Another Immortals Handbook thread

What do you wish from the Immortals Handbook?

  • I want to see rules for playing Immortals

    Votes: 63 73.3%
  • I want to see more Epic Monsters

    Votes: 33 38.4%
  • I want to see Artifacts and epic Magic Items

    Votes: 38 44.2%
  • I want to see truly Epic Spells and Immortal Magic

    Votes: 50 58.1%
  • I want Immortal Adventures and Campaigns Ideas

    Votes: 44 51.2%
  • I want to see a Pantheon (or two) detailed

    Votes: 21 24.4%
  • I want to see something else (post below)

    Votes: 3 3.5%
  • I don't like Epic/Immortal gaming

    Votes: 4 4.7%

  • Poll closed .
S'mon said:
I don't see how that's workable. And a child is not the relevant target audience, surely. AFAICS the important point to get across is that the current release does not _add_ any OGC.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I've mentioned a child, because it should be a child's play to separate OGC from PI. With your designation, I would ask myself: "Orichalcum is a special material? Are there special materials in the SRD? Yes? Then orichalcum is derived." But considering one of your earlier posts, this would have been a grave mistake. In general, any designation, where you have to ask the author/publisher, what exactly is OGC or not, is insufficient (from the POV of a native speaker).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

S'mon said:
AFAICS the important point to get across is that the current release does not _add_ any OGC.

Yeah, but that's not actually legal, unless the document does not derive *at all* from the SRD (unless you otherwise have authority to derive from it).
 

This is not a publisher/author thing, this is a legal matter, WotC has made the license, WotC has the copyright of the license and guess what? They can modify the license anytime they see fit, that was the flamed debate that went over when they made license version 1.0a.

on the WotC website, in the OGL FAq one can find this:

Q: What is "Open Game Content"?

A: Open Game Content is any material that is distributed using the Open Game License clearly identified by the publisher as Open Game Content. Furthermore, any material that is derived from Open Game Content automatically becomes Open Game Content as well.

and this:

Q: What does "clearly identified" mean?

A: It means that the publisher has a burden to use some system to identify Open Game Content to any recipient of that content. Systems which have been used by some publishers include placing Open Game Content in shaded boxes, using a different font, italicizing or bolding the Open Game Content, and segregating all the Open Game Content into specifically designated chapters or appendixes. Some publishers have released documents that are identified as being comprised completely of Open Game Content.

"Clearly identified" means that the system should pass the "reasonable person" test; meaning that a reasonable person should be able to determine what portions of a given work are Open Game Content, and which portions are not. If you can't figure out what parts of a given work are Open Game Content, provided you exert a reasonable effort to read and apply the instructions for identification provided by the publisher, then the material isn't Clearly Identified.

This also applies to software. A reasonable person should be able to look at a piece of software and find and understand the Open Content. WeÍll make a slight allowance that they may have to take a little more time to understand some things, but they should be able to see and understand all Open Content. See the Software FAQ for more details.

And there is teh base for Monte's crippled content too:

Q: Can a work be derived from both Open Game Content and Product Identity?

A: Yes, but since the Open Game License only gives you the right to copy, modify and distribute Open Game Content, unless you had a separate license from whomever owned the Product Identity, you cannot legally copy or distribute a work that contained such material without a separate agreement from the owners of the Product Identity.

On your idea of making it Open after the pdf and never it, that is impossible, Uk, once it is made open, all stances of it are:

Q: If I identify something as Product Identity, then in the future I distribute that material as Open Game Content, does the material become Open Game Content?

A: Yes. By doing so, you will be relinquishing your claim that the material should be considered Product Identity.

Anything that is derivative of the SRD in one way or another (using stat blocks, saves, listing levels, and the like is bound to be OGC, I can even say that if you do not want to make it happen i can buy the pdf, copy it to a word file, take out all product identities as stated in the OGL, or just change most of the names, and republish it, you could want to take me to court, but you broke the license in your side, I would be following on mine.

I hope you really seek a copyright lawyer before doing this release, Uk, because I doubt you can handle the legal issues involved here, besides, your lawyer should read the D20 and OGL licenses along with a lot of things on them by WotC and the message boards relating it and the yahoo group of those, he would be surprised to know that it is hard to have any game mechanics out of the license.

You guys do have a defensible idea of your points, but they do not stand against the expanded position of WotC and the debates that have been goig for ages on those licenses, so that is a problem.

