|
I am under the impression, from reading the OGL, that if a publisher distributes a product and includes a copy of the OGL with that product, that product MUST also have a statement that "clearly indicates which portions of the work being distributed are Open Game Content."
"8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content. All proper names and text in the description section are product identity all other content including translated proper names are open gaming content."
Would that be a correct impression?
I give as an example of an exemplary declaration of product identity, the Kobold Quarterly print magazines, issue #07:
"Open Game Content: The Open content in this issue is the spell statistics in “Powder Burn” and the “Black Art of Undead Creation” articles, and the monster statistics in “Monsters of Osirion” and “Horrors of Steam & Iron”. All other material is Product Identity. No other portion of this work may be reproduced in any form without permission."
My point being, if a publisher wants to consider themselves in compliance with the OGL they should include this statement. The statement can be as simple as "Nothing in this product is OGC", "Everything in this product is OGC" or more specific as in the form used by Kobold Quarterly, but in any event they MUST include such a statement.
Agree or disagree? Agree/disagree with a disclaimer?
If you check the front (page 2 of our books) of all 4WFG releases, you'll see we spell out what is Product Identity and what's Open Content. Usually everything except names, characters, religions, artwork, language, and specifically mentioned items are Open Content.
Creative Director
|
Correct. In fact, it's kind of against the spirit of the OGL to NOT make any new content open if you do an OGL book. The whole point of the OGL is to share so that others can use what you've created and build upon those rules.
The WORST is when a company says something like: "All of the statistics information from the type and size down to the special abilities are open content, but the rest of the entry is not." Making the name of a new monster not open content is a great way to ensure that no one else will use that monster in another print product. There's a LOT of 3rd party products I would love to use in Pathifnder but can't and/or won't because of overly restrictive open content like this.
And since we usually see a spike in sales of those 3rd party books when we DO use them in Pathfinder products... not looking at making your content open is kind of like leaving free advertising on the table.
If you check the front (page 2 of our books) of all 4WFG releases, you'll see we spell out what is Product Identity and what's Open Content. Usually everything except names, characters, religions, artwork, language, and specifically mentioned items are Open Content.
Right, and by "name" we mean Proper Names, like "Albion Armitage" or "Flynn Dielle". The names of creatures/animals that have been in our books, like the "badgerhound" or the "clockwork cat" are not proper names and are therefore Open Content.
|
Creative Director
|
Wouldn't it be possible to release all that crippled content under a new name like WotC did in Monster Manual 2?
I suppose. But that's kind of lame. I'd rather just make a new monster from the ground up in that case, since we'd have to rebuild the stats to fall in line with Pathfinder's more accurate CR expectations anyway.
|
Just to chime in as a fan and consumer, who buys most paizo stuff and buys a lot of 3pp PFRPG stuff. I think the more open the content the better and I would honestly love to see stuff built on by each other. Like maybe Paizo using a 3pp monster in a AP or a spell etc. Or perhaps a 3pp giving more options for a class in another 3pp etc. I don't know I just think that would be cool personally.
Just to chime in as a fan and consumer, who buys most paizo stuff and buys a lot of 3pp PFRPG stuff. I think the more open the content the better and I would honestly love to see stuff built on by each other. Like maybe Paizo using a 3pp monster in a AP or a spell etc. Or perhaps a 3pp giving more options for a class in another 3pp etc. I don't know I just think that would be cool personally.
I'm a big proponent of this. Two books I've written over the years were essentially OGC from many different sources but gathered together under a unifying topic and strung together in a nice pretty package.
|
|
Great. I'm glad to see I was correct on this. I have to say, without naming names, that I'm constantly seeing 3PP products that really illustrate that the publisher either...
- doesn't understand the OGL and/or
- doesn't care about the OGL and/or
- has poor quality control
The most common offenses are missing product identity statements (Section 8), and the publisher not adding their own product name to the end of the Section 15.
