What we've been looking at in software

TheAndy tm

First Post
As the person who is mostly responsible for checking software for OGL and d20 issues, I thought I’d take a moment to fill everyone in on what exactly we’ve been looking at.

To begin with, just a little warning for anyone thinking about using the licenses: The Open Gaming License and the d20 System License are legally binding contracts. It is the user’s responsibility to comprehend the terms of the licenses and to comply with them. We strongly suggest that people who do not fully understand the terms seek legal counsel before proceeding with the licenses.

There has also been some confusion about the differences between the two licenses and what each allows someone to do. The Open Gaming License allows someone operating under the terms of the license to use anything that has been designated as Open Content. The only Open Content from Wizards is in the System Reference Document (SRD). This currently contains most of the core rules information.
The d20 System License lets someone use certain trademarks, such as d20 and Dungeons & Dragons, and to advertise the product as being compatible with D&D. This license has some more stringent requirements in exchange for permission to use these trademarks.

The following are the major problems we've had with software:

Flat out infringement - If something by Wizards is not in the SRD, it is not Open Content. Currently the only material in the SRD has been derived from the Player's Handbook, The Dungeon Master's Guide, the Monster Manual and the Psionic's Handbook. Those books are *not* open content themselves. However, versions of the information in those books have been made into the SRD which *is* open content. Understanding the difference is vital. Currently no other books have entered the SRD and thus the rules in those products are unavailable. Even a free web-enhancement is still copyrighted (and the copyright section of our web-enhancements specifically state that they are not Open Content). Using copyrighted material without permission is infringement. This is a bad thing.

Section 8 of the OGL - Section 8 of the Open Gaming License states that “You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Content.” For software “clearly indicated” means that someone has to be able to see all the Open Content. It isn’t enough to say “all rules are Open Content”, someone using that program has to be able to see those rules. The whole point of the OGL is to allow anyone to use Open Content under the license. If that content is compiled into binary, a user can’t access that and use it freely.

The “no interactive games” stipulation of the d20 License - The d20 System Guide states that no d20 product can be an interactive game, then goes on to define interactive game as being software that “is designed to accept inputs from human players or their agents, and use rules to resolve the success or failure of those inputs, and return some indication of the results of those inputs to the users.” Success and failure are the sticking points: because under standard d20 rules a high roll is always better than a low, we are treating any randomization (such as ability score generation) as having success and failure. The reason behind our hard line on this (and the reason this requirement exists at all) is that we have a licensee for all electronic games. We cannot authorize anything remotely resembling a game without seriously violating our contracts.

The prohibition against character creation and leveling - The d20 license prohibits describing the process of creating a character and the process of applying the affects of experience to a character. We’ve actually taken a fairly lenient stance on this. A character generator can provide the pieces of a character, it just can’t explain what to do with them or determine when a character has enough experience to gain a level. As long as the software doesn't describe how to create or level a character, it is ok.

These are the major problems we’ve encountered again and again. We’re working on updating the license FAQs to explain more fully what needs to be done regarding software. We are also working on a new version of the licenses that has clear language about software. If you are considering using the licenses, please read the licenses and the FAQs found here: www.wizards.com/d20/.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

TheAndy tm said:
Section 8 of the OGL - Section 8 of the Open Gaming License states that “You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Content.” For software “clearly indicated” means that someone has to be able to see all the Open Content. It isn’t enough to say “all rules are Open Content”, someone using that program has to be able to see those rules. The whole point of the OGL is to allow anyone to use Open Content under the license. If that content is compiled into binary, a user can’t access that and use it freely.

But if the binary file has been marked as all OGC that is "clearly indicated"; therefore it follows the letter of the license. Furthermore it follows the spirit because now anyone may use this executable under the license freely, this is especially true for a DLL which any program could then 'use'.
 

Re: Re: What we've been looking at in software

smetzger said:


But if the binary file has been marked as all OGC that is "clearly indicated"; therefore it follows the letter of the license. Furthermore it follows the spirit because now anyone may use this executable under the license freely, this is especially true for a DLL which any program could then 'use'.

