HOW is this an OGC decleration?

[madelf]

If there's case law to support the assertion that game mechanics cannot by copyrighted, I'd like to see it. Even if you cannot cite it, I certainly lean towards your interpretation.

However, it's my belief that the OGL is designed to (and does) supercede standard copyright law.

It really doesn't matter if the OGL trumps copyright. What you are encouraging, by doing things the way you are, is for people to bypass the OGL entirely when it comes to adapting your stuff. They can do the same thing, without the OGL, as you are allowing them to do with it.

The copyright law allows for use of ideas or concepts, seperate from the presentation, so they can do it. Then can do it without even attributing the idea to you. So instead of using your textual descriptions of the mechanics under the OGL and giving you credit in the Section15, why would they not just take the idea and write it up themselves (as you seem to require anyway)? But at that point, they have no legal obligation to include you in their Section15, because they didn't use any of your copyrighted material and therefore didn't use the OGL license to do it. So you are not one of their sources of Open Content.

You're actually better off to use the OGL and it's Open Content requirements the way they're intended. It gives you protections you wouldn't otherwise have (like attribution in the Section15, and being able to designate what is and isn't available for others). The way you seem to be using it, it isn't protecting anything at all.

That designation encouraged others to copy the text and reuse it verbatim. I don't believe that's a proper or responsible use of Open Content.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint), that's exactly what Open Content is. And what it's for.

I certainly wouldn't claim that it was "irresponsible" or "improper" of WotC to release the text of the SRD and allow others to use it verbatim. Under your reasoning, why didn't they just release the mechanics without the actual text? Wouldn't that still allow people to base their products on D20?

And I wonder, have you used any of their (or other publishers') text unchanged? And, if so, how do you reconcile that with your expressed opinion on the proper and responsible use of Open Content?

Really I understand why you, and some other publishers want to see things this way. But it's really not the way it's supposed to work (IMO). The license is pretty clear, and it's pretty clear (to me) that it's not talking about "ideas, concepts, and mechanics seperate from text" when it talks about designating Open Content. That's why it needs to be clearly designated, so that people know what they can and can't reuse. A work doesn't have to be 100% open, but it definitely needs to be something other than, "You can use the mechanics, but none of the text." Open Content is the price you pay for getting to play in WotC's sandbox.

At least that's the way I see it.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The merger doctrine (in the US) says that some ideas may be intelligibly expressed in a limited number of ways.

That's my feeling on the matter, as well.

Wulf and I clearly disagree on what the OGL allows and means, what is a responsible and irresponsible use of OGC, and what seperates the "good guys" from the "bad guys" in this regard. I don't think we can bridge our differences.
It's a shame. I consider the Mass-Combat and Gamemastering pdfs to be sheer brilliance, and now I won't ever use them again.

I'm definitely a fan of principled stands, but you're bordering on being silly. Most of what you wanted to do anyway falls within the purview of fair use. You are certainly not alone among the consumer class who chooses to take a principled stand on "abuses" of the OGL.

It just says that, whatever is open, it consists only of game mechanics. It is of no help whatsoever in terms of which mechanics.

Regardless of the differing opinions here on how I might go about protecting the "copy rights" of the work, I've absolutely come around on the utility of my OGC declaration.

I can certainly amend it easily enough, but this thread indicates pretty clearly to me that no amendment that doesn't include the right to copy and paste is going to satisfy some of you.

There is no doubt in my mind that anyone who wanted to use and expand on the OGC in Mythic Heroes would be able to do so.

Wulf,
As somebody peripherally interested in the OGL and it's implications, I find the topic interesting. Am I understanding you correctly in the following?

You have done the work to create mechanics and you have provided language to understand how to use those mechanics.
You encourage people to reuse those mechanics.
But you do not wish people to, essentially, copy/paste the language used to describe how to use the mechanics. You want people to rewrite that text for themselves. Perhaps even adding to it overall?

Is my understanding correct there?

That is the very essence of what I consider to be proper and responsible use of Open Content.

