Free campaign setting now online; comments appreciated.

[Brasswatchman]

A small preview:

Hope you enjoy.

 

[Fester]

Okay, here's some points I can make even before I download it (which I won't):

1) It is illegal to modify the d20 trademark in any way - a trademark owned by WotC and which can be used only under the d20 License. You are clearly in breach of this.

2) You cannot claim compatibility with 'Dungeons & Dragons' unless done so under the terms of the d20 License. Again, you are clearly in breach of this since the license clearly sets out the parameters under which you can declare compatibility and supplies the exact - that is, exact - phrases you can use.

3) Under the license, you cannot claim compatibility with any company without their permission. Again, I would suggest you are in breach of this, since I doubt Wizard's of the Coast have given you permission to use their trademark.

4) By accepting the rights granted by the d20 License, you also accept the terms of the OGL. Therefore, the OGL cannot be used with another license and cannot be changed in any way. You cannot, therefore, release a product both under the d20 License (and by definition the OGL) and the Creative Commons License at the same time.

Really, did you even bother to actually read any of the Licenses you are using? Does this product contain a correctly modified version of the OGL? Have you even heard of the SRD? It is partly because of clear breaches like this that has led WotC to redifine the GSL as a more restrictive license, and who can blame them when people release material under their trademark without any attempt to adhere to the license you have agreed to by using it.

What this clearly tells me is that your product is not worth downloading. Since you clearly do not have the wherewithall to understand the rights granted to you by the Licenses you have agreed to, I doubt very much that the inside text applies them either.

And just as a final note: most publishers - fan based or otherwise - work hard to ensure the licenses are adhered to in order to maintain the goodwill of WotC and show that Open Gaming is a good idea. You clearly feel that you have the right to use other people's trademarks and material as you wish, which is contemptuous both to all those that use the licenses and to those that grant them.

 

[kcmopd1913]

Your 100% right! There is not even an OGL in the download. Don't forget the d20 license may not even be a valid license anymore. Since this is a pdf the d20 logo would need to come off.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

 

[Turanil]

Brasswatchman, it shouldn't take a lot of work to :

1) Replace the d20 logo (which is no longer available as such) with the OGL logo made by Louis Porter Jr. Most D20 players will understand what it means.

2) Remove any mention of D&D, and maybe replace them with "3e" which is not a trademarked word, but that everybody will understand.

3) Put the OGL somewhere in the book. You should state that every mechanics-gaming texts are OGC, and all other text (fluff, world description, etc.) is released under the Creative Commons license, as both are very different things.

That said, I find the actual world description somewhat short. As a setting it should provide more setting description, and info on daily life, etc. But well, it's nonetheless well done for an amateur campaign setting.

 

[Brasswatchman]

(Doublepost deleted.)

 

[Brasswatchman]

Let me see if I can answer some of the concerns voiced in this thread.

That said, I find the actual world description somewhat short. As a setting it should provide more setting description, and info on daily life, etc.

I understand. Thank you very much for your feedback.

But well, it's nonetheless well done for an amateur campaign setting.

Thank you!

There is not even an OGL in the download.

Fixed. Thank you for reminding me.

Don't forget the d20 license may not even be a valid license anymore. Since this is a pdf the d20 logo would need to come off.

Replace the d20 logo (which is no longer available as such) with the OGL logo made by Louis Porter Jr. Most D20 players will understand what it means.

Actually, according the OGL/SGL forum on the Wizards website, the d20 System logo won't be officially retired for several months now, thereby allowing third-party developers to clear out their remaining stocks. Furthermore, the current version of the OGL still requires the use of the d20 System logo. When Wizards updates the license, I will replace the d20 System logo in my e-publications with the new equivalent.

Thank you for recommending the OGL logo. I will remember to keep that in mind in the coming months.

It is illegal to modify the d20 trademark in any way - a trademark owned by WotC and which can be used only under the d20 License. You are clearly in breach of this.

As I recall, that particular portion of the license is intended to assure full and clear Product Identity. Since the d20 System logo appears in full within the same graphic, I cannot help but think that the point is moot.

You cannot claim compatibility with 'Dungeons & Dragons' unless done so under the terms of the d20 License. Again, you are clearly in breach of this since the license clearly sets out the parameters under which you can declare compatibility and supplies the exact - that is, exact - phrases you can use.

