How do you improve the OGL?

[ExileInParadise]

I know your post is focused on software or electronic medium, but what other medium should the OGL also cover besides print?

I'm wary that if we list what the OGL can be used with certain media, it will limit to those media, and single out, for example phonorecording (odd, but not farfetched).

The OGL, OGL FAQ, and Software FAQ already limit OGC to a)distribution as RTF files, b) English printed on paper, or c) Javascript viewable in a browser (which may not actually be true when the wording of the OGL FAQ is contrasted with the wording of the Software FAQ, but at least the Software FAQ saying Javascript in a browser is acceptable improves the developers legal defense.)

Anything else is "get a lawyer" because of the vague wordings used in the OGL itself, the OGL FAQ[1], and the OGL Software FAQ[2] which give WotC the ability to creatively interpret any other distribution means to be in violation, if they choose. The only safe harbors you can really rely on in a court challenge are the 3 listed as a-c above. Sure, PDF is widespread... but is it *legal* under all of the applied terms of those documents? Debatable, especially if WotC chose to. Just because they haven't so far means nothing, especially in the face of a new edition. Past performance is not indicative of future blah blah.

The "clearly identified" clause is one of the least clear in the entire license. For example, it could easily be used to limit translations to other languages, because those may not be clear to the legal team, at that time. Plus, the license itself can't be translated anyway, without WotC permission, because the license itself is not OGC.

Even getting a lawyer is still opening yourself to risk, because, ultimately, the interpretation is at WotC's discretion. The wording of the OGL and supporting documents (which most legal venues would honor and incorporate as "clarifications" of intent) is indefensible by anyone but WotC themselves.

The FAQ "clarifications" are a real landmine too, because they can be modified at any time, outside the fixed-in-print wording of the OGL, yet a court would generally see fit to "include" them right in because the express "intent" of the original author(s). So, unless you monitor every change to those FAQs, you don't actually know what you can and cannot do, anyway. In that environment, its easy for a developer to spend years developing software only to find a slight change on the webpage has rendered all that time wasted.

Honestly, after going word through word over everything related to software, PDF distribution, or HTML could be in violation because the OGC may not be "clearly identifiable" by the recipient of a copy, and its up to WotC to decide, not you or your lawyers. Sure you can point to every HTML, or PDF file out there, but all they have to say is "those were clearer to us than yours." There's no legal test for you to rely on with wording like that in the OGL and related FAQs.

The only "blessed" way to use OGC rules in software is read the plain(ish) English text from a file, magically and accurately parse human-readable text into machine-readable tokens capable of accurately reflecting the applied rules of the game. Not simple: no one has a foolproof human-readable to machine-readable back to human-readable parser that could take the words of the text and generate rules from them that a computer would use in the same way as a DM. Heck, DM's can't even agree on how to interpret many data or rules in various contexts, even after years of hashing them on forums. New applications come up all of the time.

Yes, my earlier post was about software, but the point was that the wording is already too restrictive of the means, media, or methods, and that a future OGL should clarify the intent *within the body of the license itself* and expand or at least clearly draw the safe-harbors and mined areas. And it would be nice if someone didn't have to invent an artificially intelligent GM just to be in compliance with the license and make software at the same time.

But, rather than this devolve into a nightmarish jargon and semantics argument, I will echo WotC when I asked them about several different software development models: "get a lawyer." Any other media, I would recommend the same thing. Translations: same thing. And that's what needs to be worked on, IMO.

<My rant about something so "open" or "free" requiring so many lawyers, or that everyone become one was cut for space.>

Ultimately, I think a new OGL should distill, address, and demystify all of the hashed and rehashed debates and discussions held about the OGL v1.0a in the past. Why create a new standard that doesn't try to fix all fo the problems of the previous standard? Software was just an easy example to point to of a long-standing problem in OGL/OGC where software seems so do-able yet really isn't when you try it.

I wonder if the PCgen folks would agree...

[1] OGL FAQ: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123d
[2] Software FAQ: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i

 

[2WS-Steve]

I agree that software would be the major area where a new version of the OGL could be most beneficial. Still, PCGEN, Campaign Suite, DM Genie, NPC Designer, DM's Familiar, Metacreator, Fantasy Grounds, Klooge, RPGXplorer, and Hero Lab have all managed to release software based on OGL material -- so it's clear a person or company serious about doing so can go ahead and do so.

 

[2WS-Steve]

No, material released under the old OGL would still be usable under the old OGL.

You'd just need to include both licenses in your book I think.

I think releasing the same material in the same book under more than one Open License is tricky.

For instance, you can't place additional restrictions on content you're using under the OGL, so a new open license couldn't somehow close off open content.

And I think that you couldn't reduce the restrictions on content you're using via the OGL. So you couldn't make a new PDF of the SRD, release under the old OGL, and release under a new Computer-Friendly OGL, since the original source license would be the important part.

