Third Party Publisher designation and logo

[jmucchiello]

My problem with this logo is the license. When CMG releases a product with the Third Party logo on it, they have to include the logo in their copyright notice. This means the OGC in that product now has the logo copyright tagging along with it in downstream products whether or not the logo is placed on the product. This could be confusing to customers. Er.. Wait a minute:

Third Party Publisher designation and logo established for public use as Open Game Content in September 2003. No copyright or trademark is held on the designation or logo by any individual or group, public or private. [End of License]
Notice of Open Game Content: The Third Party Publisher designation and logo is Open Game Content as defined in the Open Game License, above. Open Game Content may only be used under and in terms of the Open Game License.

Does "No copyright or trademark is held on the designation or logo" mean you are releasing the logo into the public domain?
Public domain material is unowned and therefore cannot be submitted as OGC since you lack the authority to contribute it.

 

[Mark]

-snip-

There are no rules against explaining with the legal section (or somewhere else) what the Third Party Publisher designation and logo means to avoid any confusion.

Actually Mark that answered it.

The other logos had some sort of intending goal. You didn't. Makes it much simpler than having us try and read something into the intended goal.
With the amount of other logos floating around, and the timing, I made the mistake of assuming that you were intending the same sort of goal as them.

'nuff said.

Yup. Simply a designating mark that can be used to show OGL use regardless of the system. No trademark issues, no compatibility issues, simple...

My problem with this logo is the license. When CMG releases a product with the Third Party logo on it, they have to include the logo in their copyright notice. This means the OGC in that product now has the logo copyright tagging along with it in downstream products whether or not the logo is placed on the product. This could be confusing to customers. Er.. Wait a minute:

Not if people are willing to put the OGL in the forefront and allow systems to be secondary. Depends on the strength of the community spirit, I suppose. Further, it is currently not against any license to use the Third Party Publisher designation and logo in conjunction with them since it does not bear the onus of being trademarked or representing compatibility with any system.

Does "No copyright or trademark is held on the designation or logo" mean you are releasing the logo into the public domain?
Public domain material is unowned and therefore cannot be submitted as OGC since you lack the authority to contribute it.

It was created by me and simultaneously released as OGC as I gave up all claims to the rights. Besides which, I released it to OGC, so not public domain. Public domain material cannot be OGC, so it isn't that. It is merely OGC that is free from any attachment except that as OGC it requires the use of the OGL. An unencumbered designating mark that means, since it is OGC, that a product uses the OGL. Simple.

My gift to the community.

 

[mythusmage]

The heck with the fussbudgets and the antsy, I'm using it. I will be using it on Mythusmage to indicate that this site has and presents OGC. Both original and derived from other sources. The Logo will appear on the index page and the main table of contents.

It will also be used on anything that actually reaches publication. Again to indicate the use of OGC, both original and derived.

I will also clearly designate OGC by setting it off through use of boxes and/or distinctively shaded sidebars and/or sections. Unless
the work in question is designated OGC in it's entirety.

Suffer.

 

[jmucchiello]

Public domain material cannot be OGC, so it isn't that.

I don't think you can give up the copyright to it. Giving up copyright means placing it in the public domain. You cannot give up ownership except by placing it into the public domain. Either you retain the copyright or you place it in public domain. You cannot give up copyright and encumber the material with a license. They are mutually exclusive goals.

Regardless, according to the license "You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute." If the material has no copyright date or holder's name, it cannot abide by the terms of the license. And is thus not OGC. This implies that only copyrighted material can be OGC (as you said above).

Second, why in the world is the SRD in your OGL? Your logo makes no use of the SRD. How can anyone use the logo with other OGC? You make a big deal about be free from "system" yet exclude non-d20 systems like Action!

I'll stick with OpenDie once the license is finished.

 

[Mark]

-snip-

Good Man, Alan. What I am doing is interesting. What you are doing is courageous. I am personally impressed. I hope others will be infected by your spirit of inclusivity. Be forewarned that at some time in the future some compatibility licenses might be drafted or redrafted to purposefully exclude the use of something on the order of the Third Party Publisher designation and logo. Idealism might someday have a price. I personally think it is worth paying but you have to decide such things for yourself, of course.

I don't think you can give up the copyright to it. Giving up copyright means placing it in the public domain. You cannot give up ownership except by placing it into the public domain. Either you retain the copyright or you place it in public domain. You cannot give up copyright and encumber the material with a license. They are mutually exclusive goals.

I not only can, I did. They are not mutually exclusive merely because you declare them so. Something is not impossible simply because it has never been done before.

Regardless, according to the license "You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute." If the material has no copyright date or holder's name, it cannot abide by the terms of the license. And is thus not OGC. This implies that only copyrighted material can be OGC (as you said above).

September 2003 and "no one" are effectively the date and name. It abides by the terms and is OGC.

Second, why in the world is the SRD in your OGL? Your logo makes no use of the SRD. How can anyone use the logo with other OGC? You make a big deal about be free from "system" yet exclude non-d20 systems like Action!

