Is the Unearthed Arcana SRD online?

[reiella]

Well, here's what it says in UA...

Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), artwork, trade dress, and the names and game statistics for the following monsters: beholder, displacer beast, gauth, githyanki, mind flayer, slass, umber hulk, and yuan-ti.

Open Content: Except for the material designated as Product Identity (see above) and the githyanki/githzerai, slaad, and yuan-ti bloodlines in Chapter 1, the contents of this WIZARDS OF THE COAST game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Gaming License Version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission.

HTH

The definitions on the license page are a bit less friendly to the assumption that art is open content... Especially given that 'depictions' and 'poses' are both listed as PI. The definition of Open Game Content also implies that only game mechanics may be defined as OGC (although the veracity of that is questionable).

Regardless, a third party "SRD-esque" writeup (like the 3.5SRD Html thingies I'd guess) for UA would be nifty.

 

[Ranger REG]

So if someone wants to use material from UA...they may actually need to buy the book?

Pure evil!

It's no more evil than the other third-party, non-WotC d20 products.

Of course, other than Guardians of Order, I have yet to see other third-party d20/OGL publishers offering their own SRDs. Hmm?

 

[Campbell]

I would be willing to host a UA SRD under my domain name.

 

[woodelf]

The definitions on the license page are a bit less friendly to the assumption that art is open content... Especially given that 'depictions' and 'poses' are both listed as PI. The definition of Open Game Content also implies that only game mechanics may be defined as OGC (although the veracity of that is questionable).

Regardless, a third party "SRD-esque" writeup (like the 3.5SRD Html thingies I'd guess) for UA would be nifty.

Read a bit more closely: the PI declaration [in Unearthed Arcana] explicitly says that all artwork (among other things) is claimed as PI.

As for the license terms themselves: it's something that's been hashed out over a couple of years on the OGF list, and the consensus is that anything can be declared OGC, but that which is derivative of OGC must be; and anything which is not required to be OGC may be declared PI. Basically, consensus is that the two lists (in the definitions of PI and OGC) are exemplary, not definitive.

 

[woodelf]

I don't own a copy, but if someone scans and OCRs it, i'll take the time to make it match my PDF of the D20SRD. (i believe it's mirrored on the SRD project webpage, and it's on our [The Impossible Dream's] webpage, but that's currently down 'cause we need a new harddrive.)

Really, one person should be able to OCR the whole thing in a weekend or so--good OCR software is better than 99% accurate these days with very smart spellcheckers that can pretty much make up that last percent, and it's only a couple hundred pages. And the OCR-er doesn't need to fix the PI-ness--just give me the entire raw text, and i'll gladly strip (or strip-n-replace) the PI. Heck, i may even check around and see if a friend owns a copy and doesn't mind me abusing the binding to OCR it myself. Maybe. Don't hold your breath on that one.

 

[Fester]

the consensus is that anything can be declared OGC, but that which is derivative of OGC must be

Interesting interpretation. I'd be interested to see any discussion threads on this, if you could point me in the right direction.

Looking at the license, I don't see where that interpretation comes from, though I'll admit to not having any expert knowledge in the area.

This is slightly off topic, but the relevant sections (it seems to me) in the license concerning OGC are:

2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.

and

6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.

and

10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.

My reading of those sections is that you can use OGC, but are not required to declare your own product as OGC. OGC material used must be declared in the license, but remains OGC. You are also required to include a copy of the license with any products that uses OGC.

Of course, the word derivative is ambiguous, so I may have misinterpreted what you meant by it. My interpretation of what you're saying is that pretty much anything that uses the SRD is a derivative of it and hence is required to be OGC - and that doesn't seem right. Excsue me if I'm just being dumb and that isn't what you meant.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Interesting interpretation. I'd be interested to see any discussion threads on this, if you could point me in the right direction.

www.opengamingfoundation.org

There's about 4+ years of email archives discussing, debating, analyzing, and disecting the topic.

Looking at the license, I don't see where that interpretation comes from, though I'll admit to not having any expert knowledge in the area.

Open Content is defined in Section 1D:

"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.

So, by "any additional content clearly identified as...", anything can be declared OGC.

This is slightly off topic, but the relevant sections (it seems to me) in the license concerning OGC are:

...

and

...

and

My reading of those sections is that you can use OGC, but are not required to declare your own product as OGC. OGC material used must be declared in the license, but remains OGC. You are also required to include a copy of the license with any products that uses OGC.

Of course, the word derivative is ambiguous, so I may have misinterpreted what you meant by it. My interpretation of what you're saying is that pretty much anything that uses the SRD is a derivative of it and hence is required to be OGC - and that doesn't seem right. Excsue me if I'm just being dumb and that isn't what you meant.

"Derivitive" is not ambiguous: It is defined in Section 1b as...

(b) "Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted;

 

[Swiftbrook]

-snip- sorry

-Swiftbrook

 

[Fester]

www.opengamingfoundation.org

There's about 4+ years of email archives discussing, debating, analyzing, and disecting the topic.

Thanks. I'll go and have a look.

"Derivitive" is not ambiguous: It is defined in Section 1b as...

Yep. I'd call that well defined

Thanks again.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

No problem!

And welcome to the wonderful world of Open Gaming.