Questions about the new SRD [summon Orcus!]

[Drawmack]

d20 system was always PI and you had to agree to the terms of the d20 license to use it.

This could be a loop hole seal. You see if d20 system is PI but d20 is not, then I can say I am d20 compliant but I cannot say I am d20 system compliant. Which would allow me to write a "d20 compliant" book that did not need the PHB to be used. Thereby shortcutting the intent of the licenses and basically stealling from wizards.

 

[Cergorach]

Hi -

If someone declares something to be Open Content as defined by the Open Gaming License, are they allowed to declare that same thing to be Product Identity at a later date?

If so, then WotC can declare d20 to be PI and cause a major headache to all publishers - essentially you'd have to do a search and replace of "d20" with "consecutively numbered icosahedron" or something equally banal.

If not, then WotC's declaration of d20 as PI in this version of the SRD is irrelevant, as it is already permanently OGC by inclusion in the previous SRD.

This is indeed a completely separate question from the trademark issue.

Aaron

This is what i was thinking to, to be save people should include the copyright notice from the previous edition of the srd, that way you can always claim that all the mentions of d20 in your product come from th 3e srd and not the 3.5e srd...

 

[JohnNephew]

d20 system was always PI and you had to agree to the terms of the d20 license to use it.

No. It was never PI. "d20 System" and the d20 system logo were claimed as trademarks, which is different in several important ways. Wizards claimed NO Product Identity prior to now. Things were either in the SRD (and thus Open) or not (and thus not).

 

[afstanton]

This is what i was thinking to, to be save people should include the copyright notice from the previous edition of the srd, that way you can always claim that all the mentions of d20 in your product come from th 3e srd and not the 3.5e srd...

This strikes me as an excellent solution to this problem. While it would be very beneficial to WotC to have all publishers create material for only 3.5 and drop 3.0, there will certainly be some who will support the gamers who choose not to "upgrade" just yet. WotC cannot force you to use the new SRD, and d20 is not PI under the old one.

Aaron

 

[Mark]

Where in the definition of "Product Identity" in the OGL or in WotC's delineation of "d20" as being Product Identity do you find such a distinction?

It appears that WotC is attempting to make that distinction in the portions of the claimed PI and OGL quoted in Ben's post at the top of the thread, as set apart from their more common usage in the text of the SRD refering to "(d20)" as a "twenty-sided die".

It's also important to note that we are not talking about trademarks, but Product Identity, an animal unique to the OGL and not really subject to the case law and peculiarities of trademarks.

Not when we get to the point of whether or not WotC is also claiming "d20" as a trademark.

Hi -

If someone declares something to be Open Content as defined by the Open Gaming License, are they allowed to declare that same thing to be Product Identity at a later date?

If so, then WotC can declare d20 to be PI and cause a major headache to all publishers - essentially you'd have to do a search and replace of "d20" with "consecutively numbered icosahedron" or something equally banal.

If not, then WotC's declaration of d20 as PI in this version of the SRD is irrelevant, as it is already permanently OGC by inclusion in the previous SRD.

This is indeed a completely separate question from the trademark issue.

Aaron

Not precisely. If WotC is making the claim that "d20" is a trademark as it refers to the system, and since the OGL has always had separate restrictions on trademakrs, then it was never truly open content...as it refers to the system, though it's more general usage as refering to a twenty sided die could very well be. That's the distinction I believe that they are trying to make and the reason that this conversation is not simply about PI but also involves trademarks.

Personally, I am not in a position to challenge that supposed distinction, nor am I inclined to do so if I could.

Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that aside from their specific instances where they have delineated the usage of the d20 logo and appropriate accompanying text phrases, they are not interested in allowing folks to claim closer compatibility through the use of such things as using "d20" within th name of a product or other such refering to the term d20 as it refers to the system. As to use of it to designate the type of die to cast in a given situation, that seems to be acceptable under their terms.

Further, isn't it true that anyone who uses the OGL (with or without the d20 STL) in it's current format is contractually accepting the terms of that license on face value and thereby decreasing the strength of any challenge they might make at a later date to any of the specifc terms of said license?

Again, not a lawyer and just throwing my reading of it into the ring but in this case separating trademark discussions from PI discussions do not seem possible as it appears WotC has intertwined them.

 

[afstanton]

No. It was never PI. "d20 System" and the d20 system logo were claimed as trademarks, which is different in several important ways. Wizards claimed NO Product Identity prior to now. Things were either in the SRD (and thus Open) or not (and thus not).

Thank for for responding to that. I really didn't want to.

As an aside regarding WotC's declaration of PI, I find it very interesting that many of the things they declare to be PI are not even listed in the 3.5 SRD. I also find it interesting that "slaad" is *not* PI, even though it is not in the 3.5 SRD. This, however, forks the topic, so feel free to ignore this post.

Aaron

 

[afstanton]

It appears that WotC is attempting to make that distinction in the portions of the claimed PI and OGL quoted in Ben's post at the top of the thread, as set apart from their more common usage in the text of the SRD refering to "(d20)" as a "twenty-sided die".



Not when we get to the point of whether or not WotC is also claiming "d20" as a trademark.



Not precisely. If WotC is making the claim that "d20" is a trademark as it refers to the system, and since the OGL has always had separate restrictions on trademakrs, then it was never truly open content...as it refers to the system, though it's more general usage as refering to a twenty sided die could very well be. That's the distinction I believe that they are trying to make and the reason that this conversation is not simply about PI but also involves trademarks.

Personally, I am not in a position to challenge that supposed distinction, nor am I inclined to do so if I could.

Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that aside from their specific instances where they have delineated the usage of the d20 logo and appropriate accompanying text phrases, they are not interested in allowing folks to claim closer compatibility through the use of such things as using "d20" within th name of a product or other such refering to the term d20 as it refers to the system. As to use of it to designate the type of die to cast in a given situation, that seems to be acceptable under their terms.

Further, isn't it true that anyone who uses the OGL (with or without the d20 STL) in it's current format is contractually accepting the terms of that license on face value and thereby decreasing the strength of any challenge they might make at a later date to any of the specifc terms of said license?

Again, not a lawyer and just throwing my reading of it into the ring but in this case separating trademark discussions from PI discussions do not seem possible as it appears WotC has intertwined them.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that WotC is claiming "d20 System" as a trademark, not "d20" by itself. If "d20" is not claimed as a trademark, then we can cleanly separate PI from trademark issues. If "d20" is claimed as a trademark, then they are indeed intertwined in a nasty way.

I also doubt that it matters what the context or usage is of PI - If you use it at all without permission, you are in violation of the OGL. The fact that WotC seems to be attempting to protect the d20 System by closing loopholes doesn't change that.

Aaron

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

This could be a loop hole seal. You see if d20 system is PI but d20 is not, then I can say I am d20 compliant but I cannot say I am d20 system compliant. Which would allow me to write a "d20 compliant" book that did not need the PHB to be used. Thereby shortcutting the intent of the licenses and basically stealling from wizards.

I feel confident that is exactly the point. Mongoose's "d20 Cyberpunk" leaps to mind-- I still have no idea from their press release if it is intended for release under the d20 STL or not. It claims to be d20 compliant-- even uses d20 in the title-- but goes on to say that no other books are required.

The problem is, the term "d20" is a part of the core mechanic. Folks use it all the time, and as Mark pointed out, there's clearly a common-sense difference between d20, the trademark, and d20, the die.

But the license draws no such distinction, and no one really wants to put themselves in the position of having WOTC selectively choose to enforce the license.

Though this is not specifically a trademark or intellectual property issue, as the license is a seperate legal entity, I know that it is a burden upon the trademark owner to aggressively-- aggressively-- pursue infringements in order to maintain the integrity of the trademark.

I do not want to be aggressively pursued by WOTC legal because I tell folks how to make an attack roll with a d20.

Wulf

 

[Mark]

Ben - Rather than quote your rebuttal, why not just take my first post as the "bottomline" it was meant to be and let's (and I mean both of us) leave the posturing aside? It was not (I repeat) intended as a troll but a distillation of what my longer post became for it was my feeling that regardless of how either one of us arrive at that bottomline, it was there to be considered as an inevitable outcome and an important point of refernce for any discussion that followed.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that WotC is claiming "d20 System" as a trademark, not "d20" by itself. If "d20" is not claimed as a trademark, then we can cleanly separate PI from trademark issues. If "d20" is claimed as a trademark, then they are indeed intertwined in a nasty way.

Aaron

IIRC, Ryan Dancey mentioned that at the beginning of all this (several years ago) WotC had wanted to to trademark simply "d20" but felt that "d20 System" was a safer bet and less likely to be challenged. Also, IIRC, there have been a couple of instances since that time where WotC has slipped in simply "d20" when making mention of the d20 System, and indeed their use of d20 as a prefix to the words "Modern", "Game Engine" (which I do not believe is a trademark but which could likely be established in court as reference to their other trademarks) and soon to be "Future" (which I have no doubt they will establish in a like manner to d20 Modern) seems to suggest that they would love nothing more than to have everyone grow accustomed to simply "d20" as refering to the "d20 System" in total. They can strengthen their case for registering simply "d20" as a trademark by showing over a period of time that it has become generally accepted as synonymous with their previously registered trademark of the "d20 System", if my understanding as a non-lawyer is correct. As to the other "IIRC's" I'd have to dig deep for those references or rely on someone else to bolster my memory of the actual facts. I leave it to others to step up and refute them or support them as they desire.

It might also be a stretch but not inconceiveable that by using the simple term "d20" in a way in which it refers to the d20 System you are in fact in violation of this part of the d20 System Guide-

d20 System Trademark Logo Usage Requirements:

You may not alter the color, typography or design of the d20 System Logo, nor stretch or distort the dimensions. You may not allow any part of the Logo to be overprinted by another graphic and the d20 System Logo must be reproduced at a size no smaller than one-half inch in width by one-half inch in height.

-in that it could be considered you are taking a portion of their logo (the typograhical portion) and pulling it from the logo to refer to the system that the logo is meant to be used to reference. Again, a possible stretch, but when it comes to using the license, and the loss of using the logo or the licenses hangs in the balance, I'd personally prefer to err on the side of caution.

Just some more food for thought.

 

[storyguide3]

It seems fairly obvious that this is an effort to stop the use of "d20" in the titles of OGL-only products. I can understand why Wizards would want to do that, and by declaring "d20" to be PI, they can impose that restriction on products that don't use the d20STL. However, by a strict reading of the rules, that could certainly mean that products claiming derivation from the new SRD would not be able to use "d20" in any way without a separate agreement with Wizards.

I'm fairly certain that WotC dosen't want that, if for no other reason than the headache that it would cause keeping up with said agreements.

If they want to allow people to use the new SRD (which, of course, they do), they may have to offer some sort of "goodie license (a la Relics & Rituals) to allow for ther use of "d20" as it refers to dice while disallowing its use in the title of a work.