Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aezoc" data-source="post: 4175287" data-attributes="member: 12124">IANAL, but a lot of this strikes me as being very wrong.This is an incorrect analogy. Valve licenses its engines to other companies who then use the engine to produce games which directly compete with Valve's. Ubisoft's Dark Messiah of Might and Magic is the first one that comes to mind. Now, Valve makes money from licensing the engine, so a more apt comparison might be a situation like id releasing the Quake 3 engine under the GPLv2. Anyone can take the engine, modify it, and release a new game. This is conceptually similar to the OGL, in that GPL-derived code cannot (in theory) be closed, Tivoization loopholes aside.This doesn't make any sense. If I release a work under the OGL, I'm within my rights to release as much or as little of it under the OGL as I choose, so long as I don't try to exclude licensing material which was originally published in or directly derived from the SRD or other OGL source. For example, in Iron Heroes (the book I happen to have closest at hand), the entire stunts system is closed. So I don't understand your implication that 3rd party publishers were helplessly watching their innovations published online for free. If, as a 3rd party publisher, you created something innovative and didn't want to make it open content, you didn't have to. The only time you were forced to make something OGL is if it came from a previous OGL source, in which case I'd argue it's an enhancement, and not particularly innovative.No, the current situation would be like someone making a game using the Quake 3 engine or a derivative, and distributing the source so anyone with the inclination can make their own tweaks to it as well. You're conflating the engine (Source, id Tech 3, d20, and so on) with the content (Half-Life 2, Quake 3, etc), which in OGL terms is protected as Product Identity. If I wanted to package a complete game along with my supplement (mod), the best I could do would be to get together all of the Open Game Content ever made, and release it all in one huge compilation. But without all of the PI (the fluff), it's still just an engine, not a game. There's no setting, no descriptions, stories, etc. It's a set of tools to simplify making a game, just like a video game engine is.The rest of your post is predicated on two ideas that I don't think hold up - a) that companies cannot be profitable making supplemental products, and b) that the GSL will "protect" 4e's mechanical innovations from appearing in OGL works. As I said above, nothing obligates a 3rd party publisher to release all of their innovations under the OGL. Most 3rd party books that I own do open the vast majority of the mechanics, but it's not required.To your second point, others have already pointed out that the system itself isn't protected by US Copyright. To use another software analogy, I can't copyright the concept of a binary search (that would be patent territory, if anything, but I don't want to derail this thread with one of my software patent rants <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />), but I could probably copyright my specific implementation of a binary search algorithm if so inclined. Coming back to RPGs, 4e's rulebook text (the specific implementation) will be protected by copyright, but the general concept of, say, characters having at will, per encounter, and per day powers isn't copyrightable, so long as you describe it using text that differs significantly from 4e's. Point being, if 4e comes out and has mechanical innovations that current 3e publishers like, there's nothing stopping them from integrating those mechanics into material published under the OGL, ignoring the GSL completely.Now, my own speculation is that WotC is well aware of this fact, and that's why the GSL contains at least one carrot - the ability to use the D&D name on GSL products. As others have said, the D&D name recognition is a very powerful draw, and (in theory) anyone who wants that signs away their ability to release 4e mechanics under the OGL. I suspect that there are probably myriad ways to wriggle around that license provision for someone who's so inclined, but that's a discussion best left to real lawyers, not armchair ones.</blockquote>

Verification