(MM2) WotC violates the OGL...
- Thread starter The Sigil
- Start date
Nellisir
Hero
Orcus said:As for WotC's Section 15, I havent seen the book, but it would be hard for them to use ours since we did it wrong(and yes, this was due to inexperience and being the first major distributor of OGC because remember the CC came out before the MM and DMG).
Irregardless of how wrong you were in your execution, it seems to me WotC should have put -something- under the S.15 in MM2 -besides- the SRD accreditation. The entirety of the text of those two monsters is identified as OGC (including the names), and the S.15 only credits the SRD. There is a copyright notice at the top of the page that says Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, but it doesn't reference S.15 and is not referenced from there.
Nell.
Who just realized it's raining again.
S.6 is the relevent section of the OGL v1.0a, and it's pretty straightforward. You update S.15 to reflect the S.15 of any OGC you use, and "...You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name..." to the S.15 of any of any OGC you distribute. If Clark holds the copyright to the razor boar and the scorpionfolk, then WotC should have updated S.15 to reflect that, whether or not it was done correctly initially. WotC can play with their own stuff however they want, but they can't revoke the OGL, and they can't use other copyright holder's OGC without following the OGL*.
*They could reach an agreement with a copyright holder to use his material outside of the OGL, but then it's not OGC, they can't declare it OGC, and the OGL doesn't apply.
Nell.
(edited to add postscript and delete an sentence).
Last edited:
freebfrost
Explorer
Nightfall said:
Now there is something that I would pay good money to own. I think the S&S guys need to get a hold of Toyvault and compete with the Cthulhu plush doll!
Tir Gwaith
First Post
OGL issues with MM2
I'm going to email Anthony V about this. However, I have several points to make on this discussion, coming from one who has studied in depth the nuances of the OGL and d20stl and d20 System Guide in the past month.
1) The OGL for the MM2 only has to include the stuff from CC1 in it's Section 15, since the MM2 has no "Original OGC." See the OGL v1.0a, Section 6.
2) MM2 should list the entirety of the CC1's OGL Sec. 15. Which is, by the way, "d20 System Refernce Document Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc." SSS messed up when they did it by not including themselves in the Section 15 as per Sec. 6. WotC can not be held under scrutiny because of another Publisher's mistake.
I'm not bashing SSS. They did a humdinger of a job getting it out before the MM and DMG came out. I can't wait till the reprint comes out and they've fixed a lot of the errors in it. I'll be buying the version that comes out soon (according to the Mortality.net radio show.)
3) Wizards and SSS CAN NOT make a separate agreement that violates the OGL, without going into violation themselves. Please refer to OGL Sec. 2. (both v.1.0 and v.1.0a) "No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described in the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License." The two monsters in question were open Game Content under v.1.0. Things effecting them must follow the OGL, and the OGL only.
Now, they can have some other agreement in effect, but that can not have influence on items that are already OGC. For example, Wizards could have paid SSS for the use of the content. That would have no bearing on the OGC.
I hope to see Errata from Wizards on this.
This is whole MY own opinion, and not that of the PCGen Team.
I'm going to email Anthony V about this. However, I have several points to make on this discussion, coming from one who has studied in depth the nuances of the OGL and d20stl and d20 System Guide in the past month.
1) The OGL for the MM2 only has to include the stuff from CC1 in it's Section 15, since the MM2 has no "Original OGC." See the OGL v1.0a, Section 6.
2) MM2 should list the entirety of the CC1's OGL Sec. 15. Which is, by the way, "d20 System Refernce Document Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc." SSS messed up when they did it by not including themselves in the Section 15 as per Sec. 6. WotC can not be held under scrutiny because of another Publisher's mistake.
I'm not bashing SSS. They did a humdinger of a job getting it out before the MM and DMG came out. I can't wait till the reprint comes out and they've fixed a lot of the errors in it. I'll be buying the version that comes out soon (according to the Mortality.net radio show.)
3) Wizards and SSS CAN NOT make a separate agreement that violates the OGL, without going into violation themselves. Please refer to OGL Sec. 2. (both v.1.0 and v.1.0a) "No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described in the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License." The two monsters in question were open Game Content under v.1.0. Things effecting them must follow the OGL, and the OGL only.
Now, they can have some other agreement in effect, but that can not have influence on items that are already OGC. For example, Wizards could have paid SSS for the use of the content. That would have no bearing on the OGC.
I hope to see Errata from Wizards on this.
This is whole MY own opinion, and not that of the PCGen Team.
Re: OGL issues with MM2
Just as well, as you're dead wrong. You can use material as OGC by the terms of the OGL, or you can come to a separate agreement with the owner of the material.
By your logic, because the d20 SRD is OGC, anything Wizards produces must also be OGC, as it is derivative of the SRD.
You'd be well advised to see the logs of the Open Gaming Foundation mailing lists, where this issue has been discussed in detail.
See Orcus/Clark's comments below - if you didn't know, he's a practising lawyer in addition to everything else, and so has a better knowledge of such matters than you or I.
Cheers!
Tir Gwaith said:
Just as well, as you're dead wrong. You can use material as OGC by the terms of the OGL, or you can come to a separate agreement with the owner of the material.
By your logic, because the d20 SRD is OGC, anything Wizards produces must also be OGC, as it is derivative of the SRD.
You'd be well advised to see the logs of the Open Gaming Foundation mailing lists, where this issue has been discussed in detail.
See Orcus/Clark's comments below - if you didn't know, he's a practising lawyer in addition to everything else, and so has a better knowledge of such matters than you or I.
Cheers!
You wouldn't mind explaining would you?Similar Threads
