Where is the Unearthed Arcana SRD?

[woodelf]

Not that anybody asked me, but I just don't think that the free distribution of OGC is right. I know, we all have different morals, and technically the redistribution of OGC is absolutely legal... but is it really in the spirit of the agreement?

According to the WotC FAQ, released at about the same time as the WotC OGL, yes.

Redistribution of large sections of material will only force companies to become more guarded about how much OGC they release and will likely make that OGC more difficult to glean (and therefore less likely to be used by other publishers). I can't see that as a good thing for the 'movement'.

Now, let me be clear here: i don't think you actually said what i'm about to write. But here's how it can sound to someone on my side of the argument, in the interest of furthering understandnig of each others' POVs.

So, what you're saying is if the OGC is good enough to engender reuse, people will reuse it, which will therefore encourage publishers to make less of their content OGC. But if the content is crappy, no one will reuse it, and publishers will continue to release it as OGC. IOW, if you're right on the dynamics of this, OGC simply won't propagate--either way the effort to reuse exceeds the value. I agree entirely, that's not a good thing for D20 System, or open-content RPG development in general. Problem is, there's no way out of it, if you're right about the feedback dynamic of resisting reuse.

The only way the system works is if it is seen as a good thing for OGC to be reused, and a mark of prestige and quality--the more reuse your material gets, the better you have done.

 

[woodelf]

"Editorial"? Are you doing journalistic work or a fan-made UA SRD?

I give you props for what you're doing. Now if you can tell the others to stop asking WotC for the UA SRD, I can retire my participation in this thread. I agree with philreed that you shouldn't use people's names without permission. I don't think a fan-made SRD need such a thing (e.g., commentary). Besides, you could open yourself up to a lawsuit with the unauthorized use of the name for commercial purpose (regardless if the product is free). Stick to the OGL's term.

Not even for factual statements? "This bit of rules was originally written by Phil Reed."? Since you're here, Phil: would you really prefer someone to reuse some of your original content without giving credit, than to give credit (and thus potentially point them back to your commercial work, if they like it)? I mean, if that's your position, i guess i'd abide by it, but it seems sorta weird--since you're not getting remuneration for OGC reused in someone else's work, i'd think you'd at least want credit.

As for the terms of the WotC OGL: it says you can't use trademarks or PI to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability. Unless someone has explicitly declared their name as PI WRT the WotC OGL, it's not PI, and it's not a trademark unless you, again, explicitly designate it as such. Even company names are not necessarily trademarks or PI, unless designated as such.

 

[philreed]

Not even for factual statements? "This bit of rules was originally written by Phil Reed."? Since you're here, Phil: would you really prefer someone to reuse some of your original content without giving credit, than to give credit (and thus potentially point them back to your commercial work, if they like it)? I mean, if that's your position, i guess i'd abide by it, but it seems sorta weird--since you're not getting remuneration for OGC reused in someone else's work, i'd think you'd at least want credit.

If someone asks permission -- and the plan isn't to use my name in marketing -- I'd likely give permission. But I don't want to give a blanket permission to the world to use my name in any way that they wish.

 

[woodelf]

Now that is information i find interesting. I had my doubts, but just as it can arguably include the names of the creators, it could also arguably not include the names of the characters. What do i gain by it? Nothing much, but as i said, i'm a completist, if i can 'arguably' include some text, i will.

On a different point
WotC also claims PI on trademarks, d20 is a trademark, should we then remove all mention of the term d20 from all our products?

On proper names: this may be a language-barrier thing. In English, "proper name" is a subset of "proper noun". Pretty much any capitalized name of a specific person/place/thing is gonna be a proper noun, and if that label is of a person, it's gonna be a proper name. There is little-to-no ambiguity in this matter: a person's name (in the real world) is definitely a "proper name". The only wiggle room you might have on this matter is (1) if they are using a pen name (and, even then, it'd probably be considered a proper name) or (2) if the OGC/PI declarations somehow designated themselves as only referring to the creative content of the book, not the credits, etc.

On "d20" and trademarks: "D20" isn't a trademark of WotC. Do a search at the USPTO. You'll find that they have registered a trademark on "D20 System". And even that, IMHO, is an invalid trademark--you're not supposed to be able to trademark generic descriptive terms, and i'm convinced that only USPTO ignorance of the RPG market let that one slide by. Nonetheless, trademarks are very specific. Even assuming the D20 System trademark is fully valid, it doesn't protect the two individual words (which are just common nouns) any more than Apple Computers has any claim over the term "apple". You can *claim* a trademark on anything you want--just stick a "TM" after it. But, if you haven't subjected it to the review process required to get it registered, it may or may not be valid, to be decided should it go to court. You also can't, generally, claim a trademark on something that is not uniquely yours--"D20" was used by enough people [who were not using the D20STL] prior to any claim of it as a WotC trademark, that i'd be amazed if any claim on it held up in court. And i'll gladly turn up at any court hearing on the matter with a stack of evidence on my side.

 

[woodelf]

If someone asks permission -- and the plan isn't to use my name in marketing -- I'd likely give permission. But I don't want to give a blanket permission to the world to use my name in any way that they wish.