I do appreciate publishers like 4WFG who clearly have a solid understanding of the OGL, appear to CARE about the OGL, and have solid enough quality control to ensure that these sections are always clear and present. Further, publishers like 4WFG clearly also appreciate the spirit of the OGL by making so much of their product Open Content.
I think many could take a lesson from Paizo's treatment of the OGL and from James Jacobs words about the spirit of the OGL.
|
I am finishing an adventure, that if the playtesters like it well enough, I will sell, and begin selling adventures that I call Delves. Anyway, part of the way I populate the adventure with items and critters is to borrow from other sources, such as The Genius Guide to Loot 4 Less: Volume 2—Pretty, Pretty, Rings (PFRPG) PDF by OtherWorld Creations
I will obviously clearly note that the original came from them.
I will also make the whole thing open.
I have noticed one major publisher that has printed two books that I LOVE but there is not open content statement at all in it. None. This leads me to believe they are in violation of the license. Is it worth a legal matter? Well, nothing *I* can do about it anyway, not my license, I think only WOTC can do something about it.
Is it uncool? 100% uncool.
|
|
I am finishing an adventure, that if the playtesters like it well enough, I will sell, and begin selling adventures that I call Delves. Anyway, part of the way I populate the adventure with items and critters is to borrow from other sources, such as The Genius Guide to Loot 4 Less: Volume 2—Pretty, Pretty, Rings (PFRPG) PDF by OtherWorld Creations
I'd love to see these when they are ready!
I will obviously clearly note that the original came from them.
Well no offense, but that is required for OGL compliance :)
I will also make the whole thing open.
Now that is NOT required, but certainly appreciated. Openness breeds more openness and success builds on success.
I have noticed one major publisher that has printed two books that I LOVE but there is not open content statement at all in it. None. This leads me to believe they are in violation of the license. Is it worth a legal matter? Well, nothing *I* can do about it anyway, not my license, I think only WOTC can do something about it.
It is not technically a violation to not include any Open Content. Its against the Spirit of the OGL, but not against the Letter of the OGL. They ARE however, required to clearly state what IS and what ISN'T Open Content. If they aren't doing that then they are in violation of the OGL.
Is it uncool? 100% uncool.
Massively uncool and publishers who play that game get $0 from me, and I hope from others as well.
|
|
Well no offense, but that is required for OGL compliance :)
lol hence the "obviously" comment on my part :) lol
I will also make the whole thing open.Now that is NOT required, but certainly appreciated. Openness breeds more openness and success builds on success.
I PLAN on including a little appendix that includes the sources I referred to, even if I did not USE something from there, it inspired me or gave me an idea or was just neat reading in relation to what I was working on.
I have noticed one major publisher that has printed two books that I LOVE but there is not open content statement at all in it. None. This leads me to believe they are in violation of the license. Is it worth a legal matter? Well, nothing *I* can do about it anyway, not my license, I think only WOTC can do something about it.It is not technically a violation to not include any Open Content. Its against the Spirit of the OGL, but not against the Letter of the OGL. They ARE however, required to clearly state what IS and what ISN'T Open Content. If they aren't doing that then they are in violation of the OGL.
Yeah these guys didn't have ANY statement at all. There is NOTHING that says "this is all ours" or anything at all. NOTHING... not that they didn't include any open content there is no STATEMENT at all.
Is it uncool? 100% uncool.Massively uncool and publishers who play that game get $0 from me, and I hope from others as well.
I agree. I never noticed or cared before, but now, I do. Not just cause I am writing something, but because I think it is better for the entire hobby. I also agree with James' comment that it increases sales in the long run as well.
Right now I am busy buying sources up to help with making the adventure. I don't want to spend time coming up with new magic items, when I will probably duplicate someone else's concept, or find a better one already made, and I don't want to waste time building all new monsters when there are so many already (though I do have to make some new monsters anyway... sometimes no way around it... and have to rebuild many for Pathfinder rules).
