Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 2811284" data-attributes="member: 2013">Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.Technically, Wulf's expression of Open Game Content is valid and correct per 1.d of the OGL - Open Game Content can take one of two forms (note the joining "and" in the original) - it might be better parsed thusly:Since Wulf did not identify additional content beyond the game mechanic, the second part is lopped off, leaving us with:It seems to me, however, that such a designation is entirely unnecessary except in the case where a patent has been granted on the game mechanic, method, procedure, process or routine. Game mechanics themselves cannot be copyrighted, though certain game mechanics might be patentable (e.g., Magic: The Gathering's "card-tapping and associated effects on other cards in play" patent).  This means that, absent a patent on the mechanics, anyone is free to use the mechanics with or without the Open Game License, because doing so violates neither patent nor copyright laws.  The OGL is designed to grant additional rights beyond those normally allowed by copyright (and patent) laws - but imposes some restrictions along with those rights.  Releasing a game mechanic as OGC only grants additional rights to the "second-generation user" is when the mechanic is patented... otherwise it's a useless exercise, as the second-generation user already had the right to use the material!  It should also be noted that a second-generation user can access non-patent game mechanics released under the OGL without following the terms of OGL itself, as he does not breach copyright in doing so.The only time in which it seems (to me) useful to use the OGL in conjunction with non-patented game mechanics is when you also release "additional material marked as OGC" in the form of your copyrighted description of how the game mechanic works.  When someone borrows that description, which IS protected by copyright, they are then forced to work under the OGL.  If you don't release it, you do not and in fact cannot force people to work under the OGL.I am going to assume here that Wulf did not patent his game mechanic.  Therefore, his release of the game mechanic under the Open Game License is entirely unnecessary; the game mechanic itself can be accessed without fear of copyright infringement, AND without resorting to the use of the OGL.  Without releasing copyrighted material as "Additional OGC above and beyond the game mechanic," Wulf, for all intents and purposes, your book is published without the Open Game License, as there is no material that requires acceptance of the terms of the OGL for re-use.Short of not understanding the terms and purpose of the OGL or trying to deceive customers that you are supportive of Open Gaming by including the OGL on a product which doesn't need it (neither a motive which I can impute to Wulf), the only reason I can think of for including the OGL with the work is as some sort of statement that "I think open gaming is so important that I include mention of it in all my products, whether I need to or not."I can find no nitpick on the designation on a legal level (other than it's a completely unnecessary inclusion).  On a personal level, it rather annoys me to have a product advertising itself as containing Open Content when in reality it gives me no more re-usable material than *any* other RPG book, including those not published under the OGL.  Unless, of course, Wulf *has* patented his game mechanic, in which case I'm not as annoyed because it DOES give me more usable material than I had before.I'd still be somewhat annoyed, though, on the contention that those who truly support the Open Gaming philosophy will be asking themselves, "what is the maximum amount of stuff I can designate as Open Game Content" (I understand that usually doesn't include rights to art, etc., and I also understand wanting to protect trademarks, etc., but it should IMO be kept to a minimum - just enough so that you can have a "signature" that identifies you as the person distributing a given piece of work) rather than "what is the minimum amount of stuff" and make designations accordingly. Of course, I'm probably a bit idealistic in this (and I know I am - though I am not naive enough to work in the real world as though it WAS an idealistic world, I still think the ideal is better than the reality), but that's how I feel about it.  There's an old zen proverb to the effect of "that which one cannot live without is not something that is owned, but rather something that owns you" and it bothers me to see just how many writers, publishers, etc. are owned/enslaved by words on a page that they - or even someone else - wrote years ago (this extends beyond the RPG community and into all companies/people that hold copyrights on long-ago written works).  It's just not healthy IMO.--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification