Ryan Dancey Interview and the OGL

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

The continued arguement that simply throwing the most money at is relevant is funny.

Sure, the legal system can be corrupted. You can get away with breaking the law sometimes. That does not change the actual law, much less right and wrong.

 

[Christian]

Hey, Clark ...

... since there's finally someone with some honest-to-Zeus actual knowledge posting to this thread, I'd like to confirm one of my conclusions from reading the OGL and the d20 license.

It is my understanding that, because the d20 SRD was published under the OGL, that one could publish an OGL product using *only* the material in the SRD (i.e. with no reference whatsoever to copyrighted material in the PHB et al) without having to comply with the d20 license restrictions. As long as you don't put a d20 logo or reference on the product, or refer to (eg.) experience points, there's no need to put the 'requires the use of the D&D third edition Player's Handbook' disclaimer on it. Is this correct?

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

You can use the OGL to publish games that do not use even the SRD.

Even if you use the d20 lisence, the player's handbook phrase is optional.

 

[Zappo]

You can use the OGL to publish any game, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with D&D or the d20 system in general, even if you haven't ever heard of a third edition of D&D. Hell, you can use it to publish your game even if you don't quite know what D&D (or WotC) is. It has nothing (as in: zero) to do with D&D, except that the d20 system which D&D uses happens to have been published under it.

That's why Dancey thinks it'd be better if all publishers who want to make an open gaming system should use the OGL. There is no reason not to do so, and creating your own license makes the whole scene more complex without you gaining anything from it.

 

[Orcus]

"I think you would probably agree as an attorney that if something is partially true, it would generally end up being the person who threw the most money and resources at the legal battle who ended up prevailing."

Thats a rather cynical popular belief. I would say that is not true. But there is something that is true that is related to your comment: someone with more resources can certainly weather the storm of a lawsuit better than someone with less. That doenst mean the person with more resources prevails. My guess is that WotC is no more excited about expending the resources on a law suit that I am in defending one against me. But it would hurt my profitability more.

As for an OGC product that uses the d20 SRD but not the logo and license, that is being addressed. The current changes to the licenses make the "this product requires the use of the 3E PHB by WotC" mandatory, not optional. So it would be difficult (if not impossible) to do a product that uses the SRD without the logo and the "this product requires..." phrase. But I dont believe that version of the license is final yet.

Clark

 

[RyanD]

As for an OGC product that uses the d20 SRD but not the logo and license, that is being addressed. The current changes to the licenses make the "this product requires the use of the 3E PHB by WotC" mandatory, not optional. So it would be difficult (if not impossible) to do a product that uses the SRD without the logo and the "this product requires..." phrase. But I dont believe that version of the license is final yet.

Clark

That's not what the change is going to do. It's going to require the use of a standard, WotC referencing statement if you use the D20 System Trademark License.

If all you use is the OGL, you aren't bound by any of the terms in the Trademark License.

Ryan

 

[Christian]

If all you use is the OGL, you aren't bound by any of the terms in the Trademark License.

And that answered my question, too. (And whattaya know-I was right about something! Go figure.)

Thanks, Ryan!

 

[Orcus]

Look at that, we got Ryan in! Thanks Ryan. My belief was that the new version of the licenses was going to make it more difficult to create OGL-only products that use the SRD content but do not follow the d20 license. Looks like Ryan took care of that.

Clark

 

[trancejeremy]

I thought what WOTC wanted to avoid was someone releasing a main game or setting book with all the rules in it from the d20 srd, but not using the d20 logo (and so not under the terms of the d20 STL), then releasing supplements under that game or setting name, with the d20 logo, but not "Requires the Use of the PHB by WOTC"


By making the Requires the PHB a requirement, instead of an option, eliminates that loophole. But makes it harder for dual system books, like for Deadlands, of the Coriolis line from Atlas...

 

[RyanD]

I thought what WOTC wanted to avoid was someone releasing a main game or setting book with all the rules in it from the d20 srd, but not using the d20 logo (and so not under the terms of the d20 STL), then releasing supplements under that game or setting name, with the d20 logo, but not "Requires the Use of the PHB by WOTC"

Bingo.

If you want to use the d20 logo, WotC wants you to be promoting sales of its products. That's the quid-pro-quo.