No ECL in the SRD. Why are d20 publishers able to use it?

[Staffan]

The thing about the OGL is that it essentially *does* replace regular copyright law. In essence, it says "As long as you don't do _________ which you could normally do, we let you do _______ which you couldn't."

 

[rpgHQ]

Please read paragraph 5 of the OGL. If you did not create the idea, you do not have the right to contribute it to OGC. The OGL trumps standard copyright law. Please do not spread disinformation about what can be done in a OGL work.

Also read Paragraph 3, which says that by using OGC you agree to the license.

How can a license of this type even be enforceable then if it trumps copyright, trademark, and patent laws? How can a document of this type give you rights and title to something that you did not have rights and title for to begin with?

There is a small number of items listed under the definition of PI that actually 95% of the time one can not claim right and title to under copyright, trademark, or patent law.

Dont get me wrong, overall the OGL is great, especially for those companies wishing to use the d20stl (use the d20 logo and all that).

I just think the wording of the OGL needs redone, most specifically section 1, in that it needs to clearly and in simple language define what is copyright, trademark, and patent instead of trying to muddle and misinform as parts of section 1 currently do. Especially parts 1d and 1e.

So to sum it up thats my only real issue with the OGL in that its wording implies rights and title to a very small number of things one would not have rights and title for to begin with.

So for myself the misinformation begins with the wording in the OGL itself, especially parts 1d and 1e which technically puts itself into a loop. you know: Item A is this except where it is defined by Item B as thus and Item B is this except where it is defined by Item A as thus. Well for a few things that causes a loop bouncing back and forth in the OGL. Why? Becuase they have decided to define a small number of things that fall under a minority(5% of the time) ability to hold copyright or trademark on and lumped it in with what falls under the majority(95% of the time) ability to hold copyright and/or trademark on.

 

[Staffan]

It doesn't "trump" it as such. It trades one thing for another. Normally, copyright law would allow you to do A, B and some elements of C - exactly what elements of C is a bit murky, and if you do something with C WOTC might sue you "in order to clear things up", which would lead to an expensive lawsuit that no-one wants (and Hasbro has more money for lawyers than you do). The OGL is saying that instead of A, B and some parts of C, you can do B, all of C, plus D and E which you definitely couldn't do under general copyright law. However, you *do* give up your rights to do A. If you really really want to do A, the OGL doesn't take away the rights to do that - you just can't do both at the same time.

 

[jmucchiello]

How can a license of this type even be enforceable then if it trumps copyright, trademark, and patent laws? How can a document of this type give you rights and title to something that you did not have rights and title for to begin with?

A license is a contract. A contract between two parties can include any number of stipulations and terms as long as a) these terms do not violate CRIMINAL law and b) both parties gain something from the contract. You can enter a contract that requires you to not tell the world the secret of Intel's latest microprocessors. Certainly that violates free speech rights, right? Wrong, Intel is giving you something in return (most likely early access to their new processor design) for your silence.

The OGL works the same way, you give up certain rights that copyright law grants and gain rights that you did not have before. If you don't like it, don't accept the license and don't use the rights you did not have before. Good luck writing a d20 compatible book with referring to Difficult Classes or attack bonuses though.

 

[The Sigil]

Game mechanics cannot be copyritten only the means of presenting them can be. For example the leveling chart in the 3e phb is copyritten as it is a means of presenting the mechanic. The mechanic itself is
Sigma (Character level * 1000) this mathematical formula is not copyrightable. The reason being, if it were copyrightable then no mathematician could ever use it in research again. You cannot copyright game mechanics only the manor of presentation.

Excellent point, Drawmack. This is precisely why the OGL is explicit about saying that the Game Mechanic (the sigma function) must be OGC (see below).

This being the case ECL the abbreviation could be copyright, the actual words that WotC uses to describe it can be copyright the concept cannot be.

As I was reflecting on this, I thought to myself, "you know, I think I saw the ECL concept in 3rd-party books before I saw it in WotC books."