If you are interested I can send you a playtest version. I am fiddling with some format ideas at the moment. I like WOTC's concept of the delve format, but not the execution. So I am experimenting with formatting that. Also rewriting some areas that need clarifying... interesting that formatting takes more time than anything else! lol AND my hard drive crashed and am rewriting it! life sucks sometimes! lol
Maybe d20pfsrd.org could keep a list of exemplary 3pps?
Great. I'm glad to see I was correct on this. I have to say, without naming names, that I'm constantly seeing 3PP products that really illustrate that the publisher either...
- doesn't understand the OGL and/or
- doesn't care about the OGL and/or
- has poor quality controlThe most common offenses are missing product identity statements (Section 8), and the publisher not adding their own product name to the end of the Section 15.
I do appreciate publishers like 4WFG who clearly have a solid understanding of the OGL, appear to CARE about the OGL, and have solid enough quality control to ensure that these sections are always clear and present. Further, publishers like 4WFG clearly also appreciate the spirit of the OGL by making so much of their product Open Content.
I think many could take a lesson from Paizo's treatment of the OGL and from James Jacobs words about the spirit of the OGL.
I'm glad this has been brought up. I hope what I'm about to say helps others starting out to stand up and ask questions without feeling embarrassed for doing so...
I think it can be hard when you first start to know what to modify on the OGL and where. I looked over 100 or so documents and finally modified it to those that looked commonly correct. It's not that I wanted to get in legal trouble, or didn't care, but there wasn't a guide (IMHO) that easily told you what to do where. In the end when I teamed up with Louis of LPJ Design (an established publisher), he was able to answer a few questions about it. I'm still not 100% clear, but I think it's listed correctly at least now.
I'll also state that I do not think of myself as a full fledged 3PP as much as some of you out there putting out some of this great content. I'm more of a Paizo fan who wanted to put content out without making his significant other angry at all the time he spends working it. :)
|
|
Maybe d20pfsrd.org (.com) could keep a list of exemplary 3pps?
(corrected the URL, it's .com not .org, but that's a common enough mistake since we did basically replace d20srd.ORG lol)
Funny you should mention that, as I started a page I am tentatively calling "The Open Review" on d20pfsrd.com now. The exact format is up in the air but what I really want to do is assemble a list of all 3PP making content for Pathfinder and then rate them on a number of factors, most important among those factors being the publishers actions/statements/behavior towards the OGL.
I have no idea if others will view this list or even find it helpful or informative, but I wanted to at least give some sort of thumbs up to those that seem OGL friendly and thumbs down to those that are not.
I am starting with the PCL Registry as the base list of publishers and will focus initially on the bigger or more well known names. I'll be looking into those companies various products and publications (website or print) to see how well they abide by the OGL and then publishing that info on d20pfsrd.com. For those of you who care about such information, hopefully that will be of some use to you.
|
|
Hmm I am curious who this company is now. I buy some 3pp stuff and I will be totally honest. I never even other to read the OGL. I mean as a fan and consumer it really has not direct effect on me, so I never bothered. But now I am curious.
I won't name names...
|
|
Yeah these guys didn't have ANY statement at all. There is NOTHING that says "this is all ours" or anything at all. NOTHING... not that they didn't include any open content there is no STATEMENT at all.
Yep. I've seen that many times too. In those cases the publisher is either purposely ignoring the OGL, lazy, or not terribly bright. I know that I/d20pfsrd.com is technically NOT a 3PP since we don't sell or produce anything under the PCL, but we at least make a VERY strong effort to understand both the OGL and the CUP. Have we got it perfect? Maybe not, but I think we try pretty hard. If we were actually selling product though you can bet your sweet bippy we'd have that sucker down.
|
|
I'm glad this has been brought up. I hope what I'm about to say helps others starting out to stand up and ask questions without feeling embarrassed for doing so...
Oh sure, I admit I fully didn't (and maybe still don't) grok every last detail of the OGL, though I think if someone is making or producing content using the OGL they are duty-bound to make a very strong effort to do so.
