Third Party Publisher designation and logo

[Mark]

Courageous? Nah, it's frustration.

There is likely a lot of that going around.

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.

Compatibility logos are best proffered by the controling bodies of the material with which a logo is associated, ethically and legally (IMO as a non-lawyer.)

I'll repeat some of what I have previously posted to be sure it is clear...

The Third Party Publisher designation and logo is meant to show use of OGC and the OGL while not being tied to compatibility with any particular system or trademarks from any particular publisher.

The Third Party Publisher designation and logo is not a replacement for any compatibility logo, but rather a separate designation to show use of the OGL. If a publisher wishes to show compatibility with a particular system, they are best served by entering an agreement with the publisher who controls the material with which they are striving to show compatibility (IMO as a non-lawyer.) There are currently no licenses of which I am aware that preclude the use of both the Third Party Publisher designation and logo and a separate agreement to show compatibility.

It is not a sidestep of any compatibility logo since, indeed, it does not indicate use of any particular OGC or system. (The "jump" is not "too far" since it is not intended to suggest a jump.)

Let me add that I think a large part of the confusion in this thread is from proponents of the Free Gaming Association's Prometheus Compatibility Trademark License, their Prometheus Compatibility Logo (PCL), their OpenDie License, and their OpenDie logo. While I respect thier right to say what they want, where they want, they have mixed up compatibility issues with issues of openness. IMO they have tied things up in their own efforts very tightly, across all of their efforts, when in fact what they have are two separate issues and I am sorry that it has confused you. It is likely, IMO, that they will have further problems in the future not only with the compatibility issues of their efforts but, by such close association with their openness issues. I quote from above regarding the FGA Prometheus Compatibility Trademark License-

What: The PCL reference documents, which bear a striking resemblance to the world's most popular fantasy RPG.

If they are going to pursue their efforts to do (what is IMO) an end-around on the compatibility issues with particular systems through the OpenDie logo they might be wise to drop the other efforts of openness lest the association taint all of those efforts. They are, IMO, creating a chain of association that will disallow the use of any of their efforts once one component of those efforts comes under legal scrutiny.

The FGA's efforts and the Third Party Publisher designation and logo are apples and oranges, not associated in anyway. By virtue of the FGA's push to show compatibility they distance themselves, IMO, from any true efforts to simply show openness. I would suggest that anyone interested in the FGA's efforts and any further discussion of their projects be appropriately separated from this thread on this board or advanced on their own boards or other venues. It is not germane to a discussion of the Third Party Publisher designation and logo which *does not* seek to advance compatibility claims in any way, shape, or form. I am sure that proponents of the FGA's efforts do not wish to purposefully engender confusion and will respect my request to keep things separate.

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.

What restrictions? Any restrictions. Please read my above posts on that portion of the topic. I believe I am quite clear. I am not interested in trading one set of restrictions for another regardless of the form or content of the restrictions or the licensing body. I am not interested in having a logo that states more than that I am using OGC, any OGC, which is what the Third Party Publisher designation and logo means.

Aside from having no interest in the additional FGA license, I am suspect if their end-around on compatibility with someone else's material is prudent or legally possible. The entire "wink-wink" component of how they are proceding, IMO, is not ethically sound and likely will have legal ramifications (though I am not a lawyer.)

You still haven't cleared up whether or not you have legal standing to express the thought from your previous post or if it was merely a laymen's opinion. I'd appreciate it if people can be sure to make those distinctions plain. Obviously, even the current compatibility logos and licenses are not "court testing" which is the bottom line regardless of any opinion (including my own). It's not that I do not respect your opinion, or right to have one (I do have respect in that accord), but I think for the casual reading it is important to be clear.

 

[jmucchiello]

The Third Party Publisher designation and logo is meant to show use of OGC and the OGL while not being tied to compatibility with any particular system or trademarks from any particular publisher.

Exactly what the OpenDie logo is designed to do.

