[LPJDesign] OGL 3.5 logo created to replace D20 Logo for 3rd Party Publishers

[Nellisir]

See, this is exactly the kind of thing I though Section 7 forbade. I thought you could not make any claims of compatibility with another system.

Mongoose would need to officially adopt it and license it in "another, independent Agreement" - it's not impossible. Heck, it's not even difficult. I don't know if Mongoose would adopt it, but if they did, it'd be nice to have "OGL: Runquest Compatible", etc, etc.

Wow. Deja vu post.

 

[HinterWelt]

Mongoose would need to officially adopt it and license it in "another, independent Agreement" - it's not impossible. Heck, it's not even difficult. I don't know if Mongoose would adopt it, but if they did, it'd be nice to have "OGL: Runquest Compatible", etc, etc.

Wow. Deja vu post.

Um, yeah, that is what I am saying. Like claiming your book is compatible with 3.5. You would need the STL...So, how is this logo not violating the compatibility clause? Again, I hope you prove me wrong here as I would love to claim compatibility with with d20 on some of my books.

Bill

 

[Goblinoid Games]

Um, yeah, that is what I am saying. Like claiming your book is compatible with 3.5. You would need the STL...So, how is this logo not violating the compatibility clause? Again, I hope you prove me wrong here as I would love to claim compatibility with with d20 on some of my books.

Bill

I'm not sure if I understand your concern, so please correct me if I'm wrong here. The STL allows one to indicate compatibility with the d20 trademark (which has been poorly defended I might add, but that is a topic for another discussion), not compatibility with the numbers "3.5". The clause you quoted (it seems to me) refers to claiming compatibility with someone else's product identity. The term "3.5" has not been designated as product identity, and it is not a trademark. That clause from the OGL, as I read it, does not mean you can't say anything about compatibility in general. Only compatibility with PI and someone else's trademark. Of course you should just hire a lawyer if you want a better interpretation. Of course you can't say "RuneQuest" without permission, but edition numbers that are not part of a trademarked (and product identity) term should be fair game.

Also keep in mind that technically, the clause only refers to product identity when we're dealing with nontrademarked terms. That means it must be designated as PI under the OGL, since "product identity" outside of that context is meaningless. As long as you are not dealing with trademarks, the issue is PI as defined and designated under the OGL.

 

[Nellisir]

Um, yeah, that is what I am saying. Like claiming your book is compatible with 3.5. You would need the STL...So, how is this logo not violating the compatibility clause? Again, I hope you prove me wrong here as I would love to claim compatibility with with d20 on some of my books.

Goblinoid Games said it pretty well, but I'll try again.

1) IANAL. Needs to be said for clarity.

2) The OGL forbids using PI to indicate compatibility without a separate agreement.

3) "3.5" is not PI. It's not anything. It has an implied meaning to you and to alot of other gamers because we're accustomed to thinking "3.5 Edition Dungeons & Dragons", but "3.5" by itself has no meaning. It could be a computer language. It could be a Shadowrun variant. It's essentially the same as "Compatible with the World's Most Popular RPG" or "Compatible with the 3.5 Edition of the World's Most Popular RPG" (both of which I've seen on OGL products) - D&D is -implied-, but not stated. Implicit, not explicit.

4) d20 is product identity. You can't indicate explicit compatibility with "d20" without the d20 STL. But, again, 3.5 does NOT equal d20, just as "World's Most Popular RPG" does NOT equal D&D.

5) Runequest is also PI (I assume). You couldn't just go and create an OGL:Runequest logo. HOWEVER, Mongoose could certainly create a Runequest STL that allowed you to use exactly such a logo. Action! could do likewise. True20, as of a week or so ago, allows you to say something like "compatible with True20" and use a True20 logo (see the website for details). They could easily add this as a variant logo - OGL:True20 Compatible.

I think you're assuming any reference to D&D, however veiled, is off-limits, and that's not the case. It might be the moral or ethical case, but it's not the legal case.

Here are the PI terms from the SRD - note there is absolutely no reference to edition in any of them: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, d20 (when used as a trademark), Forgotten Realms, Faerûn, proper names (including those used in the names of spells or items), places, Red Wizard of Thay, the City of Union, Heroic Domains of Ysgard, Ever-Changing Chaos of Limbo, Windswept Depths of Pandemonium, Infinite Layers of the Abyss, Tarterian Depths of Carceri, Gray Waste of Hades, Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, Nine Hells of Baator, Infernal Battlefield of Acheron, Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia, Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, Twin Paradises of Bytopia, Blessed Fields of Elysium, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Olympian Glades of Arborea, Concordant Domain of the Outlands, Sigil, Lady of Pain, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti.