The first place that I saw the ECL concept was in FFG's Mythic Races - IIRC, this was released before the FRCS (the first WotC product I know of to incorporate the ECL concept). Even if it was not, their release points were sufficiently close to claim "parallel development" (i.e., both "discovered" the same thing independently - kind of like both Newton and Liebnitz discovering calculus simultaneously and independent of one another). That one book or other went to press first is immaterial - if group A can show that they had the material in development before group B made the knowledge available outside their group (i.e., before group A could have "swiped it" from Group B), you have parallel development - group B can't stop group A from using a concept.

So in this respect, it seems clear to me that the ECL concept was and is not unique to WotC - there was parallel development - which is another reason that other publishers are allowed to use it (perhaps not the ECL terminology, but the idea).

Posted by rpgHQ:
I just think the wording of the OGL needs redone, most specifically section 1, in that it needs to clearly and in simple language define what is copyright, trademark, and patent instead of trying to muddle and misinform as parts of section 1 currently do. Especially parts 1d and 1e.

Why? Copyright, trademark, and patent are already well-defined legal entities/terms. A patent is registered with the Patent Office of the country in which you live. It has a patent number assigned to it. It is clear and unambiguous as to what a patent is. A trademark is also a well-defined thing - it is that identifying mark or marks unique to your product, product line or company. A trademark can be registered in the same manner as a patent, in which case it is followed by the "circle-R" sign (a "registered trademark"). If it is not registered, it is followed by the "TM" sign. Copyrighted material is well-defined - it is "any creative work recorded in any medium." In layman's terms, it is "anything you draw, scuplt, paint, write down, type, speak, sing, play, or otherwise transform from abstract idea to any medium through which that idea can be communicated."

Again, WotC doesn't NEED to define these terms as they are ALREADY well-defined. If you don't want to take the time to learn the legal background of these terms, that's not WotC's problem. Derivative works and translations are not quite as well-defined under copyright law as it is sometimes hard to determine whether something is or is not clearly a derivative work - however, it seems obvious to a reasonable person that if you use the terminology and methodology of the SRD, what you create is a derivative work thereof.

From the SRD:
(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity.

This is pretty simple, actually. It says:
1 - The game mechanics themselves are always Open Game Content in a work utilizing the Open Game License. What is a game mechanic? If you think of D&D as a computer game, a game mechanic is any function for which you can write code to return a result that affects the objects in the game. E.g., "add +X to Strength where X is between 2 and 5 for a period of N hours" is a game mechanic (in fact, it is the game mechanic for the Bull's Strength spell). IOW, this is the "bare minimum."

2 - "Any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor" - e.g., anything else beyond the bare minimum that the Contributor feels like adding.

3 - "Any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law" - In other words, if you use this license to create a derivative work or a translation as already defined by copyright law (i.e., there already exists a definition of these things, and we're not going to re-iterate it) then your derivative work or translation must be Open Game Content, too.

4 - Any Product Identity that is "mixed in" with Open Game Content is not Open Game Content. This allows you to make "exceptions" in your designation. It essentially allows for more compact designations of OGC and PI.

For example, I could designate all proper names as Product Identity and then designate the following sentence as Open Game Content:

Remember that Bob and Joe gain a +3 bonus to AC when fighting Jim Giantsquasher due to the prestige class ability they have.

The designation:
1.) All proper names are PI.
2.) The above sentence is OGC.

Is a LOT shorter than:
The above sentence is OGC except for the names Bob, Joe, and Jim Giantsquasher.

Of course, in a work with hundreds of proper names, the "shorthand version" is even nicer.

Now let's look at what the OGL says about Product Identity.

(e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;

This tells me the default designation of Product Identity in a work is essentially all names of people and things (including creatures, spells, places, items, etc.), all artwork ("graphic designs"), and any "flavor text."

Obviously, the Contributor of material under the OGL can designate LESS stuff as Product Identity, and designate it as Open Game Content instead.

