Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DanMcS" data-source="post: 2807206" data-attributes="member: 6530">Yes.&nbsp; The OGL is a license allowing use of copyrighted materials.&nbsp; Open content, designated as such under the license, is the copyrighted material that can be used by others.Game mechanics are not copyrighted.&nbsp; They actually cannot be, and there is case law to this effect.&nbsp; Someone can write a game using the exact same rules as D&amp;D as long as they don't use their text, and it's perfectly legal under copyright law.&nbsp; You don't need to declare the mechanics &quot;open&quot;, it's nonsensical, anyone can use them if they want.The text is what is copyrighted, so by declaring your &quot;game mechanics&quot; as open content, you're declaring the text of them open content.&nbsp; The license doesn't deal with mechanics at all, it deals with copyrighted text and the ability for someone else to use it.Yes.&nbsp; Wulf and others feel that they're being clever by trying to designate rules but not text as open content so that no one can actually use it.&nbsp; It doesn't work like that, but they're going to keep doing it because WotC is really the only one who could make them stop, and it's not worth their time and legal effort.Edit: For instance, in the HoHF series, Badaxe clearly designated open content by putting designations at the bottoms of pages which said &quot;Open Content&quot;.&nbsp; In Grim Tales, the Open Gaming Content notice says &quot;All game mechanics within this work are designated Open Content.&quot;&nbsp; The PI section later claims &quot;The text and language used to describe the game mechanics in chapter Five, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve;&quot; as product identity.&nbsp; These two designations directly conflict with each other, because the &quot;text and language&quot; ARE the game mechanics.This is why I don't buy Badaxe products anymore, and why I discourage my friends from doing so as well.&nbsp; I don't want to support publishers who engage in practices like this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DanMcS, post: 2807206, member: 6530"] Yes. The OGL is a license allowing use of copyrighted materials. Open content, designated as such under the license, is the copyrighted material that can be used by others. Game mechanics are not copyrighted. They actually cannot be, and there is case law to this effect. Someone can write a game using the exact same rules as D&D as long as they don't use their text, and it's perfectly legal under copyright law. You don't need to declare the mechanics "open", it's nonsensical, anyone can use them if they want. The text is what is copyrighted, so by declaring your "game mechanics" as open content, you're declaring the text of them open content. The license doesn't deal with mechanics at all, it deals with copyrighted text and the ability for someone else to use it. Yes. Wulf and others feel that they're being clever by trying to designate rules but not text as open content so that no one can actually use it. It doesn't work like that, but they're going to keep doing it because WotC is really the only one who could make them stop, and it's not worth their time and legal effort. Edit: For instance, in the HoHF series, Badaxe clearly designated open content by putting designations at the bottoms of pages which said "Open Content". In Grim Tales, the Open Gaming Content notice says "All game mechanics within this work are designated Open Content." The PI section later claims "The text and language used to describe the game mechanics in chapter Five, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve;" as product identity. These two designations directly conflict with each other, because the "text and language" ARE the game mechanics. This is why I don't buy Badaxe products anymore, and why I discourage my friends from doing so as well. I don't want to support publishers who engage in practices like this. [/QUOTE]

Verification