Questions about the new SRD [summon Orcus!]

[Orcus]

This is just poorly done all around.

That original "d20" claim is just lame.

I see why they are doing it, of course. The best solution, in a sense, is to add a restriction in the d20STL (the real evil document in the bunch, which I dont know why anyone doesnt gripe about). BUT changing that, as has been pointed out, doesnt bind people who make OGL only (non-d20 STL) products. So they try to stick it in some cheesy PI designation in the SRD. That is all of very questionable validity to my mind. But of course this is not legal advice.

I agree with everything John Nephew has said in this thread. It was elegant and simple before (either OGC or not in SRD) and now it is messy. And possibly improper.

I also agree that if it was once OGC it cant be made non-OGC. All you have to do is credit both versions of the SRD in your section 5--3.0 for the term "d20" and 3.5 for everything else.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

Bottom line is that we all understand what is going on and should all abide by it--they dont want d20 in product names, OGL only or d20STL products. That is the only real impact here.

I guess I should go check to see if the d20 STL has been updated since that is really the best place to make changes (and is in fact the only document they can alter after the fact and you are bound by the changes and cant use an "older version of").

I agree that PI is a pretty vague concept. It cant be fully defined by copyright or trademark laws as it on its face goes beyond those concepts. But this is more of a problem in theory than in practice.

Clark

 

[Mark]

If something is OGC'd but later becomes a trademark, does it become off-limits as OGC by virtue of section seven of the OGL?

"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. "

Does this countermand the "once OGC, always OGC" expectation?

 

[Orcus]

I guess that would depend on its status at the time of your "Use". If it wasnt a trademark when you "used" it, I dont know how that could be a violation. Of course, you might have reprint issues. So you would just need to get WotC permission (or permission from the trademark holder).

Clark

(note: my comments here are my opinions, not legal advice)

 

[Walter_J]

True, that was careless of me. I should say, it is to designate those portions of a work containing Open Content which are Product Identity.

Either way, I don't know that they can do it as they've done it.

Even if they could, it doesn't make any sense. How can you claim something is Product Identity that doesn't appear in the work the license is attached to? I've been going through the 3.5 SRD and so far I haven't seen "d20 used as a trademark" or in any other form except referring to dice. The same goes for Beholder, Forgotten Realms, any of the planar stuff, and the others as well.

As an aside, I'm not sure how you could distinguish between using the 3.0 SRD vs 3.5 SRD to "get around" this or that because I haven't seen anything in the text or legal file of the 3.5 SRD that distinguishes it as being any different than the 3.0 version (other than the PI clause, that is.) In other words, as far as I can tell, its all one big SRD. And the copyright notice seems to make that pretty clear.

 

[Walter_J]

And if all WoTC is trying to accomplish is to keep non-d20 STL users from using the term "d20" as part of a title and so forth, why not just make it part of the agreement in the OGL that "thou shalt not do this" and be done with it.

 

[Staffan]

And if all WoTC is trying to accomplish is to keep non-d20 STL users from using the term "d20" as part of a title and so forth, why not just make it part of the agreement in the OGL that "thou shalt not do this" and be done with it.

Because anything released under any "full" version of the OGL (1.0 or later) can be used under the terms of any other full version.

 

[Walter_J]

Because anything released under any "full" version of the OGL (1.0 or later) can be used under the terms of any other full version.

Yeah, your right. I must've gotten confused with how the d20 STL works. Or the fan is sucking in too many fumes from the hiway...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Thanks, Orcus. I was sorry to hear you couldn't make it to GenCon.

Anyhow, thanks for the insight. It's comforting to know when my opinion and undertstanding of the licenses mirrors yours.

I do have one question that you didn't address, if you have time:

What is your opinion on making a declaration of Product Identity that doesn't even appear in the work itself?

Originally posted by Mark
If something is OGC'd but later becomes a trademark, does it become off-limits as OGC by virtue of section seven of the OGL?

"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. "

Does this countermand the "once OGC, always OGC" expectation?

That's an interesting point, Mark. I don't think it would circumvent the OGC issue, but I think it would supercede it. Whether the term "d20" is open or not; if it becomes a "trademark by association" as you suggest, it would seem they already have the protection they need right there in Sec. 7.

I'd just like to see some solution that ends with the PI declaration being removed from the SRD.


Wulf

 

[Voadam]

What is your opinion on making a declaration of Product Identity that doesn't even appear in the work itself?


Wulf

That I think is one of the core issues here (in addition to can you make existing material you previously released as OGC PI in a new product).

It is easy for them to mostly get around though. They could include a new file as part of the srd that is just a list of the terms clearly marked as PI and not OGC. Of course I don't think the broad terms "characters" and "places" would work (and I'm not sure about the "d20 x" product name) but the specific planes, monsters, spell character names, greyhawk, Faerun, Elminster, etc. would be easy to do.

It would probably have an intro stating "The following terms are part of the SRD but are designated Product Identity and are not released as Open Game Content." then listing the terms.