Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EpicureanDM" data-source="post: 8878393" data-attributes="member: 6996003"><p>I think I follow you. But the definition of Use relates to Derivative Material of Open Game Content, not Open Game Content itself. This is where I mostly lose my footing, in the definitions of "Derivative Material" and "Open Game Content". If the OGL's leaning in part on the U.S. Copyright Office's definitions of "derivative works", then the intent might be to allow licensees to only sublicense any Derivative Material (derivative work) that the licensee contributed to the OGC, excluding the OGC material contributed by WotC, i.e. the material in the SRD itself.</p><p></p><p>The hypothetical that sparked this part of the thread contemplated that an OGL 1.0a licensee could sublicense OGC found in the SRD in perpetuity, provided that the licensee had published SRD-based OGC prior to the "non-authorization" (to use your term) of the OGL 1.0a . That's the scenario I've been asking about, anyway.</p><p></p><p>Also, I'm not as confident in the integrity of the OGL's drafting. In Section 4, there's a misplaced comma between "Use" and "the Open Game Content." In Section 12, there's a reference to "Open Game Material", a seemingly defined term that isn't actually defined. The definition of "Distribute" includes the word "distribute," which is arguably circular. In Section 9, You are permitted to "distribute" any Open Game Content (not using the defined term), while in Section 10, You are required to include a copy of the OGL in every copy of Open Game Content You <strong>Distribute</strong> (now using the defined term).</p><p></p><p>Although my credibility has been questioned on this point, I am (and was) aware of that.</p><p></p><p>When Publishers A and B are both licensees who have published OGC under OGL 1.0a, this makes sense to me. But what if Publisher B is WotC and the OGC in question is the SRD? This is where the nuances of Derivative Material and Open Game Content lose me, again, along with the particulars of how the Copyright Office defines the rights of original copyright holders versus those held by the authors of derivative works. The community has long held that OGL 1.0 and 1.0a licensees have the right to continue using the SRD (any version published under any prior version of the OGL) and - in the hypothetical I've been referencing - the ability to sublicense SRD content to which WotC holds the copyright. Maybe that's right, but has it ever been tested in court? WotC now seems like it's in the mood to do just that.</p><p></p><p>This also matches my intuitions and presents a potential pothole on the road to 6e. The playtest documents released so far for 6e have similarities to Pathfinder's designs and rules. WotC's hired a bunch of Paizo designers to work on 6e, so that's not entirely surprising. Under this theory, Pathfinder could arguably sue WotC for infringement if 6e's final form ends up incorporating elements of Paizo's design in a way that's not sufficiently transformative. I don't think there's a high likelihood of this. But the idea illustrates how the lawyers and executives making decisions about the OGL might not understand what's going on in the actual design of 6e itself. </p><p></p><p>Maybe they do. After all, they could just say that they're going back to 3e design principles and expressions. You'd still have to do the textual analysis to see if a copyright infringement occurred, but the argument is probably strong enough to take into court.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EpicureanDM, post: 8878393, member: 6996003"] I think I follow you. But the definition of Use relates to Derivative Material of Open Game Content, not Open Game Content itself. This is where I mostly lose my footing, in the definitions of "Derivative Material" and "Open Game Content". If the OGL's leaning in part on the U.S. Copyright Office's definitions of "derivative works", then the intent might be to allow licensees to only sublicense any Derivative Material (derivative work) that the licensee contributed to the OGC, excluding the OGC material contributed by WotC, i.e. the material in the SRD itself. The hypothetical that sparked this part of the thread contemplated that an OGL 1.0a licensee could sublicense OGC found in the SRD in perpetuity, provided that the licensee had published SRD-based OGC prior to the "non-authorization" (to use your term) of the OGL 1.0a . That's the scenario I've been asking about, anyway. Also, I'm not as confident in the integrity of the OGL's drafting. In Section 4, there's a misplaced comma between "Use" and "the Open Game Content." In Section 12, there's a reference to "Open Game Material", a seemingly defined term that isn't actually defined. The definition of "Distribute" includes the word "distribute," which is arguably circular. In Section 9, You are permitted to "distribute" any Open Game Content (not using the defined term), while in Section 10, You are required to include a copy of the OGL in every copy of Open Game Content You [B]Distribute[/B] (now using the defined term). Although my credibility has been questioned on this point, I am (and was) aware of that. When Publishers A and B are both licensees who have published OGC under OGL 1.0a, this makes sense to me. But what if Publisher B is WotC and the OGC in question is the SRD? This is where the nuances of Derivative Material and Open Game Content lose me, again, along with the particulars of how the Copyright Office defines the rights of original copyright holders versus those held by the authors of derivative works. The community has long held that OGL 1.0 and 1.0a licensees have the right to continue using the SRD (any version published under any prior version of the OGL) and - in the hypothetical I've been referencing - the ability to sublicense SRD content to which WotC holds the copyright. Maybe that's right, but has it ever been tested in court? WotC now seems like it's in the mood to do just that. This also matches my intuitions and presents a potential pothole on the road to 6e. The playtest documents released so far for 6e have similarities to Pathfinder's designs and rules. WotC's hired a bunch of Paizo designers to work on 6e, so that's not entirely surprising. Under this theory, Pathfinder could arguably sue WotC for infringement if 6e's final form ends up incorporating elements of Paizo's design in a way that's not sufficiently transformative. I don't think there's a high likelihood of this. But the idea illustrates how the lawyers and executives making decisions about the OGL might not understand what's going on in the actual design of 6e itself. Maybe they do. After all, they could just say that they're going back to 3e design principles and expressions. You'd still have to do the textual analysis to see if a copyright infringement occurred, but the argument is probably strong enough to take into court. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!
Top