Electronic Freedom Foundation weighs in on the OGL!

[Cadence]

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):

Home Page

MAY IS MAINTAINER MONTH A month for Open Source maintainers togather, share, and be celebrated. THE open source ai definition 1.0 We have released the first stable version of the…

opensource.org

Anyone have membership or connections to an open source foundation or the like?

The EFF lawyer who wrote the piece is a Nebula and Ennie winning game designer (with IP litigation experience and more), so I'm kind of hoping... although she didn't seem a fan of what 1.0a offers (at least as of earlier today):

and started looking into it because of other folks at EFF:

She also has a bunch of posts about open license she uses on her feed.
---

As an aside, she also liked this here on ENworld: The Ultra-Mysterious History of D&D's Iconic Monsters

 

[GreyLord]

OSRIC didn't use the OGL?

Not originally if I remember right.

I could be misremembering at my age, but I thought they made it initially and then agreed to use the OGL at a later date so that any question of whether it actually was legal or not would become a non-issue.

PS: If I remember right, it means that they could take up their former stance if 1.0a was taken away, but it also, of course, opens them up again to the original question on how much they could replicate AD&D by using the mechanics cannot be copyrighted excuse.

PPS: for better clarification we could go to Dragonsfoot and ask Stuart, things can get foggy when you get old.

AND PPPS:

Looking at this quote

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.

It appears I was wrong....oh well.

There's always Paladium...

They DO have this though, which IMPLIES that it actually does not NEED the OGL if they so desire, though it WOULD open up the can of worms in regards to whether there would or could be a lawsuit.

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.

 

[S'mon]

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.

While I think that's mostly true, I have occasionally gained insights from posts by non-lawyers on the 'clearing up confusion thread'. They certainly sometimes raise questions I've not considered. Conversely the OP post there by a lawyer had a lot of problems and IMO gained a lot more deference than it deserved, simply because it was the OP and he appeared to be speaking with authority. A bit of a Dunning-Krueger effect perhaps, where the lawyers with more expertise in the field are more reluctant to pronounce with certainty.

Not knowing that much about the US litigation environment myself, I found the disagreements between US lawyers interesting too. It seems there to be more a question of different perspectives and outsized personalities.

 

[BMaC]

@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

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.

 

[ilgatto]

Well, for one thing the EFF article has finally made me understand the OGL.

 

[Nodoze]

Let's get @Hasbro & @Wizards top executives called in front of public Congressional hearings...

Go to Twitter for this article & like the Tweet & like the Tweet Replies that call for investigations & public hearings...

 

[dave2008]

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!

Hate to quote myself, but evidently the update the post and clarified it can't be revoked?

 

[Uta-napishti]

It can't be revoked for people who have published something under the OGL 1.0a is the EFF's new position.