I think it can be hard when you first start to know what to modify on the OGL and where. I looked over 100 or so documents and finally modified it to those that looked commonly correct. It's not that I wanted to get in legal trouble, or didn't care, but there wasn't a guide (IMHO) that easily told you what to do where. In the end when I teamed up with Louis of LPJ Design (an established publisher), he was able to answer a few questions about it. I'm still not 100% clear, but I think it's listed correctly at least now.
Maybe I can add an OGL Help page on d20pfsrd.com explaining what I understand. Really once you read it a few times and get some clarification from others you realize its not that complex. I'll post something on the site about this I think.
I'll also state that I do not think of myself as a full fledged 3PP as much as some of you out there putting out some of this great content. I'm more of a Paizo fan who wanted to put content out without making his significant other angry at all the time he spends working it. :)
Noted. Though I will have to admit that my significant other has basically rolled over and accepted that I basically live on the Paizo forums and adding/fixing content to d20pfsrd.com. She just lets me be :)
I've been wanting to dabble into 3PP, but the legalitys of things frighten me to the point that I keep the majority of my ideas inside.
I've been wanting to dabble into 3PP, but the legalitys of things frighten me to the point that I keep the majority of my ideas inside.
This may help you get started. The Creative Imprinting Agency is a new project you may be interested in, they're setting up a bit of a bootcamp. :D
|
|
Hmm I am curious who this company is now. I buy some 3pp stuff and I will be totally honest. I never even other to read the OGL. I mean as a fan and consumer it really has not direct effect on me, so I never bothered. But now I am curious.I won't name names...
** spoiler omitted **
Well by going and checking your old post. If it is who I know think. That sucks honestly. Guess I need to read the OGL in their products myself... assuming I can understand it :)
|
|
Hey folks,
As a small publisher (very small) who embraces openness, if I want an entire publication to be available via OGL, can I simply state that fact?
I've got a short notice about ownership and copyright on my works but I'd rather just make them, at least the majority of them, open and available.
-Ben
If you will be making content available under the OGL you need more than a short notice, you need to comply with the OGL. This page may be helpful.
If anyone see's anything incorrect on that page please do feel free to correct me.
|
|
Well by going and checking your old post. If it is who I know think. That sucks honestly. Guess I need to read the OGL in their products myself... assuming I can understand it :)
If you care about this sort of thing all you really have to do is...
1) Check to make sure the product includes an OGL (the big page of lawyer looking text usually near the end of a book/magazine etc.
** If this does not exist then by default the product is not an OGL compatible product. It MUST be there in order for ANYTHING within to be considered Open Game Content. **
2) Check to make sure you can locate the Declaration of Product Identity statement. Kobold Quarterly magazine makes this information easy to locate and should be the model for other publishers to follow. They include a clear box usually within the first 5-10 pages of the magazine that says "The open content in this magazine is:" and then they clearly detail what is Open Game Content.
** If you can not locate this statement anywhere in the product either the publisher purposely excluded it, in which case you should assume nothing is Open Content in that product, or the publisher messed up somehow and forgot to include it, in which case you may want to consider if the publisher is not paying that close attention to the OGL how much attention are they paying to the rest of their product? **
3) Check to make sure the publisher has updated the Section 15 statement of the OGL to include their own company name, product name, and copyright information for that product etc.
** If this is lacking (which it often is) its often just a symptom of the publisher just not realizing it. It can still be viewed as a possible indicator of the publishers attention to detail, but is generally a harmless mistake. **
It sounds involved but once you know what you are looking for it takes just a few minutes to scan through a product to see how well it adheres to the OGL.
We're huge fans of Open Content here at SGG. We've just modified our OGL declaration to now read (pending final sign off from our legal folks):
DESIGNATION OF PRODUCT IDENTITY: The Super Genius Games (SGG) and OtherWorld Creations (OWC) company names and logos; the “Adventurer’s Handbook” name and logo; all, backgrounds, and logos; all trade dress, and graphic design elements.
DECLARATION OF OPEN CONTENT: All game mechanics, proper names of classes, prestige classes, archetypes, feats, skills, spells, magic items, monsters, rituals, artifacts AND OR the names of abilities presented within this book are Open Game Content as described in Section 1(d) of the License.