Let me add that I think a large part of the confusion in this thread is from proponents of the Free Gaming Association's Prometheus Compatibility Trademark License, their Prometheus Compatibility Logo (PCL), their OpenDie License, and their OpenDie logo. While I respect thier right to say what they want, where they want, they have mixed up compatibility issues with issues of openness.

This is inaccurate. Prometheus is for compatibility with the Prometheus Reference Document. Period. nothing else. Open Die is for indicating the existance of OGC. Period. Nothing else.

IMO they have tied things up in their own efforts very tightly, across all of their efforts, when in fact what they have are two separate issues and I am sorry that it has confused you.

You haven't been paying attention. The FGA has two seperate logos designed to deal with two different issues. It is you who may be confused. (As an aside, not everything the FGA has done is on the FGA website. Much of it is still under discussion in the mailing list. If you are not on the mailing list, you may have the wrong impression of the FGA's efforts. Join FGA-Prometheus@yahoogroups.com to read the archives for more details.)

If they are going to pursue their efforts to do (what is IMO) an end-around on the compatibility issues with particular systems through the OpenDie logo they might be wise to drop the other efforts of openness lest the association taint all of those efforts.

The OpenDie logo has nothing to do with Prometheus. You are misrepresenting the FGA.

The FGA's efforts and the Third Party Publisher designation and logo are apples and oranges, not associated in anyway. By virtue of the FGA's push to show compatibility they distance themselves, IMO, from any true efforts to simply show openness.

Again two different logos (OpenDie vs Prometheus), two different meanings. OpenDie is exactly the same as your Third Party Pub logo.

It is not germane to a discussion of the Third Party Publisher designation and logo which *does not* seek to advance compatibility claims in any way, shape, or form.

Again, OpenDie is exactly the same as the TPP. It makes no claims of compatibility with anything but the OGL.

I am sure that proponents of the FGA's efforts do not wish to purposefully engender confusion and will respect my request to keep things separate.

Until you stop misrepresenting the FGA's agenda, proponents of it cannot withdraw from this discussion.

What restrictions? Any restrictions. Please read my above posts on that portion of the topic. I believe I am quite clear. I am not interested in trading one set of restrictions for another regardless of the form or content of the restrictions or the licensing body. I am not interested in having a logo that states more than that I am using OGC, any OGC, which is what the Third Party Publisher designation and logo means.

Right. Exactly what restrictions are attached to the OpenDie logo that you object too? First, it is still in draft form because it was not of the highest agenda in the last few months. Second, it currently is a 100% logo. This may or may not change before it moves out of Draft. I'm not sure.

Aside from having no interest in the additional FGA license, I am suspect if their end-around on compatibility with someone else's material is prudent or legally possible. The entire "wink-wink" component of how they are proceding, IMO, is not ethically sound and likely will have legal ramifications (though I am not a lawyer.)

1) This is the Prometheus logo. It is seperate and distinct form the OpenDie logo. 2) There is no "wink-wink" component to the Prometheus logo. Implying there is one is nearly libelous. Planesdragon's post above is not representative of the FGA. (Neither do mine either) 3) Prometheus indicates compatibility with the Prometheus Reference Documents. The PRD is the 3.0 SRD, 3.5 SRD, and Modern SRD collected in one place. At no time does the Prometheus license make reference to WotC, D&D or D20 explicitly or implicitly. The reason for creating the PRD was to avoid going anywhere near the WotC Trademarks associated with the SRD.

You still haven't cleared up whether or not you have legal standing to express the thought from your previous post or if it was merely a laymen's opinion.

Completely Layman. I have not the money to ask my lawyer about your logo because I do not want to put "Third Party" anything on my products. If I want to indicate my product is "Open" (and I'm not sure that is worthwhile either) I'll do so with the OpenDie logo once the license is finished. I don't see how "Third Party Publisher" means "Open". Had you called you logo the "Open Content Publisher" logo, I wouldn't be as against it.