It really doesn't matter if the OGL trumps copyright. What you are encouraging, by doing things the way you are, is for people to bypass the OGL entirely when it comes to adapting your stuff. They can do the same thing, without the OGL, as you are allowing them to do with it.

That would be interesting, wouldn't it? By the same token, anyone could do the same thing with the SRD mechanics as the OGL allows them to do with it, and yet folks are not exactly scrambling to test WOTC in court over the matter.

The copyright law allows for use of ideas or concepts, seperate from the presentation, so they can do it. Then can do it without even attributing the idea to you. So instead of using your textual descriptions of the mechanics under the OGL and giving you credit in the Section15, why would they not just take the idea and write it up themselves (as you seem to require anyway)? But at that point, they have no legal obligation to include you in their Section15, because they didn't use any of your copyrighted material and therefore didn't use the OGL license to do it. So you are not one of their sources of Open Content.

It would certainly make for an interesting test of the OGL in court.

I certainly wouldn't claim that it was "irresponsible" or "improper" of WotC to release the text of the SRD and allow others to use it verbatim. Under your reasoning, why didn't they just release the mechanics without the actual text? Wouldn't that still allow people to base their products on D20?

And I wonder, have you used any of their (or other publishers') text unchanged? And, if so, how do you reconcile that with your expressed opinion on the proper and responsible use of Open Content?

The SRD is a separate case for a great many reasons. I have used portions of it verbatim.

As for other folks OGC, I use it all the time, and I make every effort to restate the material in my own voice whenever the expression of the mechanics allows me to do so.

 

[Black Knight]

OK, I've been following this thread (and others like it on various boards and newsgroups). And what I don't understand is this....

If you are not a) a writer/designer, b) a publisher, or c) any other industry professional (full or part time) that deals in designing a published work (published = any non-inhouse documentation meant for public use) what does it matter what is and isn't OGC for your home campaign? Why does an OGC declaration really matter in these cases? Heck, if you aren't using the source directly why does this even affect you at all (buying habits or mouthing off)?

Matter of point: the OGC community is a rather small pool of even smaller fish who are relatively buddy-buddy with each other (myself included). If you like a mechanic in a product, just email, call, or carrier pidgeon the publisher and ask for rights to use it, IP or OGC. Even WotC allows some of their IP into 3rd-party products, all you have to do is ask politely.

Resolution (fictitious email): "Hey Wulf! Mystic Heroes was fantastic! However, I'm unclear on what's OGC and I think X mechanic would be a fantastic addition to my homebrew Y. Can you decipher your declaration for me? And if mechanic X is not OGC, can I have your permission to use it? Thanks!"

Looks pretty simple to me. The least he can do is say no (and then rants begin, but the statement, arguments, and recourses have already been made), but the best is say "yes, please feel free" or "pages W to Z are OGC and you can use it all anyway you want, but if you could please reword a bit so it doesn't look like a carbon copy, thanks!"

Let's chug our coffee and swallow our pride here. The OGL is not a new thing, and every 2 months or so someone else blows up over product A, B, or C for not having the Section 15 right or the OGC Declaration spelled out in elementary english. It's nearly 2006, we've had what almost 6 years with the license? Boycotting products for lack of OGC usable by publishers when you are only playing at home (aka - telling your home campaign buddies not to buy X, Y, or Z because you don't like a declaration) is about the most heinous thing I've ever heard of. The shot on Monte's OGC is also a bit low. Go back and reread the license and usage agreement again, only 5% of any OGL product needs to be declared (this includes stuff directly from the SRD).

Wulf, I congratulate you on OGCing the mechanics! Bravo! As a writer and designer I have no problems contacting you for a more direct meaning of your OGC or to ask permission for usage (and I may in the New Year).

(/End of my rant!)

 

[Yair]

If you are not a) a writer/designer, b) a publisher, or c) any other industry professional (full or part time) that deals in designing a published work (published = any non-inhouse documentation meant for public use) what does it matter what is and isn't OGC for your home campaign? Why does an OGC declaration really matter in these cases? Heck, if you aren't using the source directly why does this even affect you at all (buying habits or mouthing off)?