You would need to have the authority to mark EVERY piece of that binary as OGC. If you were using, say, windows calls such as SendMessage or PostMessage, you would then be putting some of Microsofts Intellectual property as OGC, something I doubt very much anyone has the authority to release as OGC.
 

Thanks Andy.

I want to add that this is a basic description and these are just the most common infringements.

When you really start to dive into the licenses it gets much more complicated very quickly. You must look at the WotC license AND the licenses for the programming language(s) and libraries that you are using.

As I've said before, this is an unending process. You review, get reviewed, and get reviewed again and again. With software it is more complicated than with publishing in general because corrections and additional features are updated all the time. So you are constantly reviewing your own work for compliance while WotC can choose to review your work at any time.
 

All I want to know is where human readable begins and ends.

The program I am working on (which may never get finished), can construct a model of a character, with all his stats, etc., etc. and will be able eventually to get all the rules outlined in the SRD correct. But the program itself will contain ZERO SRD or even OGC material. It will simply be a generic "engine for modelling the rules of a role-playing game", but it will assume nothing and will contain nothing other than generic data structures and algorithms for combining those data structures together to build a model of a rule system. But the rules for said system will be completely and totally contained within an external, human readable, text or xml file; a file completely separate from the binary.

In my view, if I do it this way, the source code for the binary is completely and totally not subject to any OGL restriction. It is only the data file it uses to build the model of the DnD rule system that is subject to the restrictions.

So, what is WoTC's policy if I completely decouple the binary from the content in this way?
 

Re: Re: Re: What we've been looking at in software

Twin Rose said:
You would need to have the authority to mark EVERY piece of that binary as OGC. If you were using, say, windows calls such as SendMessage or PostMessage, you would then be putting some of Microsofts Intellectual property as OGC, something I doubt very much anyone has the authority to release as OGC.

Correct. OGC does not need to be human readable, but releasing a binary as OGC is near-impossible.

I considered making one as proof-of-concept, but the more I looked at it the harder it seemed. I finally gave up; it was too hard.
 

Re: Re: Re: Re: What we've been looking at in software

CRGreathouse said:


Correct. OGC does not need to be human readable, but releasing a binary as OGC is near-impossible.

I considered making one as proof-of-concept, but the more I looked at it the harder it seemed. I finally gave up; it was too hard.

I just took a look at the license for Borland C++ Builder and I do not see anything in it that would restrict me from distributing an executable or DLL with or without any type of license. What is the fundamental difference from me making a program and using a standard EULA and distributing the program; and me making a program and using the d20 license for the program?

Incidentally I cannot even find any references to licensing restrictions for code compiled with MSVC 6.0.
 

I really, really don't mean this to sound offensive, but Andy, If your an intern how can any opinion you give be taken with any weight?

By definition your employment is not long term. Is the information your giving handed down from people above you? If this is the offical position of the company. Why is it posted here and not on WOTC boards?

Don't get me wrong, I know this topic was opened to foster positive growth, but I have to wonder this is the correct way of doing this.
 

smetzger said:
I just took a look at the license for Borland C++ Builder and I do not see anything in it that would restrict me from distributing an executable or DLL with or without any type of license. What is the fundamental difference from me making a program and using a standard EULA and distributing the program; and me making a program and using the d20 license for the program?

Incidentally I cannot even find any references to licensing restrictions for code compiled with MSVC 6.0.

This goes beyond the basic knowledge of law that I have and well into the depths of the arcane legalese. It's been discussed on the ogf-l, but I couldn't say for sure exactly how it works. (I have a good idea, but don't want to stick my neck out here.)
 

The issue with releasing a binary (be it an executable, an dll, ocx, or whatever) is usually from using code that's not your own. So it's not an issue of the compiler, but what code you're using (ever write an MFC application?). One could write a binary, that's ogl compliant, as the standards and interfaces for these file types aren't subject to licensing. But perhaps, on a Windows box, you inherited your main gui from CWnd. Usually you're free to use the code for whatever you want, but releasing it under another license may not be possible, I just don't know.
 

Remove ads

Top