Is this legal?

[Vraille Darkfang]

I'm still waiting for someone to point up the big red flag on the legal page of that site. As to other legal issues with it, the front page is a minefiled of problems.

As someone who doesn't know alot about how the OGL actually works. I'm a gamer not a publisher, so I just homebrew all sorts of stuff that if I actually published would get me sued into oblivion by who knows how many compaines. I use the products as a end user. I can stick the city of Sharn and Green Ronin's Mindshadows into my game if I want to.

All the legal mumbo-jumbo is part of the reason I've never even tried to become a d20 publisher.

That said, It looks like he just Copy/Pasted Wizard's Legal Notice. Which includes all the FR/Greyhawk, etc exclusions. That intro paragraph is a non-no. Right?

 

[Altalazar]

Altalazar, you're talking about general copyright law, but the issue here is meeting the requirements of a specific license. (or two, actually- the OGL and d20.)

I also posted ways to completely bypass any issue of the license, by not using 1000 as the base units in the formula. Or by making it something the user of the web page can plug in.

And some things cannot be contracted away under the law.
Also, keep in mind that a mathematical formula cannot be copyrighted, so use of it is not using something wizards has any legal right to claim for itself. Systems cannot be copyrighted. You can copyright your description of how to USE a system, but the system itself is not copyrightable and someone else can write their own, original description of how to use it.

Basically, what the OGL seems to boil down to is a license to let you use some of the copyrighted content you would not otherwise be able to use in exchange for not using other copyrighted content. To try to stretch that to non-use of non-copyrightable content probably just isn't going to cut it.

 

[Mark CMG]

The original poster asked a question about adding a specific feature to his web page, involving experience points. What you are talking about adds no clarity to that issue.

Of course it does. There are a pile of violations that should first be cleared up in order to help the site owner address adding anything new while avoiding more violations of the licenses. It does no good to try and explain what is in violation in regard to something new when there is clearly a lack of understanding in regard to the multiple violations already elsewhere on the site.

Essentially, what you've said is that you know you're right and I'm wrong and just trust you, you do it for a living.

Actually, I'm suggesting you read and understand the licenses before you give advice. I don't need you to trust me. Trusting me is not at issue. I'm certain once you have an understanding of the licenses and how they function I won't need to tell you what is wrong with what you have already suggested.

 

[Mark CMG]

That said, It looks like he just Copy/Pasted Wizard's Legal Notice. Which includes all the FR/Greyhawk, etc exclusions. That intro paragraph is a non-no. Right?

Yupper! Simply ignored the part where it says "(don't mention these things)" (the PI designation) by copying it verbatim and adding it directly to the website.

 

[Altalazar]

Of course it does. There are a pile of violations that should first be cleared up in order to help the site owner address adding anything new while avoiding more violations of the licenses. It does no good to try and explain what is in violation in regard to something new when there is clearly a lack of understanding in regard to the multiple violations already elsewhere on the site.



Actually, I'm suggesting you read and understand the licenses before you give advice. I don't need you to trust me. Trusting me is not at issue. I'm certain once you have an understanding of the licenses and how they function I won't need to tell you what is wrong with what you have already suggested.

Wow, with non-answers like that, you should try and get confirmed as a Supreme Court justice.

I see no problem with his legal notice page. If he accidentally pasted in too much there, it still wouldn't cause him any problems. It says right in there you need to include the text of the license as part of the license. So, if you take that to court, where does it really begin? I could easily argue it begins where the web page owner seems to think it does. Even if that is not the intention of the OGL creators, it is reasonable and there is no harm in the extra text, which really does nothing more than explain further rights that are exclusive to Wizards, and is therefore ultimately harmless. At worst, he'd get a notice to cut out the extraneous text. It should be pretty clear he's made a good faith, reasonable effort to include the text of the license, as it states as a requirement. Never forget that when it comes to contracts, you are in a court of equity.

 

[Mark CMG]

Wow, with non-answers like that, you should try and get confirmed as a Supreme Court justice. .

I'd go a different way. It's more like me having a debate about the taste of chocolate with someone who has never had any and refuses to try it but claims to know more about it than a chocolate manufacturer.

I see no problem with his legal notice page.

It's the unauthorized use of PI as directly copied from the legal file of the SRD from WotC.


Yum. Chocolate.

 

[Altalazar]

I'd go a different way. It's more like me having a debate about the taste of chocolate with someone who has never had any and refuses to try it but claims to know more about it than a chocolate manufacturer.

It's the unauthorized use of PI as directly copied from the legal file of the SRD from WotC.

Yum. Chocolate.

I read the page. I've also read about contract and copyright law.

The PI listing is nothing more than a list of what is owned by Wizards. It is part of the text about the OGL and how it works. There is right in there a requirement to include the entire text of the OGL as part of its use. Where does that text begin? I could certainly make a very good argument that it begins where the web page has it begin. There certainly seems to be no attempt to capatlize on or use any of those PI items - it merely lists them as property of Wizards. And it is plausible that that listing is part of what is required by the license to be included as part of its use. Good luck finding a court to come to a different conclusion.

Again, you have said nothing about contract or copyright law, which leads me to suspect that you know little about either. Unless you care to share something more substantial than you have.

 

[Rasyr]

Looking at your site, no you cannot legally make an xp calculator while using the OGL/D20 STL. At least not without permission from WotC. Perhaps it would be easiest for you to just email Charles Ryan and ask him for permission.

However, if you had a site that did not use the OGL or the d20STL, you might (and I stress, MIGHT) be able to do it through the "Fair Use" clauses in copyright law. When yoo use the OGL, you give up those "Fair Use" rights.

 

[Mark CMG]

(snip)

I can't argue with you. Feel free to offer your services to their webmaster as a legal advisor and best of luck to you.

 

[Nellisir]

The PI listing is nothing more than a list of what is owned by Wizards. It is part of the text about the OGL and how it works. There is right in there a requirement to include the entire text of the OGL as part of its use. Where does that text begin? I could certainly make a very good argument that it begins where the web page has it begin.

Maybe you could, but the consensus of the OGL publishing community is that the OGL begins under the header "Open Game License", not some arbitrary number of paragraphs beforehand.

Getting back the matter at hand...you might be able to include an OGC (not d20) XP calculator if you can find an OGC source with an OGC XP table. Conan, Thieves World, and the Black Company are the only three I can think of off hand, but there are more. I don't know what Mongoose's Pocket Player Handbook includes, but that's another possibility.

Cheers
Nell.