If Wizards of the Coast contacts me and orders me to use the exact terminology and phrasing as dictated in the d20 License, I will do so. I can be contacted at aff@tinwatchman.com.

By accepting the rights granted by the d20 License, you also accept the terms of the OGL. Therefore, the OGL cannot be used with another license and cannot be changed in any way. You cannot, therefore, release a product both under the d20 License (and by definition the OGL) and the Creative Commons License at the same time.

According to this document on the Wizards website, other licenses with compatible terms can be combined with the OGL. I believe the particular Creative Commons license I have chosen - the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported - covers all of the stated requirements.

It is partly because of clear breaches like this that has led WotC to redifine the GSL as a more restrictive license, and who can blame them when people release material under their trademark without any attempt to adhere to the license you have agreed to by using it.

Actually, I think the creation of the GSL has more to do with the fact that the current OGL allows people to publish the vast majority of the core rulebooks online, for free. Which is a pretty big loophole, all things considered.

most publishers - fan based or otherwise - work hard to ensure the licenses are adhered to in order to maintain the goodwill of WotC and show that Open Gaming is a good idea. You clearly feel that you have the right to use other people's trademarks and material as you wish, which is contemptuous both to all those that use the licenses and to those that grant them.

If I am reading this correctly, sir, then I understand you have taken my publication as a personal affront of some sort. I'm sorry you have chosen to take it as such, and I'm not really sure what I can say to correct it. So let me just say this: I am doing this project for fun. I'm not doing it to cut into anyone's profit margins. I'm not doing it to compete with anyone. I'm not doing it to turn a profit - of any sort - personally. I had a lot of fun creating and writing this campaign setting, and I'm hoping that others will enjoy it as well. That's it. That's my only motivation here.

If you don't mind my asking, what's yours?

 

[Voadam]

Okay, here's some points I can make even before I download it (which I won't):

Fester, in your fervor to castigate you are making some errors.

1) It is illegal to modify the d20 trademark in any way - a trademark owned by WotC and which can be used only under the d20 License. You are clearly in breach of this.

It is a breach of the D20 STG portion of the STL to modify the trademark. Modifying the trademarked logo would be a breach of the d20 STL.

The d20 STL is but one way WotC licenses the use of the d20 TM logo. WotC itself used the logo on all its RPG products outside of the terms of the d20 STL. Outside of the OGL and STL it is just a TM logo. Photos taken of books bearing the logo and published in news stories are not used under the STL and are not illegal, etc.

2) You cannot claim compatibility with 'Dungeons & Dragons' unless done so under the terms of the d20 License. Again, you are clearly in breach of this since the license clearly sets out the parameters under which you can declare compatibility and supplies the exact - that is, exact - phrases you can use.

3) Under the license, you cannot claim compatibility with any company without their permission. Again, I would suggest you are in breach of this, since I doubt Wizard's of the Coast have given you permission to use their trademark.

Under the OGL you cannot claim compatibility with trademarked items or Product Identity unless under a separate license with the trademark holder or PI holder.

It does not say anything about indicating compatibility with a company name that is not also trademarked or PI.

Outside of the OGL the OGL terms do not apply.

4) By accepting the rights granted by the d20 License, you also accept the terms of the OGL. Therefore, the OGL cannot be used with another license and cannot be changed in any way. You cannot, therefore, release a product both under the d20 License (and by definition the OGL) and the Creative Commons License at the same time.

The OGL can be used with other licenses, the OGL itself mentions licensing arrangements for use of PI, TMs, and compatibility statements.

Whether another license is compatible with the OGL must be evaluated by looking at the terms of the other license.

Really, did you even bother to actually read any of the Licenses you are using? Does this product contain a correctly modified version of the OGL? Have you even heard of the SRD? It is partly because of clear breaches like this that has led WotC to redifine the GSL as a more restrictive license, and who can blame them when people release material under their trademark without any attempt to adhere to the license you have agreed to by using it.

Ascribing WotC's motives for moving from OGL to GSL as based wholly/in part/not at all on fan creations that do not comply with the OGL is purely speculative.

 

[Fester]

As I recall, that particular portion of the license is intended to assure full and clear Product Identity. Since the d20 System logo appears in full within the same graphic, I cannot help but think that the point is moot.