 

[Mark]

You haven't been paying attention. The FGA has two seperate logos designed to deal with two different issues. It is you who may be confused. (As an aside, not everything the FGA has done is on the FGA website.

I have been paying close enough attention to understand that you are missing the point.

The OpenDie logo has nothing to do with Prometheus. You are misrepresenting the FGA.

I am misrepresenting nothing. They are tied to one another by virtue of being from the same source. That is the primary problem. Should one fall afoul of legal problems due to licensing errors, IMO the whole of their efforts are likely to suffer.

Again, OpenDie is exactly the same as the TPP.

You are incorrect. The TPP requires no license and is not tied to a source that also is promoting a compatibility logo. Very different.

Right. Exactly what restrictions are attached to the OpenDie logo that you object too?

Any restrictions. There is no need for a license (or restrictions) to have a logo that shows OGC use and use of the OGL. It's that simple.

1) This is the Prometheus logo. It is seperate and distinct form the OpenDie logo. 2) There is no "wink-wink" component to the Prometheus logo. Implying there is one is nearly libelous. Planesdragon's post above is not representative of the FGA. (Neither do mine either)

I am posting in response to posts made in this thread by Planesdragon. You need to, or more properly, the FGA needs to discuss with Planesdragon (and perhaps you) how they are being represented in this thread.

Completely Layman.

Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[Blackadder]

I'm confused by this logo.

Now, I understand your goals with it. That by having this logo on something indicates that the content is OGC. But what about this logo says that?

I guess what I'm asking is: Why did you decide to put "Third Party Publisher" on the logo rather than, say, "Open Game Content"? I look at the logo and say "Duh, of course you are a third party publisher, you aren't WotC!", but that isn't really what you were trying to accomplish.

Basically, I don't see what that logo is going to mean to anyone that hasn't read this thread. Its not obvious and intuitive. Could I get some clarification?

 

[Mark]

I'm confused by this logo.

Now, I understand your goals with it. That by having this logo on something indicates that the content is OGC. But what about this logo says that?

I guess what I'm asking is: Why did you decide to put "Third Party Publisher" on the logo rather than, say, "Open Game Content"? I look at the logo and say "Duh, of course you are a third party publisher, you aren't WotC!", but that isn't really what you were trying to accomplish.

Basically, I don't see what that logo is going to mean to anyone that hasn't read this thread. Its not obvious and intuitive. Could I get some clarification?

All releases under the OGL are Third Party after a fashion, perhaps even fourth or fifth, for that matter. Strictly speaking "Third Party" means "other than the principles" and as a release under an Open Game License is meant to place material under that license and possibly on an equal footing within the greater marketplace, the designation and logo seem very appropriate.

Hope that helps...

 

[Nellisir]

Hope that helps...

Not in the way you might like.

Correct me if I'm wrong. The 3rd-party publisher logo is meant to indicate use of the OGL; NOT specifically the SRD or any other game system released under the OGL.

The 3rd-party publisher logo ONLY indicates use of the OGL.

It doesn't indicate to the consumer whether or not a product a) has open game content beyond the logo, or b) whether or not the content (OGC or not) is usable with any or other game systems.

I just don't see the point. It doesn't give any practical information. It has no obvious and intuitive link to the Open Game License. Without knowledge of the OGL and the logo's relationship to it, it implies that the publisher is a 3rd party publisher of the -content- (as opposed to the license), which may or may not be the case, but certainly isn't something I want people to think of my original content.

It seems to do less, and to no purpose, than the OpenDie logo, which has the virtue of being obvious and intuitively linked to the phrase "open game content", and which will probably require the -actual- presence of OGC (where I expect the license aspect will come into play) in any product bearing the OpenDie logo.

As it stands, I'd get more mileage out of a logo that says "This Product Uses the Times New Roman Font". That, at least, would actually tell people something about what's inside the cover.

