Legal Eagle ft Matt Colville on the OGL

[Willie the Duck]

The main point is that you don't need permission, at all, to make homebrew and 3rd party adventures for 5e.

Which is fine, but if you don't want to fix post #6, why did you say in #8 that is was fixed?

 

[Reynard]

I like LE, and this was a good, informative video as usual, but he was definitely out of his element. I was super surprised he never once mentioned Paizo or Pathfinder.

 

[see]

The main point is that you don't need permission, at all, to make homebrew and 3rd party adventures for 5e.

The biggest problem with "you don't need the OGL to be compatible" is that it leans heavily on what the OGL declares is always OGC, and not on the "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor".

Yes, it is entirely possible to make things that are mechanically compatible with D&D without a license. On the other hand, there's a substantial amount of lore, particularly around monsters, in both the SRDs and the Tome of Horrors that, if you try to reproduce without a license, is going to get you in trouble.

People can sit back and tell me that Pathfinder 2 is not dependent on the OGL all they like. I look at the Bestiary, and I see things like the devil/daemon/demon distinction being a law/neutral/chaos distinction, the lawful ones living in Hell and the chaotic ones living in the Abyss, and a long list of which beings by what name are which kind and their appearances and relative power levels. And I'm looking at a lot of material quite directly based on a substantial body of creative work under WotC copyright.

 

[Reynard]

The biggest problem with "you don't need the OGL to be compatible" is that it leans heavily on what the OGL declares is always OGC, and not on the "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor".

If you don't use the OGL, you don't need to care what the OGL says. You only need to care what intellectual property law says. But here's the thing: the OGL provided certainty, which is essential to running a business. So while, sure, you could make D&D compatible adventures just by fair use or whatever, you couldn't predict whether a large corporation would come down on you for it, right or wrong. So people -- hundreds, thousands probably -- built businesses and livelihoods on the OGL.

The argument LE makes about game rules and copyright may well be correct, but it is irrelevant to those that did in fact build their businesses and livelihoods on the OGL. THAT is what all of this sturm and drang is about.

 

[Haplo781]

That the mechanics are uncopyrightable is not in question.

The sticky wicket is whether terminology such as the six ability scores, saving throws, etc. are considered such.

 

[Reynard]

That the mechanics are uncopyrightable is not in question.

The sticky wicket is whether terminology such as the six ability scores, saving throws, etc. are considered such.

Right. Sure, you can make an adventure and just say "three goblins (hp 3, 5, 6)" but can you put a full statblock in?

 

[see]

If you don't use the OGL, you don't need to care what the OGL says. You only need to care what intellectual property law says.

Well, yes, but the stuff that the OGL says is always OGC is the stuff least protected by copyright, the raw rules and mechanics. Thus the statements by people like Legal Eagle, the EFF, Cory Doctrow, and many others that the OGL didn't really give people anything, based on their looking at what was specifically enumerated in the OGL.

The problem is that they're overlooking the "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor" clause, treating that as negligible. But it isn't. Over and beyond mere "certainty", the OGL licenses as OGC a lot of proprietary creative work under that clause.

 

[Greggy C]

NO.

INCORRECT.

Why is Professor Mcgonny in every single thread 50 times.

I gave up searching for Matt Colville in this video.
Hats off to the lawyer for his amazing marketing ability on youtube, bit too brutal for me though watching someone that just chases headlines.

 

[mellored]

Which is fine, but if you don't want to fix post #6, why did you say in #8 that is was fixed?

What part is wrong now?

 

[Reynard]

Well, yes, but the stuff that the OGL says is always OGC is the stuff least protected by copyright, the raw rules and mechanics. Thus the statements by people like Legal Eagle, the EFF, Cory Doctrow, and many others that the OGL didn't really give people anything, based on their looking at what was specifically enumerated in the OGL.

The problem is that they're overlooking the "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor" clause, treating that as negligible. But it isn't. Over and beyond mere "certainty", the OGL licenses as OGC a lot of proprietary creative work under that clause.

It's about expression. You can say a wizard in your adventure can cast "magic missile." And you can say "magic missile creates three bolts that unerringly strike their targets for 1d4+1 hit points of force damage" but if you wanted to repeat the SRD description of magic missile word for word, you would need the OGL.