Notes from Green Ronin seminar

[Ranger REG]

One thing that is nice about the OGL: it's wording is not in Legalese. It's plain English. It's stated in its text that the license is free and perpetual. It is absolutely crystal clear language. For everyone who makes the effort to read it, there should be no misunderstanding possible. I'm not sure whether a lawsuit against the OGL would actually reach the court room.

LOL.

If that were actually true. To this day, the curious still have questions about the OGL, and not on this thread alone. If it's in plain English, there wouldn't be any questions because the answers are there.

Then again, it is that plain English that can be confusing, even to native speakers (e.g., Americans).

Anyhoo, it is a legal document and one would be a fool not to consult with a lawyer if one would seriously going to apply the OGL to their wares.

 

[Turjan]

LOL.

If that were actually true. To this day, the curious still have questions about the OGL, and not on this thread alone. If it's in plain English, there wouldn't be any questions because the answers are there.

Then again, it is that plain English that can be confusing, even to native speakers (e.g., Americans).

I'm not a native speaker, but I think that the license makes an effort to be easily understandable. Important points are repeated and used terms are defined under point 1. My post was more considering this paragraph:

"4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content you Distribute."

Words starting with capitals (except in the header) are defined under point 1. "Perpetual" and "royalty-free" sound pretty unambiguous to me. The only point that might produce headaches is this one:

"9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."

The word "authorized" is not defined.

 

[mythusmage]

Jeff Jarvis, one time editor of Entertainment Weekly has a post up at his blog, Buzz Machine. Who Wants to Own Content is Jeff's look at content, distribution, and conversation. His take is that today what matters is not content or distribution, it is conversation. Anyone can produce content and present it to the public, and distribution has changed and is changing fundamentally. What matters in today's world is conversation. For if you don't let the world know about your work, and you don't have a good reputation, you will not succeed.

But read the post for yourselves. It doesn't mention RPGs in any fashion, but what he has to say is applicable to this industry.

 

[Ranger REG]

"9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."

The word "authorized" is not defined.

Are you concerned that WotC can "unauthorize" an authorized version like v1.0a?

 

[Jer]

So, yes, in a pure abstract sense, the current OGL does not expire, and other OGLs in a pure abstract legal sense, "real" OGL licenses would all be like that. But none of us live in an environment like that. In the real world, having a massive legal team who get a retainer from Hasbro (or even an outright salary as in-house counsel) with nothing to do but break the legs of Italian toymakers creating puppets with nasal issues means that an OGL could have been crafted that would have, in real terms, had a time limit on it.

The OGL was a giant giveaway to every other publisher -- "Hey, kids, use D&D to create competition for D&D!" -- out there and I can only conclude it was done more out of an open source ideology position rather than what makes business sense.

D20 makes business sense. OGL is ideology.

Without the open, unending nature of the OGL, the whole d20 thing would never have worked. If you put those kind of limitations on what outside publishers can do, and claim some kind of expiration date when it could all go away, you wouldn't have had the investment in d20 that happened around 2000. I remember being on the various mailing lists when Ryan Dancey was promoting this idea and one of the key selling points was that Wizards of the Coast (because, remember, it wasn't Hasbro yet) COULDN'T take the license back. It would be there for everyone to use forever. They could restrict the use of the trademark, but your company's R&D work on d20 material could never be taken away by Wizards NOR could Wizards take away your use of the core rule system - ever. That was the guarantee that caused a LOT of folks to take the gamble that this whole d20 thing might just work.

Dancey's idea was that it was the name Dungeons and Dragons that was selling books, not the game system. In other words, its the trademark on the D&D name not the actual game system that was the corporate investment. I'm not sure what kind of politicking he did in the offices of Wizards to get folks to sign on to this (I imagine quite a lot), but it was a big risk for Wizards. It had to be - if it looked like Wizards was getting all of the benefit and the other companies had nothing to gain from "going d20" then the whole thing would fail for all sides.

Of course, once Hasbro got involved things changed somewhat. The early push for 3.5e hurt the "d20 industry" quite a bit, but it occurred simultaneously with Hasbro tightening the screws on the level of editorial control they wanted over the d20 trademark and when they could tell people to take it off, and I'm sure that THAT didn't help matters either. I think there are probably a lot of other factors involved too, but I still hope that Hasbro/WotC see the benefits of keeping any new editions of d20/D&D open.

 

[Ranger REG]

Of course, once Hasbro got involved things changed somewhat. The early push for 3.5e hurt the "d20 industry" quite a bit, but it occurred simultaneously with Hasbro tightening the screws on the level of editorial control they wanted over the d20 trademark and when they could tell people to take it off,

But publishers could always take off the d20 label, or rather not use it. We've had this discussion with Ryan Dancey a long time ago. The d20STL require the OGL, but the OGL does not require the d20STL.

It just a matter of what the publisher wants. If they want to support WotC's rulebooks (mainly D&D and/or d20 Modern) then they will, like Green Ronin is publishing d20 Modern supplements designed by The Game Mechanics. OTOH, AEG have a different agenda.

 

[Psion]

It means that D&D is here to stay and it's one of the reasons why so many people support Ryan Dancy even though there's been some debate about his past actions.

It also means that d20 publishers can keep doing what they're doing. True 20, C&C, Iron Heroes. They all owe a debt to the OGL.

There is so much truth wrapped up in this simple post that I can't but quote it for emphasis.

 

[Turjan]

Are you concerned that WotC can "unauthorize" an authorized version like v1.0a?

I'm not concerned. I just don't know exactly why this word is used in this place and what its exact meaning is.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm not concerned. I just don't know exactly why this word is used in this place and what its exact meaning is.

Well, we could try to ask Ryan Dancey. Perhaps it is a necessary legal adjective.

 

[Pramas]

Man, those notes are rough. I'd just like to point out that I can in fact string more than three words together.