Cheers
Nell.
Who is aware that you've actually released the logo as OGC under the OGL, and that he could take it and write a little blurb underneath saying "this product uses the times new roman font", but since he can write that anyways, and other people could take the logo and write "this product uses the arial font" underneath it, and confuse the consumers, who are already, bless their dear deep pockets, pretty darned confused, it just doesn't seem worthwhile.

 

[jmucchiello]

It seems to do less, and to no purpose, than the OpenDie logo, which has the virtue of being obvious and intuitively linked to the phrase "open game content", and which will probably require the -actual- presence of OGC (where I expect the license aspect will come into play) in any product bearing the OpenDie logo.

This is why I don't think an OGC "Open Content Included" Logo can work. There must be a license to enforce: You must include OGC aside from the logo in your work.

 

[jmucchiello]

I am misrepresenting nothing. They are tied to one another by virtue of being from the same source. That is the primary problem. Should one fall afoul of legal problems due to licensing errors, IMO the whole of their efforts are likely to suffer.

That makes no sense. Why would legal trouble with license A cause problems for license B?

You are incorrect. The TPP requires no license and is not tied to a source that also is promoting a compatibility logo. Very different.

And the lack of license is a great weakness. I can put that logo on products containing no more OGC than the logo itself. It does not ENSURE that the product contains additional OGC.

I am posting in response to posts made in this thread by Planesdragon. You need to, or more properly, the FGA needs to discuss with Planesdragon (and perhaps you) how they are being represented in this thread.

I don't think many of them are ENWorlders. Did you post this on the opengamingfoundation mailing list for the OGL? ENWorld is not exactly the main hang out for open content wonks.

All releases under the OGL are Third Party after a fashion, perhaps even fourth or fifth, for that matter. Strictly speaking "Third Party" means "other than the principles" and as a release under an Open Game License is meant to place material under that license and possibly on an equal footing within the greater marketplace, the designation and logo seem very appropriate.

Gold Rush Games released the Action! game under the OGL. They are the first party publisher of the Action! system and therefore are not "Third Party Publishers". Your view of the market (by using Third Party) implies that all OGC is derived from WotC content (the First Party). You haven't addressed this. As I said, if you had called your logo the "Open Content Publisher" logo, I might have gotten on board.

Good Luck.

 

[Mark]

That makes no sense. Why would legal trouble with license A cause problems for license B?

Any time one aspect of an organization, no matter what size or who they are, is called into question, the full organization and all they do comes under closer scrutiny.

And the lack of license is a great weakness. I can put that logo on products containing no more OGC than the logo itself. It does not ENSURE that the product contains additional OGC.

The lack of a license is is strength. No quotas or mandatory percentages. No restrictions or forced agendas. Simple and useful. Self-regulatory.

I don't think many of them are ENWorlders. Did you post this on the opengamingfoundation mailing list for the OGL? ENWorld is not exactly the main hang out for open content wonks.

This is where I have chosen to post it. If someone spreads it elsewhere, that is their choice. I only have so much time to repeat myself and can't imagine how much more I would be spending if this were a conversation I was maintaining in more places than one.

Gold Rush Games released the Action! game under the OGL. They are the first party publisher of the Action! system and therefore are not "Third Party Publishers". Your view of the market (by using Third Party) implies that all OGC is derived from WotC content (the First Party). You haven't addressed this. As I said, if you had called your logo the "Open Content Publisher" logo, I might have gotten on board.

Third Party to the License. Regardless of if they initiate all new OGC, they are still third party to the license. The OGL comes first, the system is secondary to it. I have addressed this but you must have missed it.

Good Luck.

And to you...

 

[RSKennan]

Thank you Mark for explaining what you're trying to achieve with the Third Party Logo. I apologise for further muddying the waters of this thread with my confusion.

I don't know why I assumed it was an attempt to bypass the d20 license. At any rate, I don't understand legalese, and seem to have inadvertantly injected myself into the midst of a dispute- something I work hard not to do. I know when I'm in over my head... Thanks for your time.