGL for 3e doesn't exist, but that won't work...

You can use the original OGL based on 3e to create a roleplaying game that's mostly-compliant with 4e. They can't copyright game mechanics for rpgs, only the expression of them. If we don't violate their trademarks, and write a game in our own words, then we're cool. We can save ourselves the headache of the 4e OGL, and use the OGL for 3e.

Yeah, but that wouldn't actually stop WOTC from suing a company that did just that. The question isn't so much who is legally right, but who has the most lawyers. And the answer to that question is always going to be WOTC. TSR used to do this very thing all the time to "protect" D&D from unlicenesed add-ons.

 

[Ranger REG]

The question isn't so much who is legally right, but who has the most lawyers.

Most often, that is true. We have a legal system, not a justice system, as someone stated.

 

[JohnRTroy]

The 4e OGL is irrelevant. Hasbro wants people to forget that the OGL for 3e doesn't exist, but that won't work...

Most people don't really give a darn about whether or not the D&D game is OGL. They just want to play D&D. Most of the professional companies are just concerned about providing good supplements.

You can use the original OGL based on 3e to create a roleplaying game that's mostly-compliant with 4e. They can't copyright game mechanics for rpgs, only the expression of them. If we don't violate their trademarks, and write a game in our own words, then we're cool. We can save ourselves the headache of the 4e OGL, and use the OGL for 3e.

Well...if that's the case, and you can use rules, why even bother with the OGL at all?! In fact, you'd probably be safer if you didn't use any OGL for that--I suspect if you were using a OGL that Wizards says is specifically not applicable to 4e, you'll have less protection than you would if you didn't use a license at all and claimed "game rules are not copyrightable".

Also, nobody really knows if they'll like 4e yet. They have to actually read the rules, so not all OGL fans care about 4e.

And if you really wanted to take a moral stance--if it's more important to use the "open solution" than the game you support--just use the 3e SRD, because they can't revoke that license. That would send the correct message.

 

[Angellis_ater]

Well...if that's the case, and you can use rules, why even bother with the OGL at all?! In fact, you'd probably be safer if you didn't use any OGL for that--I suspect if you were using a OGL that Wizards says is specifically not applicable to 4e, you'll have less protection than you would if you didn't use a license at all and claimed "game rules are not copyrightable".

Well, the problem then would be that you couldn't do all that much except provide new feats and spells for example - if you create a race writeup like the ones used in the PHB, you can't reference the races that are released by Wizards, nor the classes either. I agree that alot CAN be done without breaking copyright on rules mechanics, but it is just ALOT easier for a publisher to work with a set of identifiable OGC and the blessing of the original authors instead of worrying about using too much fluff/flavor.

Adventure writers would, ofcourse, be screwed without an OGL. Writing a new monster instead of using an existing one would make adventure-design long and tedious.