SRD Legal Changes

[dcollins]

So I'm reading the new SRD Legal document as closely as I can I note the following:

- There's typos in it. The copyright notice credits "Rich baker" and "David noonan".

- There is no naming distinction between this one and the old one. The copyright notice is just "System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003", so there's no legal provision for pointing out which version of the SRD you took material from.

- Most distressing, in the Product Identity specification, they declare that "d20" is Product Identity (this is separate from where they declare "d20 System" as PI). The legal implication, per paragraph 7, is that you cannot refer to a "d20" in a product descended from the SRD. Good grief!

(For those not up on the history, during questioning over the revised conversion license with its own legal typos over a year ago, a WOTC spokesperson suggested that WOTC wanted to trademark "d20" (again, not just "d20 System"), even though no such trademark ever showed up at the US Patent & Trademark Office. Unclear whether this re-indicates the confusion on that, desire for that, or a mistake.)

I can tolerate some imprecision in material which is "just a game". However, sloppiness in what is alleged to be a binding legal agreement really frustrates me.

 

[Emiricol]

Yeah, such mistakes shoot all kinds of holes in how binding it is, given a good vulture... er... attorney...

 

[Voadam]

Yeah, such mistakes shoot all kinds of holes in how binding it is, given a good vulture... er... attorney...

No it doesn't.

dcollins,

I noticed the new copyright as well, the d20 PI seems to be a serious issue. The capitalization error is just poor form.

You can still differentiate the two srds by the copyright notice, it is non-obvious, but detectable.

Unless I'm misremembering and the 3.0 srd was copyright -2003 as well.

 

[Aitch Eye]

The 3.0 SRD was just "Copyright 2000", it also had four less authors listed.


There's an active discussion of this subject on the publisher's board:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57819

 

[dcollins]

I'll also point out that the assertion the "d20" is Product Identity creates a direct legal contradiction, because "d20" is itself used throughout the SRD (in Basics, Combat, etc.), which is identified as being Open Game Content.

You've got something identified as both section 1(d) and 1(e), even though those "specifically exclude" each other.

 

[smetzger]

I'll also point out that the assertion the "d20" is Product Identity creates a direct legal contradiction, because "d20" is itself used throughout the SRD (in Basics, Combat, etc.), which is identified as being Open Game Content.

You've got something identified as both section 1(d) and 1(e), even though those "specifically exclude" each other.

Actually thats exactly how you are supposed to use PI. PI is usually in a section marked as OGC. If something isn't in an OGC section than there is no reason to declare it as PI. The whole reason for PI is one of convenience of marking OGC and making sure that you don't OGC things which you want to keep ownership/control.

 

[dcollins]

I disagree. For example, 44 out of 45 items listed as PI in the SRD Legal document do not appear anywhere else in the SRD. Only "d20" stands out as being asserted as PI and also appearing in the OGC SRD.

Furthermore, the specification in section 8 is "8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content." -- nowhere is PI defined as a mechanism for counter-identification.

 

[The Sigil]

I disagree. For example, 44 out of 45 items listed as PI in the SRD Legal document do not appear anywhere else in the SRD. Only "d20" stands out as being asserted as PI and also appearing in the OGC SRD.

Furthermore, the specification in section 8 is "8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content." -- nowhere is PI defined as a mechanism for counter-identification.

Read the FAQ at WotC. I'm paraphrasing here, but...

Q.: If something is identified as both Product Identity and Open Game Content in the same document, which is it?

A: Product Identity.

The definition of Open Game Content is, in essence, "everything that is blah excluding Product Identity."

IOW, a "PI" designation "trumps" an OGC designation.

--The Sigil

 

[dcollins]

You're right, that does appear in the FAQ. However, I totally disagree with that FAQ entry and consider it to be completely unfounded. No explanation is given in that answer for why that would be the case.

Two entries down it also says this:

Q: If I identify something as Product Identity that was previously distributed as Open Game Content, does the material become Product Identity?

A: No. Once content has been distributed as Open Game Content, it cannot become Product Identity, even if you are the original creator of the content.

You might also want to check out the other thread (linked above, you've also posted there) at this point where the WOTC licensing director has apparently agreed that the "d20" inclusion as PI was erroneous.