Is this legal?

[Sledge]

Yes you can put in an XP generator, as long as you don't use the d20 license. Just don't copy the exact description from the players handbook.

 

[Altalazar]

And everyone knows that intent matters more than anything else in a court of law...

DEFENDANT: But, your honor, I didnt INTEND to download that MP3, it was an accident!
Judge: Oh, well, then! CASE DISMISSED SIR!!!

:ROLLEYES:

Actually, intent is often an element of criminal statutes and also of many civil violations.

But then, this isn't a criminal matter. This is about compliance with a license that some might consider ambiguous about something that is rather minor - the inclusion of extra text describing more information about who owns the various pieces of the license and what isn't included. In something like this, intent matters a lot. Why do you think that extra text is included? Looking at it impartially and reasonably, would you be 51% or more certain that this was a mistaken inclusion of extra text in a good faith effort to comply with the license requirement to include the full text of the license?

Given most people's unfamiliarity with legal mumbo-jumbo, and the possible ambiguity in just what text needed to be included given that, would you concede that including that text, if it wasn't required, could have been an honest mistake? Or better yet, what possible motive would there be to include that extra text on a legal text page - what benefit would it be to the web page owner to have some extra fine print in the legal section like that? Would any users of the site find it more useful or attractive because that text was in there?

So:

1. The license is somewhat ambiguous about just what text needs to be included to comply with the license.

2. Even if one resolves that ambiguity against the web site owner, the only reasonable reason it is in there is because of a misconception and a sincere attempt to comply with the license.

Now, this is a contract claim we are talking about, so this is resolved in a court of equity. Which means intent does matter a lot - if you go in with unclean hands, so to speak, it is a far different thing than having your hands clean.
And as someone else pointed out, Wizards is the 800 lb gorilla. So it is true they can drag you through many courts even if they are totally wrong. But then courts know this, and so when it comes to resolving ambiguities like 1) above, if there is an 800 lb gorilla who wrote the license with no negotiation or input from a 50 lb weakling, like a guy making a web page in his spare time, the court will 1) resolve the ambiguity in favor of the little guy because they know the general inequity - it is basically an adhesion contract. Also, there is a general rule that ambiguous contract language is strictly construed AGAINST the drafter - because they were in control of the wording, it is their own fault if they didn't get it right.
So there are two independent legal doctrines that favor the web page owner over the corporation.

Then there is the issue of damages - which in this case, there are none, so really the only remedy the 800 lb gorilla could ask for is to terminate the license. Except that again, the alleged 'breach' is so minor, it would likely be considered non-material and insufficient reason to terminate the agreement.

So just dealing with the issue of the legal page, I'm extremely confident there is no cause for concern. Now that it has been pointed out as a possible problem, the owner can simply check to verify what exactly constitutes the license, and can update the page accordingly, if required.

Any actual lawyers here want to comment on that lay opinion?

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

Given most people's unfamiliarity with legal mumbo-jumbo, and the possible ambiguity in just what text needed to be included given that, would you concede that including that text, if it wasn't required, could have been an honest mistake? Or better yet, what possible motive would there be to include that extra text on a legal text page - what benefit would it be to the web page owner to have some extra fine print in the legal section like that? Would any users of the site find it more useful or attractive because that text was in there?

Key word is Honest. Bold Emphasis is mine.

You can make an honest mistake. Wizards sends you a letter informing you of your mistake. You ignore it. You are now informed. You are now willfully and Knowingly in violation of the Agreement.

Of course, as long as this guy's just runnning a fan site, he should be OK. As long as he doesn't make an XP calcualter and then sell it for profit, I doubt Wizards cares.

RPG's are based on social interaction. The internet is now an important part of this. the guy's fine. But, if he wants to drift into PDF publishing, he'd better brush up on the OGL.

I'm no lawyer, so I'm in the better safe than sorry camp. If Mark at Creative Mountain Games tells me it works this way. If the Legal Eaglels at Sword & Sorcery say it works this way. Then, I'll assume it works this way, as people with a lot more training than me told me "That's the way it works."

 

[Altalazar]

Key word is Honest. Bold Emphasis is mine.

You can make an honest mistake. Wizards sends you a letter informing you of your mistake. You ignore it. You are now informed. You are now willfully and Knowingly in violation of the Agreement.

Of course, as long as this guy's just runnning a fan site, he should be OK. As long as he doesn't make an XP calcualter and then sell it for profit, I doubt Wizards cares.

RPG's are based on social interaction. The internet is now an important part of this. the guy's fine. But, if he wants to drift into PDF publishing, he'd better brush up on the OGL.