The short end of it: it matters to me. As Wulf said, I'm silly. For example, I want to be able to legally post my campaign's story hour on my website if I want to. Or house rules. Silly.

Matter of point: the OGC community is a rather small pool of even smaller fish who are relatively buddy-buddy with each other (myself included). If you like a mechanic in a product, just email, call, or carrier pidgeon the publisher and ask for rights to use it, IP or OGC. Even WotC allows some of their IP into 3rd-party products, all you have to do is ask politely.

That is irrelevant. It's true regardless of the OGL or any other license, it's true for any fan site of any topic.

Resolution (fictitious email): "Hey Wulf! Mystic Heroes was fantastic! However, I'm unclear on what's OGC and I think X mechanic would be a fantastic addition to my homebrew Y. Can you decipher your declaration for me? And if mechanic X is not OGC, can I have your permission to use it? Thanks!"

I shouldn't need to ask permission. If I do, Wulf won't tell me "pages W to Z are OGC", he will tell me "the mechanics in pages W to Z are OGC, all you need to do is reword the text and you can use them! Piece of cake!" But for that, I don't need Wulf's reply; I can reword them on my own, thank you. (Wulf would disagree, I know.)

Let's chug our coffee and swallow our pride here.

I'm a proud, vain, and silly person. It's my god given right.

Boycotting products for lack of OGC usable by publishers when you are only playing at home (aka - telling your home campaign buddies not to buy X, Y, or Z because you don't like a declaration) is about the most heinous thing I've ever heard of.

Not releasing any content as OGC is the most heinous... OK, not by far. But it's not nice.
I will boycott companies whose policy I don't like. Until such time as the police barge in and force me to purchase BAG products, that's my right.

The shot on Monte's OGC is also a bit low. Go back and reread the license and usage agreement again, only 5% of any OGL product needs to be declared (this includes stuff directly from the SRD).

You are confusing the OGL and d20STL.
I have no probelms with OGL products that release 5%, 1%, 0.01% as OGC. I may not buy them, but I have no problem with them. It's their pregorative. I have a problem with products that release 0% as OGC when I think about 100% of it should be OGC. (Again, I know Wulf would differ.)

Wulf, I congratulate you on OGCing the mechanics! Bravo! As a writer and designer I have no problems contacting you for a more direct meaning of your OGC or to ask permission for usage (and I may in the New Year).

See, from where I'm sitting, he had to OGC the mechanics, and didn't. And I have a problem with that.

(/End of my rant!)

Mine too.

I've spent way too much effort on this, Wulf and I clearly disagree and that's that. To all those who agree with him: well, you're wrong

 

[Vocenoctum]

That has no bearing on my belief that my particular writing style, that the game mechanics as expressed by me, is Product Identity worthy of protection.

<snip>

My concern is with folks who use my OGC in a way that is both irresponsible and relevant.



That designation encouraged others to copy the text and reuse it verbatim. I don't believe that's a proper or responsible use of Open Content.

I'm just curious, but have you had a problem with others using your work verbatim in such a manner?

I like the idea that the OGL should make things easy to use, but I'm not a publisher at the moment, so it's not a major thing for me.

Either way, I think the original statement does stand that your Declaration is unclear, but saying "all mechanics are OGC, but the specific manner of presenting that content may not be reproduced." or something.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I shouldn't need to ask permission.

And you don't need to. You just have to be smarter than the average bear.

If I do, Wulf won't tell me "pages W to Z are OGC", he will tell me "the mechanics in pages W to Z are OGC, all you need to do is reword the text and you can use them! Piece of cake!" But for that, I don't need Wulf's reply; I can reword them on my own, thank you. (Wulf would disagree, I know.)

Why would I disagree? You can do exactly that.

More to the point, since you are responsible and irrelevant, you could just cut and paste them out of the PDF for yourself and your buddies and I would either not know or not care.