As an ethical/personal stance, i understand that fully. But, legally, i don't think there's anything you can do. That is, i'm fairly certain that a factual, non-marketing use of your name is not yours to prevent. If i plaster "Contains Rules by Phil Reed" in 3"-high letters on the cover of my book, when all i've got in there is 5pp of your OGC (in a 128p book), then i'm clearly misrepresenting. But if i have, in 6pt-type, a section on the credits page that says "X, Y, and Z were originally written by Phil Reed, and appear in his product A", i don't think there's anything wrong, legally or ethically, with that. But it would still bug you, if i hadn't asked permission first? Would it bug you if i reproduced the OGC, without sourcing it, without asking permission? Say, the entirety of your "masterwork weapons" PDF, as part of a big book o' cool new treasure?

I'm just a bit confused, because it never would've occurred to me that anyone would prefer *not* to receive credit for work they've done--sure, you don't want your name smeared, or your product misrepresented (say, heavily-modified items, which're therefore crappy, but your originals were good, and the reuser doesn't clarify that they've been changed from teh originals), or your name used for promotion--but simple credit would get your hackles up? I'm not trying to back you into a corner, btw, just suss out your position (especially since i've been considering reusing some of your OGC in one of my projects, which might end up free, or might end up on RPGNow).

 

[woodelf]

Why should OGC be availible for free? It just seems you are making this assumption without reason.

Because the WotC OGL is modeled on the GNU GPL, and the original proponents cited, extensively, the FSF and GNU as influences/sources for the idea, and the creators of the WotC OGL made public those influences and made quite explicit that they were trying to port the notion of open source to the print RPG world? IOW, everything in the professed goals and inspirations of the original proponents, save the WotC OGL itself, argues for OGC being freely available. Only the WotC OGL drops the ball on that one, by failing to include a clause requiring it--perhaps due to the intentions of the authors, perhaps due to pressures from WotC and/or other companies--i don't know the specifics.

 

[Aristotle]

On the issue of using author's names.

11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.

Also, I don't know if you can legally use the term "Unearthed Arcana" anywhere in your document. Wouldn't that be product identity? I know I heard a story about Monte Cook getting permission to use 'Arcana Unearthed', but I really don't know if that was legal or basic courtesy.

 

[Cergorach]

On proper names: this may be a language-barrier thing. In English, "proper name" is a subset of "proper noun". Pretty much any capitalized name of a specific person/place/thing is gonna be a proper noun, and if that label is of a person, it's gonna be a proper name. There is little-to-no ambiguity in this matter: a person's name (in the real world) is definitely a "proper name". The only wiggle room you might have on this matter is (1) if they are using a pen name (and, even then, it'd probably be considered a proper name) or (2) if the OGC/PI declarations somehow designated themselves as only referring to the creative content of the book, not the credits, etc.

On "d20" and trademarks: "D20" isn't a trademark of WotC. Do a search at the USPTO. You'll find that they have registered a trademark on "D20 System". And even that, IMHO, is an invalid trademark--you're not supposed to be able to trademark generic descriptive terms, and i'm convinced that only USPTO ignorance of the RPG market let that one slide by. Nonetheless, trademarks are very specific. Even assuming the D20 System trademark is fully valid, it doesn't protect the two individual words (which are just common nouns) any more than Apple Computers has any claim over the term "apple". You can *claim* a trademark on anything you want--just stick a "TM" after it. But, if you haven't subjected it to the review process required to get it registered, it may or may not be valid, to be decided should it go to court. You also can't, generally, claim a trademark on something that is not uniquely yours--"D20" was used by enough people [who were not using the D20STL] prior to any claim of it as a WotC trademark, that i'd be amazed if any claim on it held up in court. And i'll gladly turn up at any court hearing on the matter with a stack of evidence on my side.

Thanks for the insight on the term proper name, grammer isn't my strong suit, a friend pointed that out this morning, that's also the reason i removed the names of folks that made the house rules. I'm still not sure though, but i'll defer to someone else's judgement on this.

 

[Cergorach]

Also, I don't know if you can legally use the term "Unearthed Arcana" anywhere in your document. Wouldn't that be product identity? I know I heard a story about Monte Cook getting permission to use 'Arcana Unearthed', but I really don't know if that was legal or basic courtesy.

Did i use Unearthed Arcana anywhere in that pdf i posted? I certainly hope not, if i did i would need to have my eyes examined (and that doesn't bode well, as i'm already wearing glasses)...

 

[Ranger REG]

Because the WotC OGL is modeled on the GNU GPL, and the original proponents cited, extensively, the FSF and GNU as influences/sources for the idea, and the creators of the WotC OGL made public those influences and made quite explicit that they were trying to port the notion of open source to the print RPG world? IOW, everything in the professed goals and inspirations of the original proponents, save the WotC OGL itself, argues for OGC being freely available. Only the WotC OGL drops the ball on that one, by failing to include a clause requiring it--perhaps due to the intentions of the authors, perhaps due to pressures from WotC and/or other companies--i don't know the specifics.

I thought it was based on most of the components of the GNU GPL. The only thing they find it flawed is that license forces you to make your entire software program freely avalable, at least according to the members of the Free Software Foundation. So, WotC include terms in the OGL to give Contributors the right to designate certain content off-limit.