I'm no lawyer, so I'm in the better safe than sorry camp. If Mark at Creative Mountain Games tells me it works this way. If the Legal Eaglels at Sword & Sorcery say it works this way. Then, I'll assume it works this way, as people with a lot more training than me told me "That's the way it works."

As of now, there is no such letter from wizards. And I hardly think complaints on a message board would be a suitable substitute. At best, he's on notice to investigate the ambiguity, assuming he is still reading this thread. But like I said, give me a MOTIVE - what is the benefit to having the extra test on the legal page. Near as I can see, there is NONE. The only plausible reason for having that text there is out of a belief that it is required by the license. Give me another reason - I bet you can't think of a reasonable one.

Yes, the bigger the fish he is, the more he has to lose and the more likely he'll get his own lawyer to deal with this.

From what I've seen, odds are that those who preach caution here do so not out of any knowledge that the OGL is potentially violated by certain behavior, but instead out of a desire not to rock the boat. And don't forget that Wizards has a stake here as well - they obviously saw monetary value in having 3rd parties create supplements / adventures / etc. If they go around suing everyong over minor things, this will have a chilling effect on those potential publishers, and they may just decide it is easiest just to stop publishing at all, thus destroying that business benefit to wizards. Which brings up another point - sometimes it pays NOT to sue, even when you do have a viable cause of action, in the interests of fostering good business relationships.

What we are talking about here is the legal page printing the license text from wizards - I'm pretty sure the few extra lines of text listing their rights wasn't their main concern when they came up with the OGL.

 

[Sage]

Ok, I've copied the following quotes into a wror document and dind't keep track of who said what, so bear with me.

have to agree that his legal page is in violation of the license since he is effective declaring all of the stuff in the list PI and declaring WOTC OGC, he can't do that only the owner of that PI and OGC can. If he didn't use the d20 logo he could create his own process of applying experience. Is it a game breaker? Probably not but he should still remove everything before the heading OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a

Actually, I dind't make the legal page (Sovelior did) and I haven't really looked at it much other than adding to the copyright notice. Anyway, I'll remove the extra text with the next update (end of discussion!).

On his home page his is declaring compatibity with Dungeon's and Dragons in a way not approved by the d20 STL (first paragraph before the Legal Disclaimer). He also declares compatibility with other WOTC games which he cannot do unless he has permission from WOTC.

Well, a legal guy from WotC has allready been over my home page and told me what to write. He didn't (IIRC) tell me to remove any stuff, other than the pictures.
Funny he didn't mention the stuff on the legal page :/

How about a ZP calculator instead of an XP calculator? Make up some term, call it "ZP" and then have the calculator generate some number. That number is NOT the same as what the XP would be, but it's some factor or multiple of it. No clues are given about how to get XP from ZP, nor is any mention made of what ZP might be for. The user has to figure it out on his own. (Oh, and it probably wouldn't be good if the formula were ZP = XP * 1.)

Look, I'm not trying to outsmart them, I want to make a straight forward: a group of 4 defeat 7 CR 3 creatures and 2 CR 2 creatures and get [insert number] XP each.

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.

Best suggestion yet. Is he a legal guy from WotC? Could you give me his e-mail? (send it to me if you don't want to post it on the public boards).

and just to keep the thread going:

(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;

Call me dumb, but is such a calculator "derivative material"?

 

[vulcan_idic]

Call me dumb, but is such a calculator "derivative material"?

Yes. That falls under the ""translations (including into other computer languages)" section - HTML, ASP, javascript, etc. (not sure how you plan on implementing it) are all considered computer languages and fall under this section of the clause.

 

[Altalazar]

Yes. That falls under the ""translations (including into other computer languages)" section - HTML, ASP, javascript, etc. (not sure how you plan on implementing it) are all considered computer languages and fall under this section of the clause.

If it is purely a process, actually, it may not be copyrightable and therefore it may not be a derivative work under copyright.

If I write a book and make up a formula in it, that formula is a process. The book and its description of how to use it can be copyrighted. The formula cannot be. Another book describing, in different words, indepedently created, could also talk about the formula or otherwise use it. As could a computer program. Because you can't copyright a process like that. To use a very basic example, if you came up with a contest and set up instructions on how to enter that, say, included using your social security number as your entry code (a bad idea these days...) your text describing the contest could be copyrighted, but the part about how to enter using the social security code could not be copyrighted - someone else is free to make their own contest using the exact same method of entering the contest. In fact, they could use the same text describing it as well, because there are only so many ways to describe such a thing.