To use a well-beaten description from these boards:

The default under the OGL is that ALL CRUNCH IS OGC, ALL FLUFF IS PI. THE CONTRIBUTOR IS PERMITTED TO CHANGE FLUFF FROM PI TO OGC, BUT IS NOT PERMITTED TO CHANGE CRUNCH FROM OGC TO PI.

Why? Because "crunch" is clearly a derivative of existing rules (insomuch as it interfaces with and meshes with existing rules - for your stuff to work with existing rules, you obviously had to look at the existing rules in the first place to make sure they "matched up"). As "derivative material," it is required by the OGL to be made into OGC. "Fluff" is not clearly a derivative of existing rules - your stories are not clearly a derivative of WotC's stories, so they don't have to be OGC.

***THE OGL AND COPYRIGHT LAW***

The simplest way to think of the OGL and Copyrighted Material is the following (remember, IANAL):

1.) Anything you write/draw/etc. is copyrighted material.

2.) If you base your writing on other copyrighted material (Call it "Work A"), your work is considered "derivative" of that material under copyright law.

3.) Copyright law normally forbids the publishing of derivative material without express written permission from the copyright holder of "Work A."

4.) The Open Game License constitutes express blanket written permission from the copyright holder (we'll take the simplest case and assume you're only using the SRD, so the copyright holder in this case is WotC) to publish your derivative material - BUT it comes with certain conditions placed on that permission - in other words, it says, "If you agree to A, B, and C, we give you permission to publish your work that is derivative of our material."

5.) The main terms that you agree to in the OGL (as far as application of copyright goes) are that (a) you agree not to use certain terms - PI, Trademarks, etc. and (b) you agree that anything that you create that is a derivative of Open Game Content will also be designated as Open Game Content and distributed under the terms of the Open Game License (i.e., in exchange for your blanket permission to use their material, you have to give that same permission to others). This is a point of contract law - grant and consideration - whereby you gain something in exchange for something else - in this case, you gain opermission to use certain copyrighted material ("OGC") in exchange for not using certain terms and for the grant of the same permission to all others to use your OGC.

6.) The copyrighted material that is designated as "Open Game Content" is the only material for which such blanket permission is granted. This in no way precludes you from attempting to negotiate a different agreement with the copyright holder. Furthermore, you can in fact use OGC *without* using the OGL provided you do so under the normal terms of copyright law (which basically means "fair use" - for example, I am allowed to, when critically reviewing a work, pull small quotations of text - even if that text includes OGC - without having to publish my review under the OGL).

7.) Material that is "not OGC" - and "PI" is "not OGC" - is under normal copyright law. You must get written permission to use it or make derivative works.

Simply put, the OGL in NO WAY is a "trump" of copyright law or trademark or patent laws. The OGL in fact works WITH copyright law. Think of the OGL as, "we give anyone who agrees to do X and Y permission to use this copyrighted material (the OGC)." Nothing trumpy about it... copyright law requires written permission, this is a way of giving written permission without needing to respond on a case-by-case basis to requests. If you don't want to agree to do X and Y, you are free to attempt to negotiate a different agreement.

I hope that's clear. To beat the dead horse, "the OGL is one form of giving written permission to anyone who wants to use certain copyrighted material." It is not the only form that can be given.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

people might find the first 3 paragraphs of interest

Let me point you to the relevant portion of what you linked to, as respects the OGL: Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

This is the crux of the matter. You have to figure out what the definition of "sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression" means. For instance, while the concept of "spread" is fairly easily to define "mechanically," I would wager that the pictures illustrating the fireball "turning a corner" in the PHB are sufficient "pictorial expression" to warrant their copyright, wouldn't you? There's plenty of expression in there beyond the "any point that can trace a continuous line of less than 20 scale feet to the center is considered to be in the area of effect."

Now let me point you to a specific portion of the System Reference Document with a description of a "spread" spell... say, the description of the Fireball spell. I will highlight the portions that I feel do not contain sufficient literary or pictorial expression to a blatantly obvious degree to be considered copyrighted material.

