Can someone explain crippled OGC to me

[DanMcS]

But, and I'm really asking here, could I basically re-write every sentence of AM and be fine?

I can re-write every sentence of MH and be fine?

Can I post my Hero write up without the OGL and be completely legally clear and free?

I don't own Mythic Heroes, so I can't check. If you didn't use any text from it, then the answer is the same: yes. Copyright doesn't protect ideas, only expression.

 

[madelf]

You know, when I think of the places where people have tried to make new machanics and call them PI. Or used PI names to cover OGC, creating the dis-incentive as BardStephenFox described. I think those are pretty lame things to do.

Regardless of the legal minutia, (and I think this is a tempest in a really small teapot) to lump this practice in with those is a real shame. Wulf had a idea. A really good idea. He has put it out there and said that anyone else if free to use his idea as part of Open Gaming. That people are going to start crying (not you DanMcS or madelf) over the need to do a little typing in exchange for Wulf being protected from some scumbag mass posting his thoughts elsewhere and thus completely removing any motive for him to sahre any future ideas with us is just sad.

I agree. It's not that big a deal, and I'm certain that Wulf means well. And I don't begrudge him the right to try and hang onto his own work as much as he can. I don't think the way he chose is quite legit, but I respect his reasons.

I'll even acknowledge that he's invoked a greater comfort zone (relative to something like adapting Ars Magica) in that he's made clear his intention to have something open, which would lead me to believe I could work something out with him. I certainly wouldn't want to send an email to the Ars Magica folks, to run my re-written adaptation by them and see if they thought is was sufficiently altered to be acceptable (though the response might be amusing to see). Whether or not he's used the OGL properly, Wulf has set things up so I would be comfortable doing something like that. He's established an intent to be reasonable about that sort of thing.

May I ask you, do you agree that a wiki would motivate Phil Reed, Wulf, and other to stop publishing? Would doing something that causes them to stop be supportive of the game we know and love? If the options are A)go to the effort of putting out material and then see that effort be removed of all potential for return on the investment of time or B)see material that has a buffer to protect its value be produced and see this continue into the future, then I know exactly which one of those options REALLY supports the game. If anyone is going to claim that doing it for a profit is against the spirit, then I'd encourage them to use only free product in their games. I assure you, your crap to gems ratio is going to go through the roof.

I, personally, don't think it would stop them publishing (though I can't say really). It would certainly mean a greater amount of "crippled" OGL. I get distinct the impression that a sizable number of publishers have begun to reconsider their generosity with open content already (especially some who've opened 100% of the text in most of their products). This is one of the flaws in the OGL. Like a rose, it may be a beautiful thing, but it also has thorns. Handle it wrong and it's going to bite you. I'd like to think that there's a balance to be found between giving it all away, and giving nothing away.

So no, I don't think the OGL wiki is a good idea (for a number of reasons).

 

[Vocenoctum]

No, I'm talking about MY file. I know there is some stuff in AM that can be re-tooled and put out.
I re-wrote a chunk of MH just about sentence for sentence. I just re-worded the sentences.

I think the issue is whether the OGL changes matters for it. (Don't have you MH, so didn't look at the specific changes)

If the case is made that it's too similar, Copyright would apply and it'd be "wrong". But at the same time, the OGL wouldn't apply and it'd still be "wrong".

If the text is different enough to legally not qualify as the same "expression" for Wulf's Declarations purposes, then it is also different enough that it would not count as copyright infringment either.

 

[BryonD]

Well, consider this:

I own Wulf's creature creation pdf. The PI declaration states:


Later in the product, we see:


It's a somewhat liberal reading, but it's not hard to argue that the word dwarf is among the "text and language used to describe the game mechanics", and therefore, Wulf's PI declaration actually does declare the dwarf as Product Identity. at bare minimum, it declares the phrase "Dwarf Racial Traits" to be PI.

I disagree with your assessment.
This is a big IANAL statement here, but I believe it is well understood that "Dwarf Racial Traits" is not enough to constitute "text and language used to describe the game mechanics" . You may as well claim that he is calling IP on the word "the". Everyone with reasonable mental capacity knows that is not intended and I'd BET that there is some clear legal precedent for common terms and langauge or somesuch already out there.

 

[BryonD]

I don't own Mythic Heroes, so I can't check. If you didn't use any text from it, then the answer is the same: yes. Copyright doesn't protect ideas, only expression.

Hmm.

Well, I'll accept that.

I guess that makes Ryan Dancy a bigger genius than ever. He got the whole D20 movement cracked up without really giving anything away.

I will still stand by my claim that the only people truly impacted by this are people to lazy to do a little typing. Either side of this issue you come down on, it seems we all agree that the content of MH may be used as part of the Open Gaming Community.

You credited the OGL with providing "warm fuzzies". Would you not agree that Wulf has provided a "warm fuzzy" for re-use of MH that someone trying to re-use AM would not have? By the standards you provided earlier, that is SOMETHING. Right?

Thanks for the information.

 

[madelf]

Understood. And I agree on the AM part. But, and I'm really asking here, could I basically re-write every sentence of AM and be fine?

Define fine. You'd probably be sued.