I have a problem with products that release 0% as OGC when I think about 100% of it should be OGC. (Again, I know Wulf would differ.)

No, I don't differ. I'd estimate 80-90% of Mythic Heroes is OGC, as is plainly obvious to anyone who isn't stuck on "OGC = things I can cut and paste."

See, from where I'm sitting, he had to OGC the mechanics, and didn't. And I have a problem with that.

The mechanics are OGC. They are de facto Open Content, as they are derived from Open Content; they're also specifically declared as Open Content, as you pointed out in post #1.

Even if I hadn't declared them as Open Content, they'd be open.

There is no doubt in my mind that any publisher who wants to use the OGC in Mythic Heroes has more than enough to work with with that declaration, and needs neither clarification nor permission from me to make use of the OGC.

I'm just curious, but have you had a problem with others using your work verbatim in such a manner?

I have had a couple of issues in the past that were quickly addressed between the parties concerned. I have reason to be wary of what may happen to my OGC in the future.

Either way, I think the original statement does stand that your Declaration is unclear, but saying "all mechanics are OGC, but the specific manner of presenting that content may not be reproduced." or something.

It's obviously an open question as to whether I can PI the specific manner of presenting them. I have done that in the past (as Dan pointed out, I did this in Grim Tales). It is not a solution I am happy with, and I think the work would actually be of less use to other publishers if I continued to do it that way. That's not what I want.

 

[afstanton]

Section 1 (g) of the OGL: "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content.

Seems pretty clear that it includes copy/paste.

IANAL.

 

[BSF]

Wulf,
As somebody peripherally interested in the OGL and it's implications, I find the topic interesting. Am I understanding you correctly in the following?

You have done the work to create mechanics and you have provided language to understand how to use those mechanics.
You encourage people to reuse those mechanics.
But you do not wish people to, essentially, copy/paste the language used to describe how to use the mechanics. You want people to rewrite that text for themselves. Perhaps even adding to it overall?

Is my understanding correct there?

That is the very essence of what I consider to be proper and responsible use of Open Content.

OK, fair enough. But on a more pointed question, what about something like an OGC monster? Leaving aside the issues of name, because I believe there are legitimate PI uses for a name. What about the stats and brief description?

It seems that it would be better to have that sort of utilization as copy/paste. That would keep the monster consistent across different products. Or do you disagree and consider that as relatively irresponsible?

 

[Yair]

Wulf, I'm constantly amazed by my lack of ability to make my position clear, or to understand yours. I'm going to try again.
I am not seeking to convince you here, that boat has long sailed, I'm just seeking to understand your position.

Why would I disagree? You can do exactly that.

But if I don't mention Mythic Heroes in my Section 15, then you would posit the work is in violation of the OGL, right?

No, I don't differ. I'd estimate 80-90% of Mythic Heroes is OGC, as is plainly obvious to anyone who isn't stuck on "OGC = things I can cut and paste."

You differ in that you believe 80-90% of Mythic Heoes is OGC, whereas I believe 0% of Mythic Heroes is OGC. Right?

The mechanics are OGC. They are de facto Open Content, as they are derived from Open Content; they're also specifically declared as Open Content, as you pointed out in post #1.

I understand you think the mechanics are OGC. Do you understand I think no text in Mythic Heroes is OGC, and that only text can be OGC? I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just trying to clarify my position.

 

[Wasgo]

I'm not sure if I get what the big issue is here. Given the OGC declaration, the worst thing you could be accused of would be copyright infringement. Since Wulf has always seemed to be a reasonable person, I don't see that happening, regardless of what's declared in the OGL. Moreover, even if you took an extremely liberal view of what the OGC consists of, it would only become an issue if lawyers actually got involved, and after you had been notified of a breech and had 30 days in which to correct it. Similarly, if you feel that what Wulf has declared should automatically be OGC, feel free to consult with a lawyer yourself. Just because he hasn't declared it to be OGC, if he's legally obligated to, it already is.