Fireball
Evocation [Fire]
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area: 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Reflex half
Spell Resistance: Yes
A fireball spell is a burst of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to all creatures within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.
The character determines the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the character and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point (an early impact results in an early detonation). If the character attempts to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, the character must "hit" the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with a low melting point, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, or bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

And I think I've been pretty generous about what I feel is NOT covered - IMO, pretty much the entire text of the paragraphs except the damage dice notation themselves could well be covered. It could further be argued that the "Evocation [Fire]" is covered under copyright because most of the description of the Evocation school and Fire descriptors are copyrighted material. Same with the "Wiz/Sor" reference (though not the numerical level 3).

Basically, you examine the "fireball" description, place it in context with the text of the entire game itself, and then tell me what is and is not copyrighted material.

Then further tell me why you WOULDN'T want to easily re-use all the text I highlighted above (which is clearly copyrightable material) under the terms of the OGL, especially when you multiply that by all the OGC/copyrighted text that is out there.

Furthermore, whose definition of "sufficient" can you trust? The OGL creates a "safe harbor" - where you know for sure you can't be sued. Are you willing to risk your petard by trying to publish stuff without the benefit of the protection provided by OGL? Do you think you'll be able to convince a judge and/or jury that your interpretation of what is and isn't copyrightable in a set of game rules is the "right" one and WotC's interpretation is the "wrong" one? I'm not. If I were a poor college student, maybe - but having a wife and two kids definitely changes your priorities a bit and makes you try to err on the side of caution.

--The Sigil

 

[rpgHQ]

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

The things in particular that The PI definition in the OGL doesnt completely jive with is these parts from above:

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles....

and more importantly:

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans....

...Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration....


Anyhow names, titles, slogans, short phrases are not covered by copyright, you can trademark them under certain conditions though, which is based on how the name, title, slogan is being used. service mark.

So things like ECL and its concept and method are not copyrightable either, nor is a monsters name or a spell name or DC or AC and so on and so forth. Nor can they be called service marks so they cant be trademark protected.

Elminster the Sage, Elminster of Shadowdale can be trademarked as the use of the name falls under the definitions of what a trade and service mark is.

A spell , its name and the concept of what it is isnt copyrightable....the description a publisher uses to explain the concept is though, however with a game system derivative work doesnt fall into the equation when someone else publishes the same spell and their description is worded differently though saying the same thng.

 

[jmucchiello]

A spell , its name and the concept of what it is isnt copyrightable.

So what? If the spell appears in an OGL covered work and the name of the spell is PI, you cannot reference the name in your own OGL covered work. Are you saying this is false?

If you are, you are wrong.

If you are not, you are discussing something other than the OGL. This forum is for open gaming, mostly involving the OGL. If you want to ignore the OGL and make Dunjons and Draggings because copyright law says you can do so, go have a ball. But this is not the forum to discuss it.

 

[The Sigil]

rpgHQ:

You clearly do not completely understand the issues involved here. As Joe has said, this is a forum for what you can and cannot do under the terms of the Open Game License... and you are getting hung up on "copyright" issues alone, without looking at how the Open Game License works with them. You must understand how both work together to meaningfully discuss things - you cannot try to look at one or the other individually and then apply it to the marriage of the two, any more than you can look at my wife individually and try to apply her qualities (long hair and secondary female characteristics) to our qualities as a couple.

Let me make this VERY, VERY, VERY, simple.

The Open Gaming License does NOT trump copyright law. The only reason copyright law enters into the equation is that you are being given permission to use copyrighted material - OGC - in the contract that is the OGL - you are being given permission to do something the law normally forbids.

The Open Gaming License falls under contract law.

Contract law relies on multiple parties agreeing to a set of terms.

Among those terms must be "grant and consideration" - IOW, each party must receive something of value from another party.

Under copyright law, you do not have the license to copy and make derivative works of material copyrighted by another.

Your point about "ideas, et al" under copyright is well-taken - that is why (to use my earlier example), GURPS and Palladium (to name two systems) had spells called "fireball" prior to the advent of the OGL. Under copyright law you are allowed to do so.

