dave2008
Legend
I have seen that acronym, but I don't know what it means.OSRIC
I have seen that acronym, but I don't know what it means.OSRIC
I have seen that acronym, but I don't know what it means.
I don't know how I would even begin to try to explain this to a jury of non-gamers.This, I think, is the most interesting bit:
So, the spell is called invisibility. But it's on the Wizard spell list as just "invisibility", and it's in several monster, NPC, and magic item entries. So the name merges into a game mechanic, because the game uses it as a game term. The same is true for "advantage" and "armor class" and "Strength" so on. Names used as game terms become game mechanics when they're used by other game mechanics. They do that everywhere.
Good lord. I used to think the SRD was 90% unprotected by copyright, but now I think the SRD is basically 99% unprotected by copyright, and the only parts of it that are... are the parts we probably don't care about. Like if you look at the spell description for Invisibility, the most copyrightable element is the description of the material component as an eyelash stuck in gum.
So this should be totally uncopyrightable:
Everything there merges because all the terms used are used as mechanics: Invisibility, 2nd level spell, illusion, spell, casting time, action, range, area, touch, components, verbal, somatic, material, duration, concentration, cast, invisible, target, attack, spell slot, 3rd level spell slot. All you've got left are adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions.
The argument you linked makes a distinction between contributors and the original licensor. The problem is that the distinction they make means the GPL 2 is revocable by the original licensor.No. The rule isn't "without this magic word, it's revokable". It's "without some terms limiting the ability to revoke, it's probably revokable." The GPL v2 doesn't use the word "irrevokable" like GPL v3 does, but there's significant other text that effectively makes any attempt to do so unlikely to succeed. That language or something similar to it is not present in the OGL. The OGL has basically no text to it at all, especially compared to the GPL v2.
OSRIC didn't use the OGL?There are wars, and then there are wars.
Some feel the transition to 3e to 4e was a WAR, but those people never saw the War that preceded it, the one where AD&D died and D&D was slain and it's corpse buried as another called itself it's name.
It was by far the largest and most virulent war ever to occur among editions. Emotions ran high. There were many offshoots and outcroppings from it.
One response by one small group was to make a system document that recreated all the rules of AD&D 1e, but without using the copyright stuff from TSR or WotC. They used the mechanics are not copyrighted idea and made a system document so that others could make adventures to run with AD&D without referring it specifically to AD&D per se.
Thus was born OSRIC.
The logic "X is composed of uncopyrightable pieces, therefore the whole is also uncopyrightable" is absolutely not sound. Literally every copyrightable thing is composed of uncopyrightable pieces.Everything there merges because all the terms used are used as mechanics: Invisibility, 2nd level spell, illusion, spell, casting time, action, range, area, touch, components, verbal, somatic, material, duration, concentration, cast, invisible, target, attack, spell slot, 3rd level spell slot. All you've got left are adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions.
Based on their wiki, they sure did.OSRIC didn't use the OGL?
This, I think, is the most interesting bit:
......
Good lord. I used to think the SRD was 90% unprotected by copyright, but now I think the SRD is basically 99% unprotected by copyright, and the only parts of it that are... are the parts we probably don't care about. ...
I don't know if I would expect the EFF to take up this banner. They identify themselves on their website as "The leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation." I mean, maybe the OGL would fall under free speech and/or innovation?
Many have mentioned the overlap the OGL shares with open source software. Maybe it would be better to bring this to the attention of the Open Source Initiative (or a similar organization):
![]()
Open Source Initiative
The steward of the Open Source Definition, setting the foundation for the Open Source Software ecosystem.opensource.org
Anyone have membership or connections to an open source foundation or the like?
OSRIC didn't use the OGL?
This document represents a compilation of rules for old school-style fantasy gaming. The book is intended to reproduce underlying rules used in the late 1970s to early 1980s, which being rules are not subject to copyright, without using any of the copyrighted “artistic presentation” originally used to convey those rules. In creating this new “artistic presentation,” we have made use of the System Reference Document produced by Wizards of the Coast (“WOTC”).
The reason for going back to square one and restating the underlying rules is simple. It allows old school publishers (both commercial and fans) to reference the rules set forth in this document without making reference to any protected trademark. (This document is trademarked, but the use of the trademark is permitted under the terms of the OSRIC Open License—see below). By using this document in tandem with the Open Game License (“OGL”) of WOTC, a publisher should be able to create products for old-school fantasy gaming and clearly refer to this particular rule set without violating the terms of the OGL.
Thus, in many ways, this entire book is nothing more than a tool for old-school writers, a stepping stone to put the original, non-copyrightable portion of the old-school rules into an open license, as permitted by law. Great pains have been taken to ensure that we have used none of the original artistic presentation, for we have the greatest possible respect for the authors who originally created these games.
We considered the non-copyrightable rules to be the numerical algorithms that would be in a computer version of the game (most precedent in the area of game copyrights has come from computer games, not RPGs), and have included these and the relations between the results of the formulae. “To hit” numbers are a clear example. On the other hand, level titles other than “name” level are clearly artistic presentation and are excluded.
When “name” level does not create a numerical effect such as taxes from a stronghold or the ability to improve fighting power with followers, we have not used name level titles, even though the titles themselves are generic words.
In a few cases you may find that rules themselves have been clarified, or are more based on the SRD than on original rules (when it was difficult to separate rules from artistic presentation). The greatest difference is in the inclusion of some random factors into the experience progression.
Thus, in many ways, the entire OSRICTM book is nothing more than a tool for old-school writers, a stepping stone to put the original, non-copyrightable portion of the old-school rules into an open license, as permitted by law. Great pains have been taken to ensure that we have used none of the original artistic presentation, for we have the greatest possible respect for the authors who originally created these games. We considered the non-copyrightable rules to be the numerical algorithms that would be in a computer version of the game (most precedent in the area of game copyrights has come from computer games, not RPGs), and have included these and the relations between the results of the formulae. "To hit" numbers are a clear example. On the other hand, level titles other than "name" level are clearly artistic presentation and are excluded. When "name" level does not create a numerical effect such as taxes from a stronghold or the ability to improve fighting power with followers, we have not used name level titles, even though the titles themselves are generic words.
True. I do think it is possible to read these threads and come away with a much deeper understanding of the whole thing than you get from that article. However, this requires paying close attention to who appears to be an actual lawyer (or law professor), and ignoring anything said by anyone not on that list.
Wow, so the author is basically saying their initial take was way off. This clarification is much more in line with what the IP lawyers I know (and have read commentary of) have been saying.@Greg Benage noticed it had an important update and posted about it in: Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.
To check it out yourself, revisit:
![]()
Beware the Gifts of Dragons: How D&D’s Open Gaming License May Have Become a Trap for Creators
The company that owns Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) is planning to revoke the open license that has, since the year 2000, applied to a wide range of unofficial, commercial products that build on the mechanics of the game.www.eff.org
Or, here's the update:
View attachment 272121
Hate to quote myself, but evidently the update the post and clarified it can't be revoked?Unfortunately they agree it can be revoked. However, they have a fairly conservative idea of what is actually copyrightable and believe you can probably use most of the D&D game without the OGL, possibly more than you can with it!