What you could do is make up entirely new content, then release it as two RTFs, each under their own license. In fact, I think FUDGE is already de facto this way, since it was previously released under some other open license, then later also released under the WotC OGL.

I'd also like to note that although the WotC OGL can look pretty daunting at first, one BIG advantage it has is that the nuances of it have been thoroughly discussed on the OGF listservs and various boards. There are plenty of places to go to learn how it works and how to use it. And scores if not hundreds of publishers have used it well -- some of us even did so with no legal training, and while writing, editing, and doing our own layout. I'd argue that those publishers who used it improperly, weren't trying.

Also, I think it's noteworthy that even though Evil Hat had the choice of using the original Fudge license or the WotC OGL license, they chose the latter for both FATE and Spirit of the Century.

 

[grislyeye]

I agree that software would be the major area where a new version of the OGL could be most beneficial. Still, PCGEN, Campaign Suite, DM Genie, NPC Designer, DM's Familiar, Metacreator, Fantasy Grounds, Klooge, RPGXplorer, and Hero Lab have all managed to release software based on OGL material -- so it's clear a person or company serious about doing so can go ahead and do so.

As you mention, certain (restricted) software uses are allowed, but as the OGL stands there could never really be a True20 computer game, for example.

 

[grislyeye]

As it stands now the OGL doesn't exclude or limit software. You must ensure that the OGC it uses can be easily identified by the end user, which does pose its own challenges, but no where does the OGL limit or exclude software. However, the D20 System Trademark License did limit software.

As ExileInParadise points out, the OGL absolutely does restrict several software uses, in particular, binary distribution. It may not do so explicitly, but it does do so indirectly and WotC are explicit about this in their Software FAQ.

 

[2WS-Steve]

As you mention, certain (restricted) software uses are allowed, but as the OGL stands there could never really be a True20 computer game, for example.

I don't think that's true.

Metacreator, Klooge, Fantasy Grounds, and Hero Lab all work with the OGL by operating off a base generic engine that can be used to implement a variety of game systems.

They then load data files for each particular game system. In all cases these data files are in human-readable code such as XML or just regular text.

Those human readable data files are then made open content and released under the OGL. They're also the only part of the program that uses open content.

It used to be that there were a bunch of wargame and rpg construction kits that would have a base engine, then data files to determine the rules of the particular game -- what you'd do for an SRD based computer RPG would be like that: create the base engine, then make data files for a couple different game systems.

 

[grislyeye]

Metacreator, Klooge, Fantasy Grounds, and Hero Lab all work with the OGL by operating off a base generic engine that can be used to implement a variety of game systems.

Those aren't computer games, but let me clearer, you can't distribute OGC as binary, which means that the kinds of optimisations you might get from compiling game rules for 3D-rendered OGL computer game would not be possible.

 

[Ranger REG]

As you mention, certain (restricted) software uses are allowed, but as the OGL stands there could never really be a True20 computer game, for example.

Why, may I ask? I mean aside from the trademark issue (unless Green Ronin allow you to use the True20 trademark), why can't you use OGC from SRD and third-party sources to create a an OGL-based game software?

 

[grislyeye]

Why, may I ask? I mean aside from the trademark issue (unless Green Ronin allow you to use the True20 trademark), why can't you use OGC from SRD and third-party sources to create a an OGL-based game software?

See my reply to 2WS-Steve. But to elaborate, though it may be possible to create a game using SRD-derived rules while avoiding the arbitrary restrictions on software distribution (no binary distribution, human readable, etc), the performance and design issues might make it practically impossible.

Wizard's of the Coast allude to this in their own FAQ, noting that only they are free to license the SRD to publish computer games:

Q: How can Wizards of the Coast publish d20 System games without using the Open Game License?

A: Since Wizards of the Coast is the original copyright holder of the content in the System Reference Document, it is free to license that content in many different ways. One way is through the various tabletop RPGs the company publishes. Another way is through the Open Game in the System Reference Document. A third way is to computer game publishers who use the game in their software.
- http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/srdfaq/20040123a

 

[Ranger REG]

See my reply to 2WS-Steve. But to elaborate, though it may be possible to create a game using SRD-derived rules while avoiding the arbitrary restrictions on software distribution (no binary distribution, human readable, etc), the performance and design issues might make it practically impossible.

Is it because of limited programming languages?

Wizard's of the Coast allude to this in their own FAQ, noting that only they are free to license the SRD to publish computer games:

Yeah umm, that particular FAQ query you quoted here, has nothing to do with OGL. It's about what WotC CAN do WITHOUT the OGL. Have you ever wondered why they can publish the PHB without attaching a copy of the OGL in it?

Try this Software FAQ page: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123i