Hyrum.
Super Genius Games
"We err on the side of awesome."
|
|
We're huge fans of Open Content here at SGG. We've just modified our OGL declaration to now read (pending final sign off from our legal folks):
DESIGNATION OF PRODUCT IDENTITY: The Super Genius Games (SGG) and OtherWorld Creations (OWC) company names and logos; the “Adventurer’s Handbook” name and logo; all, backgrounds, and logos; all trade dress, and graphic design elements.
DECLARATION OF OPEN CONTENT: All game mechanics, proper names of classes, prestige classes, archetypes, feats, skills, spells, magic items, monsters, rituals, artifacts AND OR the names of abilities presented within this book are Open Game Content as described in Section 1(d) of the License.
Hyrum.
Super Genius Games
"We err on the side of awesome."
That's one hell of a declaration and strong showing of support for Open Content. Kudo's Hyrum!
That's one hell of a declaration and strong showing of support for Open Content. Kudo's Hyrum!
OR.... you can have it where 52 out of our 53 PDF Products are 100% Open Game Content including our upcoming Obsidian Twilight and Pirates of the Bronze Sky settings. See how much easier that was instead of search through products to find what parts are Open Content or not. Just a thought...
|
|
OR.... you can have it where 52 out of our 53 PDF Products are 100% Open Game Content including our upcoming Obsidian Twilight and Pirates of the Bronze Sky settings. See how much easier that was instead of search through products to find what parts are Open Content or not. Just a thought...
The problem Louis, is that I can't just assume something is Open Content before I add it to d20pfsrd.com, I have to know it is. With that said, that means I have to examine the OGC status of every single product before I allow it on d20pfsrd.com. In any case though, I would certainly say that 52 out of 53 products being 100% Open Game Content is massively laudable. I applaud you sir. Great work and the open gaming community certainly benefits from your openness.
|
|
Well by going and checking your old post. If it is who I know think. That sucks honestly. Guess I need to read the OGL in their products myself... assuming I can understand it :)Stuff about what is or is not open content.
Ok cool, it was parts 2 and 3 that I honestly personally didn't know. The first one I knew :). It is mostly curiosity on my part now. I had up until now just assumed if it had the OGL in it that most of it was open content. i mean to me it seems common sense, if you are using the OGL to benefit yourself you should pass it along to others. I just never really considered some might now. :(
Edit: fixed concerned to considered like it should have been... *sigh*
|
|
Ok cool, it was parts 2 and 3 that I honestly personally didn't know. The first one I knew :). It is mostly curiosity on my part now. I had up until now just assumed if it had the OGL in it that most of it was open content. i mean to me it seems common sense, if you are using the OGL to benefit yourself you should pass it along to others. I just never really concerned some might now. :(
Yeah the really important part for others to be able to make use of something in a product is the Declaration of Open Content statement. That HAS to be there, in a clearly identifiable location. Nothing HAS to be Open Content but either way you have to include the statement indicating such.
Yeah the really important part for others to be able to make use of something in a product is the Declaration of Open Content statement. That HAS to be there, in a clearly identifiable location. Nothing HAS to be Open Content but either way you have to include the statement indicating such.
Actually, anything you use that was Open, remains open. We couldn't take the Pathfinder SRD, reprint it, and declare it 100% closed. That's the beauty of Open Gaming. Once Open, always Open, and for that reason alone Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison deserve a special place in the afterlife. If it wasn't for them Pathfinder wouldn't exist.
Hyrum.
Super Genius Games
"We err on the side of awesome."
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
We're huge fans of Open Content here at SGG. We've just modified our OGL declaration to now read (pending final sign off from our legal folks):
DESIGNATION OF PRODUCT IDENTITY: The Super Genius Games (SGG) and OtherWorld Creations (OWC) company names and logos; the “Adventurer’s Handbook” name and logo; all, backgrounds, and logos; all trade dress, and graphic design elements.