I did not take offense on the twisting of words, I read everything here as the most civil post it could possibly be, and I hope peope do the same with me too! ;)

Another note, using the d20 logo carries other burdens beyond the OGL use (which comes with the SRD) has, it allows one to reference the PHB, MM, DMG, Psionics, d20 modern books, though, and it requires clear state of requiring the core rules to be used.

Using a d20 logo on your book can do wonders for it, though, most people would never know if your product is a new system or a "d20" compatible one, even though the SRD is compatible with the "D20" it is not easy to state that link.

As I said, I can go long ways with this... :D
 

CRGreathouse said:
Yeah, but that's not actually legal, unless the document does not derive *at all* from the SRD (unless you otherwise have authority to derive from it).

That is correct, if you use any open game content, you must use a license and anything that comes from it, must be included as OGC, if it is not, you are infringing the license...
 

Nifelhein said:
That is correct, if you use any open game content, you must use a license and anything that comes from it, must be included as OGC, if it is not, you are infringing the license...

Yes. To clarify:

If you derive from the SRD, you won't have legal authority to publish (since not just you but you and WotC will own the copyright), unless:
* The use of the material falls under US Code 17.1.107 fair use, or
* You use the OGL properly, including section 8, or
* You negotiate another license with WotC.

The last method is that used for Kalamar, for example. Since you're not doing this, and the first point would be (at best!) on shaky legal ground, you're obligated to use the OGL. This is why it's important to follow all of the sections properly -- without the OGL the IH would violate US copyright law, and even worse the copyright laws of any Berne signatory nation.

(S'mon, this is an essentially correct summary, yes?)
 

It seems pretty clear that there needs to be a clear designation of OGC, but other than that, things in the IH Bestiary as they are now are fine.

What (I think) we should be focusing on are reasons with which to convince U_K to open source more than just the bare minimum.
 

Cheiromancer said:
Which policy did he reverse? The initial one policy of posting crippled content, or the relaxed policy seen in Legacy of Dragons? Have the spells in the Complete Book of Eldritch Might have been crippled or not?

The initial policy has been reversed - spell names and feat names are part of the Open Content from the Complete Book of Eldritch Might. I double-checked that after work, too. Sorry I wasn't clear about what I meant. IIRC, feat names are open in Arcana Evolved (and in Legacy of the Dragons before that), but I haven't checked the designations in those works for whether those spell names are open or PI...
 


CRGreathouse said:
without the OGL the IH would violate US copyright law, and even worse the copyright laws of any Berne signatory nation.

(S'mon, this is an essentially correct summary, yes?)

Yes, although I would say "might violate" rather than "would violate"- and it would be less likely to violate the laws of countries other than the US because the US has the doctrine of "derivative works" which seems wider than equivalents in other jurisdictions.

What I don't understand is what you have to do to comply with the OGL. I can see from the OGL that you don't have to release any of your own original work as OGC (contrary to what some people here have been saying), but I don't understand what you need to do to designate content from the SRD as OGC; how explicitly each bit of it needs to be detailed. Looking at the OGL OGC/PI designations in the products I own they seem to vary widely. It seems wholly impractical to parse the entire work line by line, none of the third-party products I have do that, but people here appear to be saying you need to do that? :confused:

Although I am not a qualified practicing lawyer, I have spent the past 14 years studying contract & IP law, I earn my living teaching it, and I am about as close to a copyright lawyer as Upper_Krust is likely to see. Even could he afford to visit some Belfast solicitor for legal advice the solicitor would only be able to advise him on United Kingdom/Northern Ireland contract law, not the intricacies of US IP law & business practice. Our legal culture in the UK is still very different from the world Americans live in.
 

S'mon said:
:confused:

Now I'm totally confused...

Tyhe IH obviously doesn't reprint the SRD -- the tables, monsters, etc. are original. It creates derivative material, but not through intermingling with existing content but through changing it and using formats, copyrightable collections of otherwise uncopyrightable words and phrases, etc. Adding the OGL and saying "everything from the SRD is open, but the rest is closed" doesn't give you rights to distribute those derivative works (since you aren't applying the OGC label to them), so you're in the same position as if you hadn't used the OGL.

An "empty" OGC declaration isn't any better than no OGL use at all.
 

Remove ads

Top