Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 7795347" data-attributes="member: 58197">The core of his argument seems to rest on the following definition from the OGL:"'Open Game Content' means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity."He argues that "the game mechanic [and] methods, procedures, processes and routines" are not copyrightable, therefore the OGL does not offer any consideration to licensees, therefore it is not a valid contract.I could be wrong, probably am, but my layman's understanding is that "prior art" is a term of patent law, not copyright or trademark. Something which improves upon the prior art is patentable, something which doesn't is not. This makes sense: If game mechanics are patentable (and WotC claims a number of such patents), the OGL would have to cover patent rights. And there is a second part to the definition stating that "Open Game Content" also means "any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law."So it seems like this definition is basically saying, "You get a license to use mechanics we have patents on, and/or text we hold copyright to." Which sure seems like a valid consideration to offer your licensees. Frylock is focusing on the first few words of the definition and ignoring everything else.Do I have all that right?</blockquote>

Verification