DECLARATION OF OPEN CONTENT: All game mechanics, proper names of classes, prestige classes, archetypes, feats, skills, spells, magic items, monsters, rituals, artifacts AND OR the names of abilities presented within this book are Open Game Content as described in Section 1(d) of the License.
Hyrum.
Super Genius Games
"We err on the side of awesome."
Where it says "all, backgrounds, and logos" is it perhaps supposed to say "all artwork, backgrounds, and logos"?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
2) Check to make sure you can locate the Declaration of Product Identity statement. Kobold Quarterly magazine makes this information easy to locate and should be the model for other publishers to follow. They include a clear box usually within the first 5-10 pages of the magazine that says "The open content in this magazine is:" and then they clearly detail what is Open Game Content.
** If you can not locate this statement anywhere in the product either the publisher purposely excluded it, in which case you should assume nothing is Open Content in that product, or the publisher messed up somehow and forgot to include it, in which case you may want to consider if the publisher is not paying that close attention to the OGL how much attention are they paying to the rest of their product? **
If they "purposefully excluded it," they did it wrong. They're required to identify what's open, even if what's open is "nothing."
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
If you will be making content available under the OGL you need more than a short notice, you need to comply with the OGL. This page may be helpful.
If anyone see's anything incorrect on that page please do feel free to correct me.
First of all, my experience with lawyers tells me that you might want to add a disclaimer to your site saying that:
* You're not a lawyer, and interested parties should probably seek advice from a intellectual properties lawyer.
* You can't speak on behalf of Wizards of the Coast, Inc (with regards to the OGL) or Paizo Publishing, LLC (with regards to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License or Paizo Publishing Community Use Policy).
* You're merely providing advice, and anyone following your advice should agree not to hold you liable for any harm that may result from their reliance on your advice.
Second, the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License is *not* just for commercial use. If you want to use the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility logo on your free product or website, you can use the Compatibility License to do so.
(For that matter, your page implies that commercial users *have* to use the Compatibility License, but the truth is, they're welcome to just use the OGC under the OGL—it's just that if they do, they're not allowed to indicate that their product is compatible with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.)
Similarly, just because you're "giving away" content doesn't mean you can use the Community Use Policy. If you're a commercial user, you can't use it for free products, but your page currently implies that you can. The restriction is not about the type of use—it's about who the user *is*.
Next, I'd prefer it if you were a bit more particular about branding. Because "Pathfinder" is a part of many of our brands, using just "Pathfinder" is often vague; most of your references to "Pathfinder" on that page should more specifically say "the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."
Similarly, there's no "Pathfinder Compatibility License," there's a "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License," and there's no "Community Usage Policy," but there's a "Paizo Publishing, LLC Community Use Policy." I'd suggest using the full terms for those the first time each appears, and then using "Compatibility License" and "Community Use Policy" thereafter.
My biggest problem, though, is the 4th statement under the Community Use Policy section. "You can reference or use any content (other than artwork that is) from any of the products listed here" is grossly oversimplified and extremely inaccurate. The Community Use Policy allows you to use different things from different product lists, and different things depending on whether your publishing campaign journals and play-by-post or play-by-email games, and artwork is *not* the only thing you can't use. I'd prefer you don't short-cut the permissions list under the Community Use Policy, partly because it is complex, and partly because it's subject to change.
I know you're trying to help here, but there's a reason for every sentence in these documents, and simplifying them—or even just rewording them—is legally kind of dangerous. I think the more you can be a guide to *use* them without trying to restate them, the better.
Well by going and checking your old post. If it is who I know think. That sucks honestly. Guess I need to read the OGL in their products myself... assuming I can understand it :)If you care about this sort of thing all you really have to do is...
1) Check to make sure the product includes an OGL (the big page of lawyer looking text usually near the end of a book/magazine etc.
** If this does not exist then by default the product is not an OGL compatible product. It MUST be there in order for ANYTHING within to be considered Open Game Content. **
2) Check to make sure you can locate the Declaration of Product Identity statement. Kobold Quarterly magazine makes this information easy to locate and should be the model for other publishers to follow. They include a clear box usually within the first 5-10 pages of the magazine that says "The open content in this magazine is:" and then they clearly detail what is Open Game Content.
