OGL Questions for all OGL Users

[pennywiz]

From here: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=107356

I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that it's completely backward that Arcana Unearthed cannot be discussed in the main forum along with all the D&D material (which it's completely compatible with)

Isn't it precisely against the Open Game License for someone to state something like this?

7. Use of Product Identity: 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. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.

Does Monte have an "independent Agreement" with WotC to "indicate compatibility or co-adaptability" with their trademark?

Does the restriction only apply to what someone can do within the licensed work and not elsewhere?

Is it only disallowed in the licensed work and in advertising, and therefore fine for someone to go around to various message boards and make the claim?

I've seen some companies who find cutsie ways around restrictions by making alternate statements (Compatible with the World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game) and that always bothered me (though I guess it is technically legal) but without a licensing agreement is this also against the OGL?

On a related topic, how do people who use the OGL feel when someone else blatantly ignores restrictions in the license?

Are some companies who use the OGL on a different level than others and therefore able to do things that others are not, or get away with OGL infractions that others are not?

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

Well, without knowing too much about the other thread, Monte's statement is made in a forum, not on his book (IIRC), so he's not really breaking the OGL. It's sort of like how I can come to the forum and tell you ideas on how to integrate my generic d20 Fantasy releases into your Forgotten Realms game or Arcana Unearthed game; my product doesn't mention any of these trademarks because it woudl violate the OGL, but my post on this (or any) board is not ruled by the OGL.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I believe that Monte is a little bothered that his variant game is put into the variant forum as opposed to the main forum. I see his point but hey, he went with the alternative system that's NOT 100% baseline compatible. It requires WORK to make it compatible and reduce the # of issues.

 

[Roudi]

On a related topic, how do people who use the OGL feel when someone else blatantly ignores restrictions in the license?

I can't say I'd appreciate it if it happened, but can you give specific examples? I'm not aware of any major OGL violators... at least, not any unpunished OGL violators.

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

The only one I can remember blatantly breaking the OGL was Valar when they released Book of Erotic Fantasy, an OGL book that boldly claimed on its cover "Compatible with Dungeons & Dragons." I remember there was quite an uproar that someone like Anthony Valterra could ignore the OGL so blatantly. Not sure what happened with that afterwards, though.

Beyond that, no, I cannot think of any other major breach of the OGL. Most of them are minor ones that go unnoticed for the most part, like failing to do section 15 correctly (man, after all these years with the OGL, it really drives me up the wall when I see publishers that still can't do the s.15 correctly!).

 

[pennywiz]

JoeG - You might want to take that to the other thread. This thread isn't about forums, it's about OGL violations. No offense.

Roudi - "Major"? I'm not making the distinction between major or minor infractions since that can be a matter of perspective. (I guess Hal's example might be considered major by most.) I'm simply discussing "blatant" disregard for restrictions no matter the view of whether they are major or minor.

Hal - So, I take from your first post that you feel claiming compatibility with a trademark is not always a violation of the terms of the OGL. You seem to think it is a violation in a work that is accompanied by the OGL but not as a post on a message board forum on the Worldwide Web. How about as a banner add on a message board forum on the Worldwide Web? It reaches the same people as the post, does it not? How about the difference between making the claim on a call-in radio show versus an advertisement run during that same show? At what point is the line drawn for you as to what is a trademark violation, and what would be considered running afoul of the OGL restriction? Can you put a finer point on it for me?

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

Hal - So, I take from your first post that you feel claiming compatibility with a trademark is not always a violation of the terms of the OGL.

It is, if it is done within a work covered by the OGL. Outside of it, it's a murkier area. Some people feel that you should never claim compatibility, others feel that it only applies to the extent of the OGL. Going by the letter of the license, and not being a lawyer (nor playing one on TV or a game), the claim to compatibility to another trademark applies to things covered specifically by the OGL. Anything outside of it is subject to your own judgement.

You seem to think it is a violation in a work that is accompanied by the OGL but not as a post on a message board forum on the Worldwide Web. How about as a banner add on a message board forum on the Worldwide Web? It reaches the same people as the post, does it not?

In all honesty, I don't know. The main difference I see in your example is that one (the ad) is an explicit commercial endeavour meant to promote your product, while the other (the post) is not necessarily so (again, there's a gray area, cause if the post is a Press Release, then no, you cannot claim compatibility, but if the post is a friendly exchange of ideas, then I don't see why not).

How about the difference between making the claim on a call-in radio show versus an advertisement run during that same show? At what point is the line drawn for you as to what is a trademark violation, and what would be considered running afoul of the OGL restriction? Can you put a finer point on it for me?

I honestly wish I could, but I can't, both because I am not a lawyer, and because I don't know that anyone has sat down to decide the exact limits of the OGL terms. Again, the main difference I see here is that the ad is specifically paid for promotion purposes, while a call is a free-form exchange of ideas.

This is how I see it:
Crystal clear - in an OGL-bound product, you cannot claim compatibility beyond what the license allows (i.e. OGL + d20 License allow to claim compatibility with D&D using specific sentences only). This also extends to paid advertisements for said product.
Murky area - in a post, email, call, conversation, etc. where there is a free flow of ideas it's fine to mention compatibility. Some people agree, others do not, but there's no clear answer either way. Personally, I don't see a problem with it.

Trust me, this is something I have been thinking a lot about, because I want to find a way to let my customers know how they can adapt my products to their trademarked campaign, be it Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron, Arcanis, Iron Kingdoms, etc., without breaching the OGL and getting in trouble. So far what I do know is that I wouldn't necessarily post that information in my company website, but on a forum, that might be doable.

 

[pennywiz]

Trust me, this is something I have been thinking a lot about, because I want to find a way to let my customers know how they can adapt my products to their trademarked campaign, be it Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron, Arcanis, Iron Kingdoms, etc., without breaching the OGL and getting in trouble. So far what I do know is that I wouldn't necessarily post that information in my company website, but on a forum, that might be doable.

Don't people pay huge amounts of money for the right to claim compatibility legally by purchasing a licensing agreement (Kenzer's D&D license, whoever is doing the Dragonlance stuff, etc.), and aren't you treading on the lines of legality to try and do the same without such a license? Are you saying that you are trying to find a loophole in trademark laws that allows you to take advantage of a trademark without purchasing a license? That doesn't seem right to me.

 

[reanjr]

Does Monte have an "independent Agreement" with WotC to "indicate compatibility or co-adaptability" with their trademark?

I cannot speak for this particular instance, but I have heard that Monte and his crew got some additional rights from Wizards for Beyond Countless Doorways. I would think it is reasonable to assume that they received special permissin for this, even if it is informal.

 

[Ghostwind]

I want to find a way to let my customers know how they can adapt my products to their trademarked campaign, be it Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron, Arcanis, Iron Kingdoms, etc., without breaching the OGL and getting in trouble. So far what I do know is that I wouldn't necessarily post that information in my company website, but on a forum, that might be doable.

Promote the fact that they are 'world neutral' and will adapt to anyone's campaign setting with ease and you can avoid the trademark issues.