Forking the OGL

[JohnRTroy]

But they never released Bo9s or other things as "Open Content", so I don't understand how this makes you able to reverse-engineer 4e ideas for 3e compatibility.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But they never released Bo9s or other things as "Open Content", so I don't understand how this makes you able to reverse-engineer 4e ideas for 3e compatibility.

Ha! Verrrrry carefully.

It's a purely theoretical exercise, AFAIAC.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Personally I think the time and effort spent trying to "reverse engineer" another's work, you could create your own RPG.

And I notice the people bringing up the rule "you can't copyright a game"...well, I believe that court case was a ruling based on board games like Monopoly and Chess. I have a feeling if a major RPG or computer game publisher actually got to a court-room, they could actually argue that an RPG is much more than a typical game system, and I have a feeling it could go either way when it comes to the RPG or any other really complex game that's mostly a lot of text.

 

[Kevin Brennan]

I suppose I cannot deny that fact, but can you really call it "derived" when it's just a re-publication of the relevant bits of the D&D rules? Almost everything in the SRD is found verbatim in D&D (with the exception of a few spell names). Could you really say that a 4e rule was derived from D&D, but not from the SRD, when it's expressed in exactly the same way in both works?

I thought this was what Ryan Dancey meant when he said that the genie was out of the bottle.

Legally speaking, yes. WotC doesn't have to prove that it wasn't derived from the SRD as they are the copyright holders. The OGL only applies to OTHER PEOPLE who want to use that material.

Ryan Dancey's claim was actually that if WotC tried to publish a version of D&D in the future that wasn't covered by the OGL, that it would be possible to "reverse engineer" a clone of it based on the material in the 3.5 SRD, unless the game changed so much that it wasn't recognizable as D&D anyway.

I guess we'll see, now.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Ryan Dancey's claim was actually that if WotC tried to publish a version of D&D in the future that wasn't covered by the OGL, that it would be possible to "reverse engineer" a clone of it based on the material in the 3.5 SRD, unless the game changed so much that it wasn't recognizable as D&D anyway.

That's basically what I was trying to say.

 

[Cadfan]

1: "Derivative" means different things in a copyright context than it does in a casual conversational context.
2: Language referring to "any version of the OGL" doesn't automatically transfer to 4e. One OGL isn't the same as the other OGL, even if they have the same name. They're each licenses for different material.
3: WOTC is bound by different sections of the OGL than are third party publishers. Third party publishers are licensees, WOTC is the licensor.

Essentially, if you want to publish under 3e, you can keep doing so exactly as you are now no matter what the 4e OGL says.

If you want to publish under the 4e OGL, well, you'll have to publish under the 4e OGL.

You can try to play silly games with copyright law, but honestly, we know no one will do that. Why spend hours wasting your time, then litigating the details, when you can just publish under the OGL? Anyone big enough to profit from doing this has enough business savvy not to bother.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ryan Dancey's claim was actually that if WotC tried to publish a version of D&D in the future that wasn't covered by the OGL, that it would be possible to "reverse engineer" a clone of it based on the material in the 3.5 SRD, unless the game changed so much that it wasn't recognizable as D&D anyway.

This might (finally) be the real explaination for some of the changes we've been seeing......





(I joke. Kinda.)




RC

 

[Nellisir]

I think it's going to be a new license, probably with an old name.

I got into a...debate on the WotC boards a few months ago about this, and argued the same thing Wulf is arguing, and got...well, I won't call it slapped down. But someone that I had to give the benefit of the doubt to basically said I was wrong, and "any version" doesn't mean what I thought it meant. It seems to have two alternate/potential meanings besides the obvious one: 1) any 1.x version of the OGL; 2) any iteration or version, ie the version in Tome of Horrors vs the version in...Buy the Numbers. I think both of those are kind of wacky round-about interpretations, but it seems to be the interpretation from on high.

I'm pessimistic at this point. I don't think original OGL (oOGL) material will easily port to the New OGL (NOGL) except for copyright holders. I think the NOGL will be more restrictive in terms of what you can lift verbatim, so just copying it over will not work. WotC is pulling their IP back under their umbrella. I wouldn't be surprised if WotC extends further rights and exclusivities to the companies that buy into the NOGL early on, (buy-in's get 9 months exclusivity on new open source material, for instance) so a two-tier arrangement of NOGL users could easily develop.

And I can't do anything officially NOGL for 12 months anyways. Resuming work on my 3x homebrew is looking more attractive.

On the upside, there are alot of 4e changes that already exist in 3rd-party oOGLproducts; you just have to know where to look. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get 60%-70% of the way mechanically to 4e with parts from existing 3rd-party products.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think it's going to be a new license, probably with an old name.

I got into a...debate on the WotC boards a few months ago about this, and argued the same thing Wulf is arguing, and got...well, I won't call it slapped down. But someone that I had to give the benefit of the doubt to basically said I was wrong, and "any version" doesn't mean what I thought it meant. It seems to have two alternate/potential meanings besides the obvious one: 1) any 1.x version of the OGL; 2) any iteration or version, ie the version in Tome of Horrors vs the version in...Buy the Numbers. I think both of those are kind of wacky round-about interpretations, but it seems to be the interpretation from on high.

Well interpretation #2 is clearly wrong since only WOTC or its designated Agents can modify the license.

As for any other interpretation, WOTC's own FAQ shows the intent of Section 9:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f

Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

as well:

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.

 

[Lizard]

This might (finally) be the real explaination for some of the changes we've been seeing......

Since many of the changes seem to be for changes' sake, I can't help but suspect that you're correct.

On the main topic of this thread...wow, 8 years on and people STILL don't understand the OGL and the SRD.

As it stands now, if the license under which the 4e SRD is released is in any way a new version of OLG 1.0a, the "community standards" rules can be gleefully and merrily ignored by publishers, as they can use older versions of the OGL.

If it is not, then no currently open material can be used. This means, for example, that if you wrote a 3.x supplement which used material from the 3.x SRD, you cannot convert it to 4e, as the 3.x material is not licensed under the new OGL. You can, of course, convert original material to which you hold the copyright, re-releasing it under the new license, but if your material uses any open content which is not your own, you have to excise it.

I think market fragmentation is going to be major because of this, and WOTC has really shot themselves in the foot. There will be a lot of incentive for small, electronic, publishers to cater to those who don't switch instantly, and the more new material is around for them, the less incentive they have to switch. Maybe WOTC is convinced their new game is so amazingly fantastically better that practically no one will refuse to switch, but if that's their marketing plan, look for a 5e a lot sooner than you might think....