However, the "Grant and Consideration" clause in contract law comes into play when you publish under the OGL. The OGL is an agreement in which you receive value - the right to re-use, derive from, and otherwise make use of copyrighted (and copyrightable) material as though it was your own. The value that other parties (specifically, WotC and any other OGL publisher whose work you reference) receive from you is your agreement to (a) release your derivative work as Open Game Content AND (b) that you agree not to use any of their PI terms - even though you could normally do so under copyright law. Your agreement not to do so does have value to another party.

Read that last little bit again - "what you pay" for the right to use others' copyrighted material is that you agree that you will give others the same right AND you will avoid using certain terms. This does not "trump" copyright - rather, it is a "payment" on your part - you "pay" your right to use X and Y - which you could normally use under copyright law - in exchange for them giving you the right to use A, B, C, D, E, and on through W.

For a third time, to make it perfectly clear - in exchange for rights you don't ordinarily have ("right to use A, B, C... W") you give the other publisher rights he doesn't ordinarily have ("right to restrict use of X and Y"). Grant and consideration.

If you do not wish give up and that "payment" of your rights under copyright law, that is your perogative - but that means that the other party is under no obligation to grant you any rights that copyright law ordinarily denies you (derivative work rights and use of A, B, C,...W).

Why is this important?

The d20 system, as an abstract ruleset, is not copyrightable. The System Reference Document, however, as a substantial literary work is.

Because, to my knowledge, no one has reduced the System Reference Document to a series of mathematical formulae, you cannot create a Feat, a d20-compatible spell, etc. without clearly having used the System Reference Doucment as a point of reference. That makes your work a derivative work of copyrighted material (the System Reference Document).

In order to create a Spell, Feat, or what have you that is NOT a derivative work, you must start from ground zero and build your own gaming framework from scratch - and *without* using the SRD as a reference point to start from (otherwise you have - you guessed it - a derivative work, verboten by copyright law).

SUMMARY:
* The OGL does NOT trump copyright law.
* The OGL IS a contract.
* This contract says, in effect, "you agree not to use our PI - your agreement to do so has value to us. In exchange, we grant you the right to use our OGC - our agreement to do so has value to you." You thus have exchange of value - and a valid contract.

* If you use PI after agreeing not to use it, you are in breach of contract, and your right to use someone else's OGC goes away - in other words, you go back to standard copyright law...

Basically, you have a choice:

You can use other folks' PI (under the "Fair Use" restrictions of copyright law - which will be considerably more stringent than the uses of OGC allowed by the OGL)

OR

You can use other folks' OGC (under the terms of the OGL)

But you can't do both at once because the terms of the OGL include you agreeing of your own free will not to use other folks' PI. As soon as you break that agreement, you relinquish your right to use of OGC (save as normally allowed by fair use).

If you try to use OGC under the OGL and also use PI, you can be sued under contract law for breach of contract (using PI when you agreed not do) and/or under copyright law for copyright infringement (use of copyrighted material - OGC - without permission, since permission was terminated when you used PI).

Is that clear yet? I hope so.

(Copied and reposted an example I came up with on another thread):

As a simpler example:

I agree to give you five dollars. In return, you agree never to use the word "Sigil" in a post on ENWorld. Is this a valid contract? Yes... I gave you something of value (five bucks) and you gave me something of value (a guarantee that you personally will not dilute by use the word, "sigil" - which lack of dilution I value, for whatever odd reason).

If you take the five dollars, and then use the word "Sigil" in a post - even if you're referring to "a wizard's sigil" or "a word alphabetically between red and zebra" - even though copyright law allows you to do so - you are in breach of contract and you have to give me my five dollars back.

Similarly, if you take OGC, and then use a PI'd word in your work, you are in breach of contract and you have to give the OGC back (you stop using it).

Does that make it a little clearer?

--The Sigil

 

[rpgHQ]

I think you missed my point...that the OGL gives rights that normally are not there. We both agree on that. And between all this posting I think we have shown it very well.

The other thing is all the derivative work talk. Game systems do not abide by the definition of this term under copyright laws.

