D20 to OGL Checklist?
- Thread starter Sigurd
- Start date
Ummm.... yikes! 
1) There is no OGL logo.
2) I'm not sure what you mean by d20 and OGL references.
The d20 System Trademark License is the license that was revoked in June. It's the license that allows you to use the d20 logo/name in exchange for a few restrictions. So remove the logo and words "d20 System", and you're fine - if you're not using the license, you're not bound by it.
If your product was using the d20 STL, it would have already been using the OGL as well be default, so you don't need to "do" anything to your product to start using the OGL.
1) There is no OGL logo.
2) I'm not sure what you mean by d20 and OGL references.
The d20 System Trademark License is the license that was revoked in June. It's the license that allows you to use the d20 logo/name in exchange for a few restrictions. So remove the logo and words "d20 System", and you're fine - if you're not using the license, you're not bound by it.
If your product was using the d20 STL, it would have already been using the OGL as well be default, so you don't need to "do" anything to your product to start using the OGL.
Knight Otu
First Post
First off, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. I may easily have overlooked things, or may be overly cautious in others.
Best, check the d20 System Trademark Guide if you have it. From my reading, you'll have to take up to six steps.
1) Get rid of the d20 Logo.
2) Get rid of the text block about the d20 System and so on being trademark of Wizards.
Those two cover the "Mandatory Requirements".
3) Get rid of the text block "Requires the use of" Wizards books, and the related text blocks.
4) Get rid of the text block "Wizards of the Coast is a trademark of Wizards and is used with permission" and the related text blocks.
That covers the "Mandatory Trademark Use".
5) Check whether you refer to "Player's Handbook", "PHB", "DMG", "MM", "Psionics Handbook", "Epic Level Handbook", "ELH", or "d20 Modern Roleplaying Game". Drop those references in some way.
That covers "Citations of other Wizards of the Coast products in Covered Works".
6) Check whether you refer to the "d20 System". Drop those references.
That covers "References to the Game System".
Best, check the d20 System Trademark Guide if you have it. From my reading, you'll have to take up to six steps.
1) Get rid of the d20 Logo.
2) Get rid of the text block about the d20 System and so on being trademark of Wizards.
Those two cover the "Mandatory Requirements".
3) Get rid of the text block "Requires the use of" Wizards books, and the related text blocks.
4) Get rid of the text block "Wizards of the Coast is a trademark of Wizards and is used with permission" and the related text blocks.
That covers the "Mandatory Trademark Use".
5) Check whether you refer to "Player's Handbook", "PHB", "DMG", "MM", "Psionics Handbook", "Epic Level Handbook", "ELH", or "d20 Modern Roleplaying Game". Drop those references in some way.
That covers "Citations of other Wizards of the Coast products in Covered Works".
6) Check whether you refer to the "d20 System". Drop those references.
That covers "References to the Game System".
True. The OGL prevents you using Product Identity (which includes product names) without a separate specific license, and without the d20 STL you no longer have that separate license.
Sigurd
First Post
Thanks Knight Otu. That's the sort of thing I was thinking of.
I know there is no official logo, but I think I'd use the LPJ one just to minimize layout changes.
EN World PDF Store - LPJ Design - OGL 3.5 System Compatible Logo
Its a nice clear square logo.
Ummm.... yikes!
1) There is no OGL logo.
I know there is no official logo, but I think I'd use the LPJ one just to minimize layout changes.
EN World PDF Store - LPJ Design - OGL 3.5 System Compatible Logo
Its a nice clear square logo.
Last edited:
Ranger REG
Explorer
Oh, you're gonna have to do more than just drop those products' references and citations. You might have to offer additional information as if the readers never heard of those other products you referred to.
Knight Otu
First Post
Hence the "in some way." In some cases, it may be sufficient to simply remove the reference, in other cases, a rewrite may be necessary, and in some other cases, as you say, you might have to fully recreate that section. This is really the biggest hurdle in the update process - it is very likely to throw your layout completey out of order. As such, I'm not surprised if d20 pdf publishers wouldn't bother with an update and simply remove their products even though they are better able to update their products than print publishers.
Ranger REG
Explorer
Really?
Unless you threw away the final edited document before you convert it into PDF, it shouldn't be that difficult, what with the latest word processor software can do with repaginating TOC and index.
It can also give writers a reason to up the price a little, especially if you're into revising to make a better product.
Voadam
Legend
Many think it is not worth the effort for the little return they get in continued sales of old products.
Mongoose said they are ditching the pdfs of all their d20 logo'd pdfs. This is more than 100 d20 products I believe.
Emerald Press has said the same thing.
I expect more will do so too. As well as numerous publishers not being on top of things enough to even realize WotC wants them to remove the logo or take them down. From those who try to comply I expect a number will remove the logo but not think of all the subsidiary references.
I'm annoyed at WotC for this situation. A ton of effort for publishers who joined in WotC's branding license in good faith for no gain to them or consumers, loss of lots of old products for consumers to buy, and all from WotC being petty in wanting to detriment the options consumers have in choosing which D&D products they can spend their money on.
I'd much prefer WotC to try to gain my money solely by making good products I want to buy at prices I'm willing to spend.
I don't like feeling that WotC is actively adversarial to my interests as an RPG consumer.
Presumably the publishers did judge there to be some advantage - otherwise they wouldn't have done it. The advantage to them (and to consumers) was intended to be communicative. Whether or not that anticipated advantage actually eventuated is a different matter, but not WoTC's responsibility (as far as I can tell).
And one of the terms of that licence was terminability at will. So the eventual termination is not really such a great surprise.
Why does WoTC have to bear the blame. You could equally say it is the fault of Mongoose et al for being petty and not de-logoing their publications.
Alternatively, if you think it is reasonable for Mongoose to decline to bear the cost to them of doing that work, then why is it not equally reasonable for WoTC to delcine to bear the cost to them of maintaining a licence that is (in their view) a drag on their own profitability?
