It seems to me that this makes the OGL, GSL and whatever else you want to toss into the pyre moot. I must not be understanding copyright law. To me, this means I could create a game exactly like 4e (just an example) as long as I 'say it' differently, I am golden. By extension, I could create supplemental material for an 'unpublished' game I created which is played exactly like 4e.
Couldn't I?
"Fighter? Uh, no, I do not know what that is. But my game does have a profession called Combatant that sounds remarkably similar. Wizard? No. I do have an Arcane Master."
That's what the OSRIC folks did with AD&D. Heck, they even used the same class names without any "re-skinning".
Likewise, Goodman Games prints 4E modules without using the GSL.
The OGL was created because at the time, whether or not a game was copyrightable was uncertain. If it went to court, it could go either way depending on which side had the better lawyers or the most money. So Ryan Dancey created the OGL so third-party publishers would have a clear and LEGAL way to publish material compatible with D&D, and could not have that clear-and-legal means ever taken away from them.
So whether or not the SCOTUS makes a ruling one way or the other about the copyrightability of game mechanics, the OGL will exist so people can legally make derivative materials, for free, forever.
Just to add to what Sean says, the OGL allows you to legally say "Azers are dwarflike beings native to the Elemental Plane of Fire. They wear kilts of brass, bronze, or copper" if you like; those words aren't game rules (so they're presumably still protected by copyright), but they are part of the Open Content in the SRD and so you're not infringing on WotC's copyright if you use them under the Open Game License.
But, could you say, "Fire Dwarves are small in stature, live in a world of fire and wear kilts of malleable metals. They receive a +1 CON and are resistant to fire."?
I know it seems pointless, why go through all that trouble when Azers are part of the SRD. My point is leaning more toward the uproar over the GSL. It seems there is nothing preventing 3rd party publishers from creating supplemental material that is entirely compatible with 4e as long as they change the wording.
Sure, it might be a real pain to have to come up with new terminology for everything. I can see why a company may not want to go through that trouble. However, if they were determined enough to bite off a chunk of the market, I see nothing stopping them.
I had always been under the mistaken idea that mechanics were protected.
But, could you say, "Fire Dwarves are small in stature, live in a world of fire and wear kilts of malleable metals. They receive a +1 CON and are resistant to fire."?
I know it seems pointless, why go through all that trouble when Azers are part of the SRD. My point is leaning more toward the uproar over the GSL. It seems there is nothing preventing 3rd party publishers from creating supplemental material that is entirely compatible with 4e as long as they change the wording.
Sure, it might be a real pain to have to come up with new terminology for everything. I can see why a company may not want to go through that trouble. However, if they were determined enough to bite off a chunk of the market, I see nothing stopping them.
The problem (presumably) is that even if the law is on your side, it's expensive to fight a lawsuit, so using the OGL or the GSL is erring on the side of caution. Those licenses are saying "We are expressly allowing X, Y, and Z, but anything else could be grounds for a lawsuit".
But nevertheless, Goodman Games is producing 4E products that are not licensed by WotC using the "games can't be copyrighted" interpretation, and likewise for OSRIC's AD&D clone. Presumably those are both legal; at least neither of them has been sued yet (as far as I know).
The problem (presumably) is that even if the law is on your side, it's expensive to fight a lawsuit...
Ah, good point.
Time for me to work on my class-less (stop giggling!) point buy 3.5 game.
|
One of the good things about teh OGL was that it allowed you to use the text without changing it - so you didn't have to re-write every sentance. Starblazer Adventures uses quite a bit of the OGC text from Spirit of the Century as is, and I am using alot of the text as is from both those sources for my Free FATE PDF.
|
You can also see what a lack of OGL would be like by looking at how 3PPs handle material that is not in the SRD. You can't say "this room contains 3 mindflayers" because mindflayers are copyrighted, so you have to say "3 brain-eating abberations" and stat them up as close to mindflayers as you feel you can get away with, and that's just lame.
Yes, I do see that it is lame to have to re-label everything. But if I am understanding this correctly, you could stat them exactly the same.
Starblazer Adventures uses quite a bit of the OGC text from Spirit of the Century as is...
Off topic, but I had no idea. I thought Starblazer Adventures was an entirely new system. I much love SotC. I may have to check out SA.
Time for me to work on my class-less (stop giggling!) point buy 3.5 game.
Why would I laugh? If it was made I would definitely give it a go.
Yes, I do see that it is lame to have to re-label everything. But if I am understanding this correctly, you could stat them exactly the same.
And someone could sue you for it, claiming that the stats were similar enough to be a violation of their copyright.