There is a gray area in copyright law, that's one of it's faults. To an extent, copyright protects the expression, beyond just the exact words. So you couldn't just go through the book with a thesaurus, saying the exact same thing with different words. But, (I believe, only a court could say for sure) you could read and absorb Ars Magica, then set it aside and write your own game using the same concepts, systems, etc... and that would be legal. (this is why everytime a blockbuster movie hits the theatres, there are a half-dozen cheap knockoffs showing up on tv).

I can re-write every sentence of MH and be fine?

I'd have to leave the answer on that to Wulf, but I wouldn't dare assume that was the case. I read his OGL declaration to mean that I can use his mechanics and write my own explanations of them. I don't read it to mean I can just change a few words around, hit it with a thesaurus, and all is hunky dory.

Can I post my Hero write up without the OGL and be completely legally clear and free?

That would depend on a number of factors (some terminology specific to various OGL works would probably have to be changed, you'd have to explain things without doing it in subtantially the same way, etc). It could be done, but I'm not really sure if it would work the way you did it (as noted above, I'm not sure if it would even meet Wulf's intent, the way you did it).

 

[BryonD]

I agree. It's not that big a deal, and I'm certain that Wulf means well. And I don't begrudge him the right to try and hang onto his own work as much as he can. I don't think the way he chose is quite legit, but I respect his reasons.

I'll even acknowledge that he's invoked a greater comfort zone (relative to something like adapting Ars Magica) in that he's made clear his intention to have something open, which would lead me to believe I could work something out with him. I certainly wouldn't want to send an email to the Ars Magica folks, to run my re-written adaptation by them and see if they thought is was sufficiently altered to be acceptable (though the response might be amusing to see). Whether or not he's used the OGL properly, Wulf has set things up so I would be comfortable doing something like that. He's established an intent to be reasonable about that sort of thing.

I, personally, don't think it would stop them publishing (though I can't say really). It would certainly mean a greater amount of "crippled" OGL. I get distinct the impression that a sizable number of publishers have begun to reconsider their generosity with open content already (especially some who've opened 100% of the text in most of their products). This is one of the flaws in the OGL. Like a rose, it may be a beautiful thing, but it also has thorns. Handle it wrong and it's going to bite you. I'd like to think that there's a balance to be found between giving it all away, and giving nothing away.

So no, I don't think the OGL wiki is a good idea (for a number of reasons).

Thanks to you also.

Whether it stops them or just makes them use more cripple content, I still think they have already been among the best of the best in good guys for sharing content and anything they do to try to protect that community long term is going to get more than a little bit of the benefit of the doubt from me.

 

[BryonD]

Define fine. You'd probably be sued.

There is a gray area in copyright law, that's one of it's faults. To an extent, copyright protects the expression, beyond just the exact words. So you couldn't just go through the book with a thesaurus, saying the exact same thing with different words. But, (I believe, only a court could say for sure) you could read and absorb Ars Magica, then set it aside and write your own game using the same concepts, systems, etc... and that would be legal. (this is why everytime a blockbuster movie hits the theatres, there are a half-dozen cheap knockoffs showing up on tv).

Well, there is a difference, even if I won.

I'd have to leave the answer on that to Wulf, but I wouldn't dare assume that was the case. I read his OGL declaration to mean that I can use his mechanics and write my own explanations of them. I don't read it to mean I can just change a few words around, hit it with a thesaurus, and all is hunky dory.

That would depend on a number of factors (some terminology specific to various OGL works would probably have to be changed, you'd have to explain things without doing it in subtantially the same way, etc). It could be done, but I'm not really sure if it would work the way you did it (as noted above, I'm not sure if it would even meet Wulf's intent, the way you did it).

Some of the introductory "flavor" text may certainly be an exception. But that is A) the kind of stuff that is often PI and no one ever complains about anyway and B) stuff that doesn;t really offer any major value to re-use anyway.
The mechanics that make MH BE MH are what I'm really talking about. So call it 95% instead of 100%. The specific 5% that is being excluded is trivial.

It is certainly possible that I simply made an error in my use of the OGL. But, I'm certain that it COULD be done correctly.

 

[DanMcS]

I guess that makes Ryan Dancy a bigger genius than ever. He got the whole D20 movement cracked up without really giving anything away.

Yeah, the license wasn't really for the rules, the OGL + the d20 license let people publish games which were compatible with D&D, and could advertise themselves as such, without getting sued. That was the real warm fuzzy for publishers, and led directly to the d20 publishing boom.

 

[madelf]

Thanks to you also.

Whether it stops them or just makes them use more cripple content, I still think they have already been among the best of the best in good guys for sharing content and anything they do to try to protect that community long term is going to get more than a little bit of the benefit of the doubt from me.

Sure.
I'd certainly be more comfortable using something from (say) Adamant, that was 100% OGC, than I would be using something from Bad Axe, that made me worry about making my text different enough to not get somebody mad at me. But that doesn't mean I think Wulf's a bad guy.

Honestly I think the OGL itself is a big part of the problem. The way it's designed makes it hard to utilize. I suspect there could be a better license for the purpose that it's generally being used for (though not necessarily for the purposes of the company that wrote it). But... it's what we have.