Central to Copyright is the fact that you CANNOT copyright an idea ONLY an expression of that idea. And it is not like a patent - if someone else indpenendtly comes up with an IDENTICAL expression they can copyright it themselves and use it and there is no violation.

Because you can't copyright an idea, there are some expressions that can't be copyrighted - for instance, if an idea has only a handful (or even just one) way of being expressed, then it CANNOT be copyrighted, because then you could just write that one way or handful of ways down and you'd essentially bar anyone else from using that idea because all ways of expressing it would be under your copyright. But since you can't copyright an idea, you can't get away with that and now that idea, and all ways of expressing it, cannot be copyrighted and anyone can use any of them.

Ok, enough ... I think we've digressed enough. But I do find it telling that Wizard's legal already approved the legal page. As expected. I would suggest that you ask them about it specifically before removing any text from it, seeing that they already approved it.

 

[Janx]

Altazar, what's your background? lawyer, engineer, writer? Without knowing your background, taking your advice at face value is legal suicide.

We know Mark's, he's a publisher that has had to study the OGL.

I'm a software developer. I have real experience with the patent process, so I understand intellectual property reasonably well. I am not a lawyer, so I prefer to err on the side of caution.

As I understand it (from reading the OGL faq a while ago), the OGL grants you permission to use the SRD material, on the basis that you can't do certain things. I definitely recall the faq mentioning that they specificly intend to exclude character creation and advancement, thereby requiring use of the PHB.

So I would expect that the OGL contract (haven't read it lately) would cover that either directly or indirectly (by process of exclusion).

Therefore, while Altazar is correct that you can't copyright a process (but you can patent it), you're walking in dangerous territory. WotC specifically does NOT want people releasing character advancement info in their d20/OGL products. If you have deep pockets, you can try to skirt this and win. If you do not, then it is not worth the hassle.

A real world example of this is gamehub.com. They have an online character management tool there (I use it). They had several issues with putting non-ogl content (feat names and such) which are exactly the type of thing you need in a char-editor. WotC had some issues with the site. They have resolved things peacefully, the gist being, WotC will let you use the names of things like feats, spells and skills, but no descriptions are allowed (for closed content). They also skirted the XP table thing by making each user input their own XP table. The system would then compare your total XP to the table you entered (and saved in your account).

Just some thoughts,
Janx

 

[JimAde]

I know this is slightly off-topic but Janx's post prompts me to comment on something I've noticed.

WotC seems to have been really cool about the whole OGL thing. I mean aside from the fact of the OGL itself (which was a great idea) they seem to have really made an effort to be "good joes" about how they enforce it. I agree that Sage's best bet is probably to just contact WotC and ask them. I'm sure they're aware of his SRD, as it's one of the best HTML treatments of the thing around.

 

[Altalazar]

Altazar, what's your background? lawyer, engineer, writer? Without knowing your background, taking your advice at face value is legal suicide.

We know Mark's, he's a publisher that has had to study the OGL.

I'm a software developer. I have real experience with the patent process, so I understand intellectual property reasonably well. I am not a lawyer, so I prefer to err on the side of caution.

As I understand it (from reading the OGL faq a while ago), the OGL grants you permission to use the SRD material, on the basis that you can't do certain things. I definitely recall the faq mentioning that they specificly intend to exclude character creation and advancement, thereby requiring use of the PHB.

So I would expect that the OGL contract (haven't read it lately) would cover that either directly or indirectly (by process of exclusion).

Therefore, while Altazar is correct that you can't copyright a process (but you can patent it), you're walking in dangerous territory. WotC specifically does NOT want people releasing character advancement info in their d20/OGL products. If you have deep pockets, you can try to skirt this and win. If you do not, then it is not worth the hassle.

A real world example of this is gamehub.com. They have an online character management tool there (I use it). They had several issues with putting non-ogl content (feat names and such) which are exactly the type of thing you need in a char-editor. WotC had some issues with the site. They have resolved things peacefully, the gist being, WotC will let you use the names of things like feats, spells and skills, but no descriptions are allowed (for closed content). They also skirted the XP table thing by making each user input their own XP table. The system would then compare your total XP to the table you entered (and saved in your account).

Just some thoughts,
Janx

My legal advice is worth what you pay for it. In other words, I'm not offering a legal opinion, just telling you what I know. I was specifically focusing here on the issue of the legal page on his web page. The XP issue is a separate one, which I suggested a few things about above - namely, something similar to what you suggest, which is a table where the user can fill in the XP increments.

As far as my background, I've had classes both on contract and copyright law and I understand the basic concepts.