Incorrect. It is illegal to modify the d20 logo in any manner. It is not your logo to modify and is owned by Wizard's of the Coast. You are in breach of the License agreement. The fact that you regard this a moot point highlights your attitude towards the property of others.

Since you can't be bothered to find it for yourself, let me quote you the relevant section of the d20STL:

You may not alter the color, typography or design of the d20 System Logo, nor stretch or distort the dimensions.

If Wizards of the Coast contacts me and orders me to use the exact terminology and phrasing as dictated in the d20 License, I will do so. I can be contacted at aff@tinwatchman.com.

Agaiin, your contempt is glaring. Why not just follow the License you have agreed to and, I dunno... do it anyway? You know, follow the law and all that. It isn't optional, but a requirement. Again, let me quote:

You must include, on the cover or back cover (or title page of works without covers) of the Covered Product, one or more of the following text blocks:

The bold is theirs, not mine. Does that tell you anything? Probably not.

According to this document on the Wizards website, other licenses with compatible terms can be combined with the OGL. I believe the particular Creative Commons license I have chosen - the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported - covers all of the stated requirements.

Firstly, you really ought to start reading the License, rather than FAQs, which are not legal documents. Secondly, let me quote you:

Q: How do I use various Open Game licenses in a joint project?

A: Generally speaking, Open Game licenses are mutually incompatible. Each requires an exclusive, invariant set of licensing terms, and most Open Game licenses explicitly forbid adding additional terms.

If you have created a work that relies on content provided under two different licensing schemes, it will be necessary to get all the copyright holders of all the previous works your work is derived from to all agree to a single set of licensing terms. In the real world, that means that products with multiple-license ancestors are going to be rare to nonexistent.

Given that you had to be told to include a copy of the OGL in your work, I think your point is... moot.

Actually, I think the creation of the GSL has more to do with the fact that the current OGL allows people to publish the vast majority of the core rulebooks online, for free. Which is a pretty big loophole, all things considered.

No doubt that's as much a part of their reasoning too. Try actually reading what is said. So I'll quote myself:

It is partly...

Which, of course, implies that I think there may well be other reasons. However, the reasons for this are open to speculation, unlike your breaches of contract, which are not.

If I am reading this correctly, sir, then I understand you have taken my publication as a personal affront of some sort. I'm sorry you have chosen to take it as such, and I'm not really sure what I can say to correct it. So let me just say this: I am doing this project for fun. I'm not doing it to cut into anyone's profit margins. I'm not doing it to compete with anyone. I'm not doing it to turn a profit - of any sort - personally. I had a lot of fun creating and writing this campaign setting, and I'm hoping that others will enjoy it as well. That's it. That's my only motivation here.

Whether you enjoyed it or not, are doing it for a profit or not, it's any good or not, and so on, is totally irrelevant and if you had any decency about you whatsoever then you'd realise that. Your abuse of the License reflects badly on everyone and makes WotC (and potentially other companies) look upon Open Gaming with less good will. Open Gaming is good and following the rules helps perpetuate it. Clear breaches of the License, and the clear contempt you hold for the License, is bad for Open Gaming.

So I am angry about such abuses, as should everyone else who cares about Open Gaming. The material you have used, the logos, PI, trademarks and so forth are not yours. You do not own them. You are only borrowing what some else has agreed for you to borrow - and set out conditions for that use. You know, the conditions set out in the Licenses you have't bothered to either read or adher to.

If you don't mind my asking, what's yours?

I really don't think I could have been any clearer.

 

[Voadam]

Furthermore, the current version of the OGL still requires the use of the d20 System logo. When Wizards updates the license, I will replace the d20 System logo in my e-publications with the new equivalent.

Thank you for recommending the OGL logo. I will remember to keep that in mind in the coming months.

The OGL contains no provisions requiring use of the d20 STL and logo. It is the other way around. The d20 trademark license requires use of the OGL. There are hundreds of OGL products that do not use the d20 STL and logo.

OGL products cannot use trademarks or PI or compatibility statements about PI without a separate license.

WotC reps have stated on ENWorld that the d20 STL will be retired. The replacement logo will only be for 4e products under the terms of the forthcoming GSL and will not be available for use with OGL products.

To comply with the OGL and indicate that it is a 3.5 book the LPJ OGL logo is a reasonable route to follow.