Permission for OGC?

[kingpaul]

I must admit to using material from FNCC's Netbook of Feats without such a letter...

I'll fix that situation, though, promise.

I think Sig (the Team Leader) would be tickled pink to hear that others are using stuff from NBoFeats...as well as the contributing authors.

 

[Jerrid Al-Kundo]

Maybe... Maybe not...

(He hasn't seen my edits. )

 

[oathbrothers]

Explain how you're violating the license by saying "no." (Obviously, the person can laugh in your face if you say "no," or just simply ignore you, but I'm not sure how saying "no" actually violates anything other than standard good sense.)

Actually, I can think of an example where it doesn't even violate good sense. Say you come to me and let me know, as a courtesy, that you're going to be using my OGL material in a game about abusing kids. In such a case, I would try to convince you not to do that.

Well, the OGC has a (semi-vague) sentence that ties the hands of the OGC publisher: "No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License." Saying "no" or "not if it violates fundamental morals", and you aren't acting in the spirit of the license. Sure, you could sue someone for a damaging association (and have a good case), but the OGC would be their shield, not yours. No one wants to see their product modified to be (insert very bad thing here) d20, but this is a risk that OGC publishers need to consider up-front.

Will "Liu Bei" Russell
Oath Brothers

 

[Blacksad]

If someone wanted to make PrisonRape d20 and wanted to use my OGC and I said "you know, I'd rather you didnt" and they did anyway, that would be their right under the license. But I can guarantee you this: they better get their compliance 100% correct or I will do something about it. And I wont help them get compliant either. If they want to do the "the license allows me to use it" then I will do the "and the license allows me to bust you for it if you do it wrong." But for the record that hasnt even come close to happening so far.

Clark

If they get the OGC wrong, couldn't they say that you get your clearly labeled OGC wrong (as in: could be determined by the casual reader) in the first place, and as such you'd have broke the OGL first?

Also, I don't know how many soul GR and AEG gave WotC for this, but Secret college of Necromancy reference Tome&Blood and Spycraft use the WP/VP system, so WotC seems to be cool with contents that could easily become OGC.

 

[oathbrothers]

::laughs:: WP/VP? I don't think WotC can stake too big a claim there. I still call it HP and SDC (a la Heroes Unlimited).

 

[Orcus]

If they get the OGC wrong, couldn't they say that you get your clearly labeled OGC wrong (as in: could be determined by the casual reader) in the first place, and as such you'd have broke the OGL first?

Nope. Prior violation of the OGL would most likely not be a defense to their improper use of OGC, or at least the license doesnt provide it. Could they claim that? Sure. Would it work? Most likely not. A subsequent user wouldnt have standing regarding how I used the OGC in the SRD or any other source I use, their only position would be as an equitable defense to my relief (except perhaps in the hypothetical situation where I erroneously add someone elses PI and designate it as OGC in my work, but even then the burden is on the next publisher to follow the sources).

But I am not so much talking about misusing the OGC itself as much as about misusing PI or misidentifying PI, or including my PI with OGC or not complying with the license regarding section 15 as it relates to my products.

Oh and by the way, the standard is not "can be determined by the casual reader" it is "clearly identified." It will be interesting to see what that actually means. There are many different interpretations of that phrase.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

Plus, I wouldnt put much stock in deciding "what WotC is cool with." They may not know about it or they may decide it is not protectable. But the biggest issue is the way WotC decides to enforce the license does not control how others decide to enforce it.

Frankly, uncertainty about the license is probably the biggest reason to clear your use of OGC with the original publisher--you can make sure you are complying in their view with the license terms. I dont mean adding a new term to the license or restricting the OGC. I mean that the license is still 100% untested. Why risk either of you misunderstanding the licnese and one or the other taking action when you can contact the publisher and say "I am planning on using this, you're cool with that, right?" and then the publisher says "yeah, go for it" or maybe "uhm, careful with that, maybe you didnt notice but we marked [cool setting name] as PI and I think you mean to use that which we would have a problem with."

That way you can work out any issues before hand. Because believe me, no one wants to send out nasty grams. You increase your chance of goofing up if you dont talk to the prior publisher. As I said, I have even reviewed other people's legal appendixes and said "you got it right, as far as we are concerned we wont allege you are doing it wrong." If you are the subsequent publisher, that is a nice thing to know ahead of time. That is a reason why I put instructions in Tome of Horrors on how to use the Open Game Content in that book with tons of examples. Plus I add a promise that if people follow the instructions I provide showing people how to reuse the content, then we wont allege they havent done it right. I am hoping that increases the chance of reuse.

So unless you are 100% convinced that you are doing everything right in complying with the license in using someone else's OGC, it just makes the most sense to contact them to avoid disagreement over the OGC and any resulting unpleasantness. And I dont think I know anyone (or a very small number of people anyway) who is 100% convinced that they are doing everything right with the licenses.

(See, even if I can't persuade you with an ethical argument why you should contact the original publisher, here is a good solid practical reason why you should.)

Clark

 

[Blacksad]

(See, even if I can't persuade you with an ethical argument why you should contact the original publisher, here is a good solid practical reason why you should.)

Clark

I do not need an ethical argument, I'm already convinced

I'm not a writer nor a publisher, but I'm a soon to be customer of Tome of Horror, so I wouldn't like to see Necromancer Game getting in legal trouble (unlikely though as you are a lawyer and you are probably the most informed publisher on the subject).

The problem that I see:

-in the WotC FAQ, they consider the clearly labeled as something that could be identified by the casual reader
http://www.wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=dt20010417g

Q: What does "clearly identified" mean?

A: It means that the publisher has a burden to use some system to identify Open Game Content to any recipient of that content. Systems which have been used by some publishers include placing Open Game Content in shaded boxes, using a different font, italicizing or bolding the Open Game Content, and segregating all the Open Game Content into specifically designated chapters or appendixes. Some publishers have released documents that are identified as being comprised completely of Open Game Content.

"Clearly identified" means that the system should pass the "reasonable person" test; meaning that a reasonable person should be able to determine what portions of a given work are Open Game Content, and which portions are not. If you can't figure out what parts of a given work are Open Game Content, provided you exert a reasonable effort to read and apply the instructions for identification provided by the publisher, then the material isn't Clearly Identified.

the FAQ wasn't made by a lawyer, though it was made by someone from the company that produced the license, so it might have some value in law (personaly I don't know).

-and perhaps the break of the OGL could remove the right to use the OGL?

13 Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.

 

[Orcus]

Two points:

First, the FAQ is not a part of the license and WotC cant decide after the fact to try to define terms of the license in a FAQ. They will be given their customary meaning by the courts, not the meaning WotC ascribes to them. Had they wanted to define the terms more clearly, they had the power to do that in the license--which they didnt do.

Second, nowhere does it say "casual reader". It simply references the "reasonable person" standard, which is the standard any reviewing court is most likely to apply to the definition of "clearly identify." That still doesnt answer the question of what it means to "clearly identify" however. This is important, since the "causal reader" and the "reasonable person taking reasonable efforts to determine if the content is open content" may be two different things. So just because something isnt obvious to the casual reader doesnt mean it isnt clearly identified OGC.

Clark

 

[Blacksad]

That will teach me to look at my dictionary a bit more often, I thought casual reader equaled normal reader, sorry for that

Also I probably messed the OGL and the d20 license on my second concern.