Homage, deference, respect... Call it what you will but it effectively hurts no one, though no doubt some will say otherwise and for them it might be true though perhaps not for clearly stated reasons. Is it any more harmful than someone who picks up OGC from one system, converts it to another and then is required to pay homage to the other system by virtue of the OGC origin? I think not.

I'll stick with OpenDie once the license is finished.

It need not be an either/or situation, unless their license is changed to specifically exclude it. As I do not think the FGA is interested in fractionalization of the community, I do not think they would make a change to that end. One would have to examine the rationale of any license creator who makes such an exclusion and decide for themself if such an exclusion is a sign of protection or something less palatable.

 

[jmucchiello]

September 2003 and "no one" are effectively the date and name. It abides by the terms and is OGC.

I disagree. Since I do, I do not feel your logo is valid OGC and therefore will not use it. Even if I'm wrong, the fact that it is not clear cut legally will keep me away from it.

It need not be an either/or situation, unless their license is changed to specifically exclude it. As I do not think the FGA is interested in fractionalization of the community, I do not think they would make a change to that end. One would have to examine the rationale of any license creator who makes such an exclusion and decide for themself if such an exclusion is a sign of protection or something less palatable.

This isn't an issue of exclusion, but one of dilution. I only need and want one logo that indicates openness. I've already chosen one. From my point of view "OpenDie" indicate openness far more than "Third Party" does. Being OGC as well is of no consequence to me.

 

[Mark]

I disagree. Since I do, I do not feel your logo is valid OGC and therefore will not use it. Even if I'm wrong, the fact that it is not clear cut legally will keep me away from it.

The legal minds that I have consulted do not agree with the legal minds that you have consulted. Or is yours a layman's opinion?

This isn't an issue of exclusion, but one of dilution. I only need and want one logo that indicates openness. I've already chosen one. From my point of view "OpenDie" indicate openness far more than "Third Party" does. Being OGC as well is of no consequence to me.

I understand. Personally, as stated above, I am not interested in the licensing restrictions that come with the OpenDie logo. Further, the discussions regarding multiple OpenDie logos to represent varying levels of openness does not sit well with me regarding community fractionalization. To each his own, of course.

 

[mythusmage]

Good Man, Alan. What I am doing is interesting. What you are doing is courageous. I am personally impressed. I hope others will be infected by your spirit of inclusivity. Be forewarned that at some time in the future some compatibility licenses might be drafted or redrafted to purposefully exclude the use of something on the order of the Third Party Publisher designation and logo. Idealism might someday have a price. I personally think it is worth paying but you have to decide such things for yourself, of course.

Courageous? Nah, it's frustration. "We're doomed!" "You're fractionalizing the RPG community!" "You're encroaching on my turf!". Well heck with 'em, I like the idea and I'm implementing it. If the ARD ever gets finished it'll have the TPP d&L on it. Same for everything else I produce.

I get enough "That can't be so." over on the James Randi message boards (JREF), so I'm not about to tolerate it here. As much as I can everything I produce will be a good as I can make it. It won't have fancy graphics or look real snazzy, but it will have good writing and interesting ideas. Where my stuff is concerned the TPP d&l will be associated with quality. It might even get published.

Enough of this ego rant, I'm using the TPP d&l and I invite others to join me. But if you must write yet another "The Drow are Wicked Cool and Really Deserve to Rule the World and Sacrifice Halflings to Lolth" book, could you make it a book about the drow instead of another list of poorly implemented crunch?

 

[RSKennan]

Why not a logo that actually says something that indicates compatability? Such as "OGC" "OPEN", "For use with 3.5" (don't know if the last one's kosher for OGC), or as some have simply said: "For use with the 3rd edition rules of the leading RPG system"?

I guess the problem for me, and apparently others who are watching, is the lack of a logo that actually indicates compatibility to people who only know d20, and don't follow message boards. The jump between '3rd party' and 'd20' is too far. To be a valid alternative to d20, it has to be either widely recognised, or so intuitive that no one can misunderstand what it means, without stepping on toes legally. That's no easy task, I'm sure.

I also wonder if the relationships between specific third party publishers and WotC could become strained by adopting an alternate logo, if there was an impression that these smaller companies were trying to sidestep WotCs rules, or exploit their generosity. Fallout probably wouldn't be major, but I don't know if WotC would be as willing to do things like sending out the advance copies of the 3.5 rules, or to allow us to use theri PI monsters etc, under special permission. So far I haven't seen the 'Corporate Dark Tower' that some see.

Though I'm just an author for now, I've been thinking about putting some of my riskier ideas in PDF format. I've been following this closely, and would like to see if there can be a workable solution.

I'm not a lawyer, of course.

 

[jmucchiello]

Personally, as stated above, I am not interested in the licensing restrictions that come with the OpenDie logo. Further, the discussions regarding multiple OpenDie logos to represent varying levels of openness does not sit well with me regarding community fractionalization. To each his own, of course.

What restrictions? They haven't finished the license yet. If you have problems with the license air them and they can be addressed. OpenDie will most likely be like the GPL that allows you to use any official version of the license once it is finalized and thus once you are happy with the license that version of the license cannot be taken away.