Yes the SRD has explanations that describe the game system and those parts are copyrightable. You cant just yank a publishers descriptive text word for word and use it. However, with game systems you can publish similiar work. Theres only so many ways to express a particular system of rules and methods. So it doesnt matter if someone bases their game off the SRD, derivative work doesnt apply in the way it does for a novel.

Armor Class, Feat, Skills, and so on and so forth are all the means and methods of a game system.

My whole point is that parts of the OGL are misleading in the manner of its wording, and many many people confuse the definitions in it with being enforceable under copyright law.

So for example, the SRD, one could publish a game system using the same rules, though they would have to use their own words to describe the system and methods and concepts. However theres only so many ways you can describe what a fireball is or what a bonus modifier means and is. And copyright law understands this and lists game systems separately from other copyrightable works and that most things do not apply to them.

The above paragraph for example if i published it would be protected from someone else using it word for word in their work, it doesnt stop them from rephrasing it.

Yes the SRD is a published work, but as its a means of describing a game system, normal laws covering derivative works does not apply. Well, they apply to a certaint extent but not to the extent that many try to make it out to be.

The fireball spell again as example. Yes the exact text in its description is copyright. Lets break it down by whats covered by copyright law. I'll just tack on a yes or no.

Fireball (no)
Evocation[Fire] (no)
Level: Sor/Wiz 3 (no)
Components: V, S, M (no)
Casting Time: 1 action (no)
Range: Long (400 ft + 40ft/level) (no)
Area: 20-ft.-radius spread (no)
Duration: Instantaneous (no)
Saving Throw: Reflex half (no)

A fireball spell is a burst....[snipped out to keep post size down]
....A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.. (yes)

That stat list is made up of the system, methods, ideas, and concepts of a game system along with being short phrases and names.


Now if I came along and published a game book with the same format above but used my own words to describe the fireball, even if they end up saying the same thing, though not word for word, I would be ok

Like how in a cookbook its the descriptive part that is copyrightable not the list of ingredients. Also the way its listed is a pretty common format of use just like in a cookbook, baseball cards, real estate listing and so on.

A character(NPC or whatever) in a game book, in its literary form, not game system expression, is copyrightable, and his name is trademarkable, like good old Elminster, as a service mark.

I understand full well that the OGL is a means of giving royalty free license to other publishers.

My whole arguement is that the OGL gives rights to one party or the other that it should not give. The name of a spell or creature and so on. Theres a differance between Blade Demon and Drahkar The Blade Demon. The latter is trademarkable, while the former is not. And neither is copyrightable.

And as I stated before the OGL is a good thing and especially good for those wishing to use the d20stl.

The wording of the PI definition is a means to circumvent the lack of a game system being covered under standard literary/derivative works copyright law. That defeats the whole purpose of an 'OPEN SOURCE' concept. Most of the OGL is fine and dandy and protects what it should protect while still allowing open use of other publishers work.

But it DOES circumvent copyright law with those very few things I have stated before.

And yes jim I understand this is a ogl forum, we're talking about the ogl here. Both of you say copyright and trademark have nothing to do with it yet you both fall back on it in describing how a royalty license works.

But I am glad you all responded directly to my posts as it gave me a chance to better explain what I was driven at from the get go.

With that all said and done I will refrain from posting further here on it as the tone is becoming less than civilized (sounded like a mustard commercial there for a moment or was that a not real butter commercial?)

Not because you are telling me to 'take it elsewhere', but because I feel the tone of the posting is degrading into the beginnings of a flame-like thread. Theres no reason for that and with people basically telling me to 'shutup'. I dont like being shouted down when I bring up valid points and then have folks try to twist it around and make it sound like I am saying something other than what I am.

We can keep the discussion here or take it elsewhere but only if folks 'play nice'.

Once again I wish to state that I got nothing against what the OGL does on the WHOLE, its a great tool for publishers when combined with the d20stl. And by itself its close to being an OPEN Source/Royalty Free License, except for those very few items I have been discussing and trying to explain.