That's why people use the OGL: there is no ambiguity in the law, you have permission to use what people release under the OGL. Anything else is debatable, and therefore lawyer fodder.
Uhhh...
I don't know what your point is.
|
You can also see what a lack of OGL would be like by looking at how 3PPs handle material that is not in the SRD. You can't say "this room contains 3 mindflayers" because mindflayers are copyrighted, so you have to say "3 brain-eating abberations" and stat them up as close to mindflayers as you feel you can get away with, and that's just lame.
Noggin-Nommers?
Bonce-burglars?
Cerebellum-snafflers?
I don't know what your point is.
Sorry, I apparently didn't quote this:
That's what the OSRIC folks did with AD&D. Heck, they even used the same class names without any "re-skinning".
Likewise, Goodman Games prints 4E modules without using the GSL.
Creative Director
|
OSRIC and Goodman Games's products skirt the borders of legality and copyright law in a way that Paizo isn't interested in, though. The whole thing is a complicated mess, and by playing strictly by the rules of the OGL and not giving any other company cause to come after us, we build a more stable base for Paizo to rest on.
We've had the rug jerked out from under us several times in the past, losing licenses for various magazines or having game editions change on us despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that we were doing well with those licenses or editions. After a while, it gets old.
Maybe we're gun-shy now. Or maybe we're just not interested in giving anyone else an excuse to come after us.
Which makes Paizo a good investment from both the business side, and the customers' side, says I.
|
|
Off topic, but I had no idea. I thought Starblazer Adventures was an entirely new system. I much love SotC. I may have to check out SA.
There are differences but the core is the same. The way Stress and Consequences are applied differ somewhat. SBA adds more skills, and gives more rules for vehicles, starships, empires and death stars :)
I got SBA first and then got SOTC, I like the version of FATE as presented in SBA better IMHO and it is that version I am using as a basis for my Free FATE pdf.
Uhhh...
So does Goodman Games for their 4E modules. But the OGL doesn't say anything about giving permission to use AD&D or 4E rules material. That's my point.
And someone could sue you for it, claiming that the stats were similar enough to be a violation of their copyright.
That's why people use the OGL: there is no ambiguity in the law...
But to me, there is no ambiguity in the law.
"Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game."
That seems less ambiguous to me than the OGL itself.
But to me, there is no ambiguity in the law."Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game."
That seems less ambiguous to me than the OGL itself.
Indeed. It looks like I can make a game based on "The Da Vinci Code", and since "The Da Vinci Code" is an "idea [..] involved in developing, merchandising or playing [my] game", therefore it's not protected by copyright. ;-)
(Maybe I should've accepted that law school scholarship when I had the chance...)
Maybe you should go with The Code of Da Vinci, just in case.
And someone could sue you for it, claiming that the stats were similar enough to be a violation of their copyright.
That's why people use the OGL: there is no ambiguity in the law...
But to me, there is no ambiguity in the law.
"Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game."
That seems less ambiguous to me than the OGL itself.
Its surprising how ambiguous the law can get when money and lawyers get involved.
Its surprising how ambiguous the law can get when money and lawyers get involved.
Exactly.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
And someone could sue you for it, claiming that the stats were similar enough to be a violation of their copyright.
That's why people use the OGL: there is no ambiguity in the law...
But to me, there is no ambiguity in the law.
"Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game."
Just because copyright law doesn't protect some things, that doesn't mean that *other* laws may not protect those things. For example, trademark law can protect the title of a game (at least in the realm of games), and patent law can protect some mechanical aspects of games.
We've had the rug jerked out from under us several times in the past, losing licenses for various magazines or having game editions change on us despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that we were doing well with those licenses or editions. After a while, it gets old.
Huh? What are you referring to here? I have no idea what you could be talking about.
Stefan
Just because copyright law doesn't protect some things, that doesn't mean that *other* laws may not protect those things.
I had not thought of that.
I think it's probably clarified by now, but my 2 cents....
The game copyright rules are why people can make joke/localized versions of Monopoly (as long as they don't abuse the "Monopoly" trademark held by Parker Brothers), or even why, say, Nethack can use game mechanics that somewhat resemble AD&D without causing too much trouble.
Where you have to be very careful is what you do with your wording--and even if you blatantly steal some game concept claiming the copyright laws protect you, a big company like Milton Bradley or... what's that one huge game and toy company called? Oh, right, Hasbro... even if they aren't in the right, they can still ruin you in lawyer's fees and other time/money expenditures just by filing a case against you.
Paizo's wise to stick to a game license.