Questions about the new SRD [summon Orcus!]

[Orcus]

The "challenge wotc in court" answer just doesnt advance the discussion at all. So it is essentially a useless answer. Its like the way hackers say "you wont stop it" in discussions about trademark and copyright violation. Yeah, we know that. We know it is unsettled until tested in court (and as a lawyer I can tell you that even then it wont be settled ).

To get back on track, I dont think the "declare PI where that PI never appears within the OGC work" approach is effective. I think it is the best way they could come up with to try to PI stuff without using the d20 STL. I just dont think it does what they want.

The real question is about versions of the SRD.

We all agreed that the "draft" SRD would be finalized later and that we would comply and revise to comply with the finalized version (removing GH gods, removing a few monsters, spell names, etc).

But there was a final 3.0 SRD. Now it seems that SRD has been replaced with the 3.5 SRD. I cant find the 3.0 SRD officially on line anymore on the WotC site (if you can find it, let me know).

But I think that is problematic. Once the SRD was released as OGC I dont think they can take it back. Meaning, I think we could cite to the 3.0 SRD just as readily as we could cite to the "revised" SRD.

Clark

 

[Cergorach]

Oh, that reminds me! I haven't seen the Beholder in the SRD (yet), but some companies (such as necromancer games) do mention them in their products, by name and stats. These are in the OGC designated parts of the text. Does that mean i can reference those works and include Beholders in OGL works i make/write?

As a matter of fact, i came also across the name illithid in an OGC designated part of the text of one of Feary Dragon's adventures...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Oh, that reminds me! I haven't seen the Beholder in the SRD (yet), but some companies (such as necromancer games) do mention them in their products, by name and stats. These are in the OGC designated parts of the text. Does that mean i can reference those works and include Beholders in OGL works i make/write?

No.

These creatures were once part of the "Gentleman's Agreement" version of the SRD-- along with such things as wizards' names in the spell descriptions (Tenser, Mordenkainen, that whole gang...). They have never appeared in the official SRD, and now it seems they never will.

Normally, a 3rd party publisher would be responsible for any breach of the OGL caused by their product. But because these terms were used "legally" at the time, under a provisional agreement, I don't think WOTC would go after the original publisher if you subsequently decided to use these items, claiming they were Open Content-- rather, I think they would go after YOU.

At least, such is my understanding and opinion...

Wulf

 

[Mark]

I would think that, in essence, the 3.0 material is so close to the 3.5 that you could use the old and claim it as deriative of the new. Let's call it "frontwards compatible"...

Or for those of you requiring a marketing approach, "Third Edition Rules, First Edition Feel, Third and a Half Edition Prices!"

 

[Orcus]

Wulf is right.

At the time of use, it was fine. Since the products havent been reprinted they havent been revised. All products using draft material should indicate that. Our products always say "uses content from a draft version...blah blah blah" in the legal text.

The problem is that while I agree there is a technical loophole that you could just cite to an old product as the source of the now-forbidden monster that goes against the spirit of the license (and possibly the letter). I think you would definately get a nasty gram from WotC. Plus, it just isnt cool. This is a small industry and screwing WotC to get to use a beholder in one product is a pretty bad payoff for you in the long run.

Currently, it is easy to get permission to use the content. You just have to list that that stuff isnt OGC and is used with permission.

Clark

 

[smetzger]

But there was a final 3.0 SRD. Now it seems that SRD has been replaced with the 3.5 SRD. I cant find the 3.0 SRD officially on line anymore on the WotC site (if you can find it, let me know).

But I think that is problematic. Once the SRD was released as OGC I dont think they can take it back. Meaning, I think we could cite to the 3.0 SRD just as readily as we could cite to the "revised" SRD.

1) 3.0 was released under the OGL, WOTC cannot take that back.

2) Just because the 3.0 SRD is no longer hosted on the WOTC site doesn't mean you can't use it. After all you can still reference OGL/D20 publications that have gone out of print. Besides the 3.0 SRD is still available on the Open Gaming Foundation web site.

 

[afstanton]

1) 3.0 was released under the OGL, WOTC cannot take that back.

2) Just because the 3.0 SRD is no longer hosted on the WOTC site doesn't mean you can't use it. After all you can still reference OGL/D20 publications that have gone out of print. Besides the 3.0 SRD is still available on the Open Gaming Foundation web site.

(Topic fork...)

I believe I have the 3.0 SRD sitting on my hard drive still. (As I'm sure that many reading this do.) Would it be of any interest or use to post it so that it doesn't just fade from view completely?

Aaron

 

[Orcus]

BUT from WotC's standpoint, they put the PI limitations in only teh 3.5 SRD (I believe). That is where the interesting part comes in...

Clark

 

[Cergorach]

Clark, i can understand that older products might indeed have used the draft version of the SRD. Even the name Beholder in a product such a Rappan Arthuk might have been from a draft version. But the name Beholder is also in Tome of Horrors (p.132, 148, 154, possible other pages as well), and that is released under 1.0a OGL.

*reads a bit further*

Quote: "Some of the OGC used herein comes from the draft version of the SRD by permission from WotC by and through Ryan Dancey and/or Anthoney Valterra. Subsequent printings of this work will incorporate and comply with the final versions of the SRD."

Ah, crap! But that laves me with the question whether or not i can use the Beholder name with the Quote above? And how in the nine hells is a new publisher supposed to know what is and what's not from the draft version of the SRD? It's designated as OGC material nowhere in the OGL does it say that material used in the draft version of the SRD is prohibited, it would also be pretty pointless to put it in the OGL, because you can use just about any version of the OGL. I think that if rules concerning monsternames/spellnames where put in the D20L it would be more effective. Most publishers still want to use the D20 System logo and would probably choose a different monster to use then challenge the D20L...

 

[Orcus]

That is why you shouldnt reuse content from a secondary source if it is in the SRD. Just use the SRD. If you rely on that secondary source (the d20 product) having been compliant you are opening yourself up. If "beholder" istn in the SRD and it is in a d20 product, that should raise a red flag to you so that you dont just say "ah what the heck, I'll use beholder from this d20 product since it isnt in the SRD." That should give you pause. This of course is a problem with draft content. But now we have a real SRD. Well, at least until they change to 4.0 and th 3.5 one disappears. Or maybe 3.6 next year...

Clark