Help me clear up OGL FUD

[Ry]

The Open Game License has caught some FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

I've heard vague things about circumstances under which publishers of OGL material can cry foul.

Let's say I publish an OGL game using material derived from the SRD and expansions feats, classes, and other rules that I wrote myself.

Then let's say that game far exceeds expectations in terms of sales. It goes into a second edition with lots of colour art that's unique to the content I've put together.

Finally, let's say a game company wants to do a videogame based on my setting, using the rules from my setting in the mechanics of the game. The game also does better than expected, and I make some money licensing my game to the videogame publisher.

Does WotC proceed to threaten me with a lawsuit?

 

[Roudi]

Wouldn't you be licensing the PI aspects of your game, not necessarily the OGC portions which derived from the SRD?

In any case, as long as said game company follows the terms of the OGL, there's no case for WotC to build a lawsuit upon.

 

[Ry]

But let's say that you had a bunch of feats and classes that really nicely got the players into the groove. I'm wondering about the situation if the game company uses those a version of those mechanics to power their game.

 

[ValhallaGH]

But let's say that you had a bunch of feats and classes that really nicely got the players into the groove. I'm wondering about the situation if the game company uses those a version of those mechanics to power their game.

Are those specific feats and classes unique to your product?

If so then you should be golden. If not then you may have some issues. Irregardless, if this is actually happening then you should consult an intellectual property lawyer. The peace of mind is probably worth the fees and time.

 

[Ilium]

The iffy thing in your example is the video game. As I understand it, the OGL makes it very difficult to make any kind of computer game based on OGC material (including the SRD).

If the third party you were licensing to was making another pen and paper RPG you'd be all set, but check with a lawyer if computer games are involved.

You might get a more informed opinion on the publishers' board.

 

[Ranger REG]

The iffy thing in your example is the video game. As I understand it, the OGL makes it very difficult to make any kind of computer game based on OGC material (including the SRD).

Yeah, there is still a debate about whether OGC translated or adapted into computer datacode is considered a "translation" under the OGL's definition of "Derivative Material" [Section 1(b) and 1(g)]. If that's the case, said datacode (not the program's source/engine code) must remain OGC for other computer programmer or software developer to have access to.

 

[ExileInParadise]

Yeah, there is still a debate about whether OGC translated or adapted into computer datacode is considered a "translation" under the OGL's definition of "Derivative Material" [Section 1(b) and 1(g)]. If that's the case, said datacode (not the program's source/engine code) must remain OGC for other computer programmer or software developer to have access to.

Do you have a site or reference to the debate? I am curious to read up on it.

From my limited understanding, part of the OGL FUD comes from many people mistaking the d20STL (which does explicitly prohibit software projects without separate licenses with WotC) from the OGL which contains no prohibition against writing software... as long as you can write it and stay within the letter of the OGL.

If I were to create a program that incorporated open game content, it *would* take a careful design to keep the parts of the code that implemented the open game rules separate from other parts. Also, where possible, I would store the open game content in data files that were read by loaders. The rule logic and the data files could easily be made open source as part of an open game content software library that your "product identity code" called to. Simply naming the class and data files that implement OGL materials to start with OGC_ would help separate that quite easily.

From my pretty careful reading of the OGL, as long as you make your source code available, and print an OGL notice when the program runs, you are well within the spirit AND letter of the OGL, and should have no worries about hordes of lawyers. If someone wanted to make an open source/open game content character creator with feats and the like, then they intended to give the source away anyway, right? It seems like this is only an issue to people who want to keep their source closed, or somehow "partly closed"... but there are precedents for that to. They should engage a lawyer who specializes in software intellectual property.

I have a friend who does enterprise scale Java development. I think I will run this past him too. It's an interesting issue. Now I must resist the urge to write an OGC library in Java and release it, just to see

 

[eyebeams]

Nobody knows. The OGL is an untested legal document. There has to my knowledge never been any litigation where the OGL has figured. Usually, people argue about the legal protection of the OGL using invented terms from the licene, which only have legal standing if the license stands up to a challenge.

What the OGL does is provide a form of assurance that WotC will not sue or threaten users for use of WotC content (much of which, by the way, WotC has no right to make any threats about if it's implemented by someone else in their own style, but that's another issue). But this assurance is not a *legal* artifact. It's a custom. We really have no idea if anybody but WotC legal thinks it's enforceable. It may well be a powerless document, as many of the licenses we agree to on a daily basis are.

If anyone with enough money took legal action, your choice is essentially to submit or gamble your assets and savings on winning. The OGL is an indirect indicator that this probably won't happen, but have no illusions that you are working with a robust legal document.

 

[eyebeams]

Yeah, there is still a debate about whether OGC translated or adapted into computer datacode is considered a "translation" under the OGL's definition of "Derivative Material" [Section 1(b) and 1(g)]. If that's the case, said datacode (not the program's source/engine code) must remain OGC for other computer programmer or software developer to have access to.

If it is not expressed in OGC terms, it might well be unprotected regardless of what its OGL status is. Game rules are unprotectable by means short of patent, though their expression is covered by copyright. Any term covered by prior art would probably be safe (a Strength score), but some kinds of templating with novel uses of terminology might be troublesome (a "divine bonus" is a fairly novel term).

 

[kingpaul]

From my limited understanding, part of the OGL FUD comes from many people mistaking the d20STL (which does explicitly prohibit software projects without separate licenses with WotC) from the OGL which contains no prohibition against writing software... as long as you can write it and stay within the letter of the OGL.

Not quite. PCGen was a d20 STL compliant for a while. We dropped it so we could add back the die rollers.

From my pretty careful reading of the OGL, as long as you make your source code available, and print an OGL notice when the program runs, you are well within the spirit AND letter of the OGL, and should have no worries about hordes of lawyers.

There are numerous CharGens out there that don't make their code open. PCGen does. I think Red Blade does (but not sure). RPGX doesn't, DMGenie doesn't.