 

[Nellisir]

Also, the clause means "you may not use Product Identity to claim compatibility", NOT "you may not claim compatibility". It's called out because I think (and I could be wrong), you ordinarily -can- use someone else's trademark to indicate compatibility.

 

[HinterWelt]

I'm not sure if I understand your concern, so please correct me if I'm wrong here. The STL allows one to indicate compatibility with the d20 trademark (which has been poorly defended I might add, but that is a topic for another discussion), not compatibility with the numbers "3.5". The clause you quoted (it seems to me) refers to claiming compatibility with someone else's product identity. The term "3.5" has not been designated as product identity, and it is not a trademark. That clause from the OGL, as I read it, does not mean you can't say anything about compatibility in general. Only compatibility with PI and someone else's trademark. Of course you should just hire a lawyer if you want a better interpretation. Of course you can't say "RuneQuest" without permission, but edition numbers that are not part of a trademarked (and product identity) term should be fair game.

Also keep in mind that technically, the clause only refers to product identity when we're dealing with nontrademarked terms. That means it must be designated as PI under the OGL, since "product identity" outside of that context is meaningless. As long as you are not dealing with trademarks, the issue is PI as defined and designated under the OGL.

O.k. Sounds like folks are fine with it, so good. If you guys don't remember all the "compatible with the worlds most popular fantasy RPG" dodges that went on in marketing text. If you did not see any of that you might think I am coming out of left field here.

Sorry for the false alarm but I will most likely side with my lawyer just to be on the safe side. Besides, I don't have that much d20 content to worry about and am moving more toward True20 support anyway.

Thanks,
Bill

 

[Big Mac]

It's very nice. i just have one thought. Are you advertising the OGL or 3.5? I'd think that 3.5 should be bigger in the place where OGL is. Now that WoTC has abandoned the OGL, the OGL wll continue to be used for more diverse games, from Runequest to Traveller and onward. It just seems to me that continuing to try to associate OGL with meaning d20 compatible is going to be counterproductive in the future.

I'd agree with that. Customers are looking for things that work with the "3.5 SRD". Pushing the SRD (the fantasy rules) as a system name would be better than pushing the OGL (a licence) as a brand name. I think it might also be helpful to have an alternate logo for old PDF products that are compatible with the "3.0 SRD".

As for alternate logos, people that play d20 Modern are looking for things that work with the MSRD (I don't play any more, so don't know if there are different versions).

EDIT: I wish that Louis Porter Jr. Design had said "d20 System logo" instead of "d20 logo" in their blurb. "d20" is the name of a 20 sided die and is not a trademark of WotC, but they seem to want to control it. If their lawyers can argue that people infer "d20 System" from "d20" they can try to claim ownership of the type of die.

I am not trying to rain on this and I am not a lawyer, but doesn't this violate this part of the OGL?

: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity.

Bill

There is actually no game system called "3.5 System", so in a legal sense I would say this logo is pretty meaningless. Now if everyone assumes that 3.5 System refers to the 3.5 SRD then people will infer a meaning for this logo, but AFAIK that isn't a trademark.

 

[Goblinoid Games]

I wish that Louis Porter Jr. Design had said "d20 System logo" instead of "d20 logo" in their blurb. "d20" is the name of a 20 sided die and is not a trademark of WotC, but they seem to want to control it. If their lawyers can argue that people infer "d20 System" from "d20" they can try to claim ownership of the type of die.

You know, I've actually wondered for a long time if the whole "d20 system" trademark thing is just a "throw away" trademark. I mean, lets face it, so many publishers have actually obscured the trademark countless times by stating in product descriptions something along the lines of "this d20/OGL book...".

AFAIK, WoTC has never stepped in to defend their d20 system trademark, have they? Have they ever come in and said, "this is a misuse of the d20 trademark" or "stop equating d20 with OGL"? Is the "d20" trademark actually even a viable trademark? It looks to me like it is really just a buffer between publishers and the D&D trademark, so even if the d20 trademark is obscured into meaninglessness, no one cares, it leaves D&D untouched.

 

[JustaPlayer]

You know, I've actually wondered for a long time if the whole "d20 system" trademark thing is just a "throw away" trademark. I mean, lets face it, so many publishers have actually obscured the trademark countless times by stating in product descriptions something along the lines of "this d20/OGL book...".

AFAIK, WoTC has never stepped in to defend their d20 system trademark, have they? Have they ever come in and said, "this is a misuse of the d20 trademark" or "stop equating d20 with OGL"? Is the "d20" trademark actually even a viable trademark? It looks to me like it is really just a buffer between publishers and the D&D trademark, so even if the d20 trademark is obscured into meaninglessness, no one cares, it leaves D&D untouched.

They stopped The Book of Erotic Fantasy from receiving the d20 logo. Also, Conan was going to get the logo but could not because of the boarder.

They have also defended their PI by going after Fast Forward Entertainment.