(MM2) WotC violates the OGL...

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: OGL issues with MM2

By your logic, because the d20 SRD is OGC, anything Wizards produces must also be OGC, as it is derivative of the SRD.

Are you sure?

*Puts on devil's advocate hat*

Suppose for a moment that what WotC publishes is based on an internal document (call it the "meta-SRD") or the PH, DMG, and MM.

The SRD is a derivative of that document.

WotC publishes the SRD for others, who must derive their material from the SRD, making all rules material OGC. But they themselves derive their material from the Meta-SRD, which means it is NOT necessarily Open Game Content since the Meta-SRD is not itself OGC - and their material, while compatible with the SRD, is derived instead from the Meta-SRD.

Likely? No. Possible? Yes. In fact, one could argue that the SRD is a derivative of the PH, DMG, and MM - none of which are under the OGL, no?

Basically, the simple answer is, "It is WotC's copyrighted material, and the Open Game License applies to *others* using their material, not to them using their own material as they see fit."

For instance, if I derive something B from my own work A, I need not credit A as a source for B (though I might do so for shameless plug purposes). It's my stuff and I *am* allowed to do what I want with it.

Another point of clarification - just because I publish something original as OGC in publication A, I am not forced to publish it as OGC in publication B (though there is no real reason not to). Look at the OGL/OGC in this light and it may help:

The OGL does NOT trump copyright law. Copyright law states that in order to use someone else's material, you must have written permission from them.

The OGL basically says, "subject to the following conditions, I give everyone written permission to use the stuff called OGC." Basically, it fulfills for the other guy the need to get your written permission - though he must follow your rules.

Here is my understanding of the way it works (and I may be wrong) - If I release rules material A and fluffy fiction story B as OGC in publication C, only one thing prevents me from turning around and coming to a different agreement for someone writing publication D - the issue of derivative work. Rules material A is ostensibly a derivative of the SRD and must therefore stay under the OGL, as the SRD itself is under the OGL.

Fluffy fiction story B is NOT derivative work, though. I hold the original creative rights to it and therefore I am not relying on the OGL to get permission to publish it. I have permission because I am the copyright holder and can work out other agreements as I see fit.

--The Sigil

 

[MerricB]

Re: Re: Re: OGL issues with MM2

Whoa, I must have missed that in his post. You wouldn't mind explaining would you?

Look at this:

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, much of the d20 system rules have been released as OGC, thus anything d20 system must be OGC, surely? You can't use it except by terms of the license, including if you own it?

Nope. Ownership comes first, and you can make up a separate agreement.

There are three ways you can use material that has been released as OGC:
* You own it. No license needed.
* You use it via the terms of the Open Gaming License.
* You enter into a separate agreement with the owner.

Wizards have muddied the water by using the third option, then attaching the OGL to the material, fooling some people into thinking they used it under the terms of the OGL. Nope!

Note that the first option above is unavailable to many people because of the derivative nature of the OGC (From the d20 system SRD). The only people who can release such derivative material without the OGL are Wizards of the Coast, or people with a seperate licensing agreement from WotC to do so.

Disclaimers: See your lawyer before publishing. I am not a lawyer.

Cheers!

 

[Orcus]

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.

Well, hard to say. I think they identify the two renamed CC monsters as OGC. I might be wrong, I dont have the book yet. If they did, then they are distributing OGC and needed to put MM2 info in Section 15.

If they just said "these are OGC from SSS's Creature Collection" then they dont need to put CC1 info in Section 15.

And even if they had to, they did it right--because WE didnt put CC1 info in Section 15. The license says they have to do ours exactly. They would be violation the license to have added it. A funny connundrum that I think they solved well by dropping boxed text by the monsters and explaining that they were OGC (or so I am told by Scott).

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.

Right. See above. They are not at liberty to fix our boo boo. The license says they have to do it exactly.

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.)

Thanks! And a corrected version is in the works.

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.

Not correct. As creator, I can license any non-derivative content in any fashion I want. For example, lets say I create the Scary Lands campaign setting and stat it out for d20 and release it under the OGL. I am still the creator and copyright holder of the Scary Lands and if Steve Jackson wants to license the Scary Lands from me for a GURPS supplement, we can do that. No need to use the OGL.

Though perhaps we are talking apples and oranges. It is true that you cant agree to violate the OGL. But remember that I dont have to use the OGL to license my non-derivative content. So you dont have to violate the content to agree to let someone else use that content. I know this gets a bit confusing...

Clark

 

[Tir Gwaith]

Not correct. As creator, I can license any non-derivative content in any fashion I want. For example, lets say I create the Scary Lands campaign setting and stat it out for d20 and release it under the OGL. I am still the creator and copyright holder of the Scary Lands and if Steve Jackson wants to license the Scary Lands from me for a GURPS supplement, we can do that. No need to use the OGL.

Though perhaps we are talking apples and oranges. It is true that you cant agree to violate the OGL. But remember that I dont have to use the OGL to license my non-derivative content. So you dont have to violate the content to agree to let someone else use that content. I know this gets a bit confusing...

Clark, I think we are talking Apples and Oranges.

I've exchanged Emails with AV, and it seems they licenced/made and agreement with you on using your non-OGC monster (IP) and released it with their book. Which means they didn't have to open it up with the OGL (since they own the other aspect, the d20 System stuff) unless you stipulated that in your agreement. Not sure if they needed your approval to open it up (a version of your IP) or not. Not a lawyer.

That makes sense. Very muddy, IMO, but correct. Except they released using the OGL. They could release it as derivative (via OGC), or new (via IP). They are releasing "new" content using the OGL, having licenced the IP from you or something to that effect. Now, they can do that 2 ways, if I read it correctly.

1) release "new" content into the OGC pool, by listing their work in Section 15 according to Sec. 6's rules. (Name of work, Copyright date, Copyright holder)
2) use your OGC material, call it a derivative work, and include the exact statement from the CC1's Sec. 15 ("d20 System Refernce Document, Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.")

I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see a way to NOT include some (non-SRD) OGC without a reference to where it came from in the Section 15 (unless the original source had NO entry under Sec. 15, which doesn't apply in this case.)

Clark, I'm eager to hear your opinion on this after you get your hands on a copy of the MM2. Cause to me, it looks like they made the same mistake you did several years ago when you released the CC1. Okay, a lot of publishers have made that mistake over the years.. But everyone learns.


DISCLAIMER: This is MY opinion. I am not a lawyer (though I think I need to retain one), and these are not the opinions of the PCGen Team.

 

[Lela]

At this point, I'm feeling good about my decission not to go into law. Teaching elementary school is looking better and better all the time.