D&D General Frylock on the ‘Ineffectual OGL’

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not sure he's helping himself in the court of public opinion.

I feel like he only opens his mouth to change feet.

Yeah, he isn't winning any allies with this whole thing.

 

[Umbran]

He's claiming the OGL is an unenforceable document -that bears watching. Especially as he seems to be an experienced IP attorney and looks to be throwing bombs at WoTC.

Claims that it is unenforceable do not bear watching. Court cases to that effect do.

 

[Mort]

Claims that it is unenforceable do not bear watching. Court cases to that effect do.

Well he's also claiming to be an authority on the matter.

But mostly it's just because the subject is interesting and interesting to see what, if anything, develops.

 

[FrogReaver]

Now I know why he is advertising like mad. He started a go fund me to help pay the costs. The way to fund a go fund me is to advertise.

 

[FrogReaver]

Also, as a person who has received C&D requests from WotC, Frylock is hardly an unbiased analyst who's thoughts on the matter should be trusted, hm?

"I was asked to stop, so here is a public post of my reasons why I don't have to," is not so much a presentation of analysis as it is trying the case in the court of public opinion.

Why does it seem like you are soo against the guy?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Mostly I'm rubbernecking, tbh. He's decided to pick a fight intentionally with WotC over this because he thinks he has a point to make. He's not a small company getting thrown up against the wall by a big corporation, just a lawyer who thinks he's going to prove a point in court about how Wizards can't possibly own the copyright to the rules they publish. That makes this "fun" to watch instead of angrifying - if he loses, well, he should have had a bit more humility and maybe hired another lawyer to check his work. If he wins then we may see fallout all over the game industry as well as in the software industry. The OGL was specifically modeled after open source software licenses, and as IANAL I have no idea how much fallout there might be if there is some declaration that even expressions of game rules can't be copywritten - which is what my non-lawyerly eyes read him as saying.

The OGL and Open Source software licenses are superficially similar but fundamentally different. By accepting the OGL you gain permission to use some of WotC's copyrightet material in exchange for not doing certain other things which you'd normally have the right to do, such as using a name that WotC deems "product identity"

Open Source licenses on the other hand do not ask you to restrict excising your rights , they let you use certain copyrighted material in exchange for explicitly taking certain action, usually sharing any modifications you make to the software and/or giving credit to the original creator.

 

[darjr]

eh, removed, I’m not really that mean. I hope.

 

[Umbran]

Why does it seem like you are soo against the guy?

Personally, I don't know him from Adam. Never met him. I have nothing against the person, if that's what you mean.

This thread is a discussion of his writing. There seem to be flaws. I'm discussing them.

 

[Beleriphon]

The OGL and Open Source software licenses are superficially similar but fundamentally different. By accepting the OGL you gain permission to use some of WotC's copyrightet material in exchange for not doing certain other things which you'd normally have the right to do, such as using a name that WotC deems "product identity"

It does a bit more than that, it lets you reproduce the SRD whole cloth, as written. You know, WotC's copyrightable document that they are letting you use in exchange for following a set of rules, some of which are you have to share some of your toys too (or at least indicate which parts are your toys you aren't sharing). Basically it saves you the trouble of having to come up with new wording for literally every single rule in document. Most of them are complex enough you'd have to if Frylock is right.

Open Source licenses on the other hand do not ask you to restrict excising your rights , they let you use certain copyrighted material in exchange for explicitly taking certain action, usually sharing any modifications you make to the software and/or giving credit to the original creator.

Sure they do, you don't own the copyright on your new additions. You can't patent any sufficiently novel add-ons to the software. A whole bunch of stuff you could do you now can't. But again, in exchange you don't have to develop your software from square one, saving you time and effort in doing so.

As a thought though, if Frylock is right and the OGL is garbage, doesn't that mean that any company that use it and produced material based on it, like say Green Ronin, would be in for a problem since a huge portion of their material is derived fro the SRD?

And what about companies that sue the OGL but not the SRD? I've seen a few RPGs that like the idea, they copied the OGL and basically said this whole book, use according to the OGL rules. What does that do?