Free campaign setting now online; comments appreciated.

[Fester]

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.

How WotC choosse to use their own property is entirely up to them and not relevant to this debate. It is what those of us who do not own the property and who borrow the rights of use under the terms of the License that matters. I have clearly indicated what these rights are in my above post.

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.

The following seems to clearly indicate just such a thing (unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying?):

Restricted Trademark Use:

Except as specifically required or permitted by this Guide you may not use Dungeons & Dragons, d20 Modern, Urban Arcana, d20 System, Player’s Handbook, Wizards of the Coast, or any other Wizards of the Coast trademark in a Covered Product, in its advertising, or in any marketing in support of the Covered Product, or in any other use in conjunction with a Covered Product.

I think that's pretty clear.

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.

I think I answered this is my above post. Possible, yes, but exceptionally unlikely in this case.

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.

I agree. However, this does not change the illegal nature of this product.

 

[Voadam]

Fester,

Your statements in your original post were overbroad and imprecise about legal terms and legal restrictions, conflating restrictions in the d20STL/OGL with all situations dealing with D&D rules stuff. d20STL/OGL restrictions only apply to products released under those licenses.

It is possible to post rules for D&D content without working under those licenses. Fan creations posted on the web that are not posted under the OGL are not subject to the restrictions of the OGL, for instance all the house rules or material converting settings or games or movies to 3e that is on ENWorld.

This one attempts to post stuff under the licenses and did not comply with all of its terms so pointing out how to comply with the licenses is useful, but blanket imprecise statements about what is illegal or not are less helpful and can be misleading.

 

[Fester]

Fester,

Your statements in your original post were overbroad and imprecise about legal terms and legal restrictions, conflating restrictions in the d20STL/OGL with all situations dealing with D&D rules stuff. d20STL/OGL restrictions only apply to products released under those licenses.

Incorrect. The use of the d20 Logo can only be used under the terms of it's License. This product quite explicitly uses the d20 Logo (or, at least, an illegal version of it) and is therefore subject to the exact terms of the d20STL - not terms of your own making. You clearly do not understand the d20STL License and your arguments seem largely misguided and imprecise.

It is possible to post rules for D&D content without working under those licenses. Fan creations posted on the web that are not posted under the OGL are not subject to the restrictions of the OGL, for instance all the house rules or material converting settings or games or movies to 3e that is on ENWorld.

Once again, you using assumption to base your arguments upon rather than the terms of the License. Technically, WotC could indeed claim infringement of copyright against anyone illegally using their material. I guess they choose not to do at their own discretion. But this product has been released under the d20STL and is therefore subject to the exact terms of that License.

This one attempts to post stuff under the licenses and did not comply with all of its terms so pointing out how to comply with the licenses is useful, but blanket imprecise statements about what is illegal or not are less helpful and can be misleading.

I assume these imprecise statements are the ones being bandied about by yourself? I've highlighted the relevant sections from the d20 license in previous psots - that is, in case you have forgotten, the legal document that sets out how claims of compatibility are allowed (and not allowed) - rather than just blowing in the wind. This one, as you put it, does not comply with any of the terms of the License.

Feel free to refute my above points, but otherwise I feel the only one being misleading here is you.

 

[kcmopd1913]

Brasswatchman, the bottom line is your better off ditching the d20 logo altogther since your going to have to ditch it soon anyways and go with the OGL logo done by LPJ Design (i think thats right). It's free and has no terms of use.

 

[Nadaka]

I have to agree with Festers fact, though not perhaps his presentation.

To use the d20 logo or claim compatibility with D&D/D20 modern, you must use the D20 STL. Using the D20 STL also involves a number of restrictions, including not altering the license and provisions you can not include character creation and advancement rules. The D20 STL is being retired, you know it. The grace period exists to allow publishers to deal with their stocks for existing merchandise. This is a new product, why add restrictions when you know that the few benefits will soon be revoked?

For your use of OGL:
note: section 6 requires you update section 15 in your copy of the OGL.

note: you must clearly define what material you are releasing under the OGL and what is not released under the OGL. You can not release the IP of any other company under OGL (for instance, squaresoft/squareenix).

The privilege of using OGL material from other sources does not allow you to relicense that material under any other license. I can tell you that the GPL licenses are explicitly incompatible with OGL due to its viral nature. After briefly viewing the creative commons group of licenses, some of them look to be incompatible with the OGL. And I can find no means of defining part of a product as not under a CC license. So its something that you really need to look into deeply. For instance the CC license you chose to use forbids commercial use of your work, the OGL allows the commecial use of your work. That is a conflict.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Before anyone else posts either for or against I suggest you take a deep breath...

The tone of this thread is getting nasty and will probably be locked if not altered by all participants. So please, let's all be nice and go back to being CONSTRUCTIVE in our criticisms. Thank You...

Thunderfoot
(Not a mod but around too long to not mention it..)

 

[Darrin Drader]

You know, the first RPG I wrote was back when I was in middle school and it was a Ghostbusters RPG. Sure, there was already a Ghostbusters RPG at the time, and I had even played it, but hey, I didn't have much money, and even if I did, I couldn't find it in the stores. FYI, for those of the younger persuasion, this was back in the '80s; well before the internet.

So I created my own version of the game, which was typed up on an actual typewriter, and then I came up with a cover by stealing the logo from a promo piece for the actual movie in a magazine, and the rest was actual lettering that I drew, pasted on, photocopied, colored in, and then laminated. Man, it was quite the production, and was it terrible!

The point I'm coming to is that I was in violation of stealing IP, trademarks, and probably a dozen laws, but it was the pet project of a kid. I'm suggesting that this campaign setting is probably likewise the pet project of a kid who is proud of what he's done and is using the internet to share it with the world. Today he might be some dude who doesn't have a clue what he's stepping in, but in ten years, he might be the next Mike Mearls.

I agree with Thunderfoot and think we should lighten up a bit. The mistakes are clear and have been pointed out. It is now up to the original author to fix those mistakes if he wants to be taken remotely seriously. There's no reason to nail him to a cross for his obvious inexperience.

 

[Nadaka]

Darrin Drader: You didn't actually violate copyright back in the day because you didn't publish it and distribute it to others.

He is distributing, and he is violating copyright and contract law. Holding a high standard for those who use licenses in this field is vitally important for anyone who wants the OGL to be taken seriously.

Compliance with contract and copyright (with WotC property) in this case is very easy. There is no reason for him to not comply. There may (or may not) be some other issues with his use of final fantasy IP.

 

[Brasswatchman]

Before anyone else posts either for or against I suggest you take a deep breath...

Sounds good to me.

I can tell you that the GPL licenses are explicitly incompatible with OGL due to its viral nature. After briefly viewing the creative commons group of licenses, some of them look to be incompatible with the OGL. And I can find no means of defining part of a product as not under a CC license. So its something that you really need to look into deeply.

I think I have this issue covered. Please see the Player's Instruction Manual, second page (right after the front cover). Thank you for your concern, though.

Brasswatchman, the bottom line is your better off ditching the d20 logo altogther since your going to have to ditch it soon anyways and go with the OGL logo done by LPJ Design (i think thats right). It's free and has no terms of use.

Thank you for your advice. I'll keep that in mind.

 

[johnnype]

Wow. Such hate. Did someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

As an enduser let me state that I know little and care even less about the legal ins and outs of copyrights and such so I won't even attempt to broach that subject.

Brasswatchman, thank you for you efforts. I'm downloading it now.