** If you can not locate this statement anywhere in the product either the publisher purposely excluded it, in which case you should assume nothing is Open Content in that product, or the publisher messed up somehow and forgot to include it, in which case you may want to consider if the publisher is not paying that close attention to the OGL how much attention are they paying to the rest of their product? **
3) Check to make sure the publisher has updated the Section 15 statement of the OGL to include their own company name, product name, and copyright information for that product etc.
** If this is lacking (which it often is) its often just a symptom of the publisher just not realizing it. It can still be viewed as a possible indicator of the publishers attention to detail, but is generally a harmless mistake. **
It sounds involved but once you know what you are looking for it takes just a few minutes to scan through a product to see how well it adheres to the OGL.
. . .
Maybe I can add an OGL Help page on d20pfsrd.com explaining what I understand. Really once you read it a few times and get some clarification from others you realize its not that complex. I'll post something on the site about this I think.
Good idea in that... Thanks.
Vic and/or Jreyst - Can the declaration of product identity be included in Section 15 instead of a cover page or is this done in error though? I have seen this quite a bit.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Vic and/or Jreyst - Can the declaration of product identity be included in Section 15 instead of a cover page or is this done in error though? I have seen this quite a bit.
Section 8 tells you that you have to have it, but doesn't tell you where you can or can't put it. I'm not sure that putting it in Section 15 is therefore *wrong*, but I certainly don't think it belongs there, and I take away the implication that it should be outside the OGL itself.
Section 8 tells you that you have to have it, but doesn't tell you where you can or can't put it. I'm not sure that putting it in Section 15 is therefore *wrong*, but I certainly don't think it belongs there, and I take away the implication that it should be outside the OGL itself.
Agreed, and that's why we put ours with the book's copyright information. In fact, I don't know that I've ever seen anyone put product ID info in Section 15.
Section 8 tells you that you have to have it, but doesn't tell you where you can or can't put it. I'm not sure that putting it in Section 15 is therefore *wrong*, but I certainly don't think it belongs there, and I take away the implication that it should be outside the OGL itself.Agreed, and that's why we put ours with the book's copyright information. In fact, I don't know that I've ever seen anyone put product ID info in Section 15.
Thanks for clarifying this Vic...
I should probably clarify this, I was mistaken in stating the Product ID info was IN section 15. What I mean was where directly after the OGL is listed, there are some publishers placing the OGC info in the empty space. I would believe this is done if a table of contents is not needed and there is not a long list of credits, as a way to save space and have one last page for print.
Hunter1828: I didn't want to bring up specific names on this, if you really want to know, I can email them you it privately. I felt specifically naming them seemed unproductive and a bit judgmental.
I should probably clarify this, I was mistaken in stating the Product ID info was IN section 15. What I mean was where directly after the OGL is listed, there are some publishers placing the OGC info in the empty space. I would believe this is done if a table of contents is not needed and there is not a long list of credits, as a way to save space and have one last page for print.
Hunter1828: I didn't want to bring up specific names on this, if you really want to know, I can email them you it privately. I felt specifically naming them seemed unproductive and a bit judgmental.
Nope, not necessary, especially if it wasn't actually in Section 15, but after the OGL itself. I can see placing the Section 8 info in blank space at the end, after the OGL, for a short product.
|
That's one hell of a declaration and strong showing of support for Open Content. Kudo's Hyrum!OR.... you can have it where 52 out of our 53 PDF Products are 100% Open Game Content including our upcoming Obsidian Twilight and Pirates of the Bronze Sky settings. See how much easier that was instead of search through products to find what parts are Open Content or not. Just a thought...
100%, Louis? Really? So in those products, the artwork, your company name and logo, the layout and design, are all open? Because if not, you're not 100% open.
If you mean the text is 100% open that's great. But it's also a different thing than what you just said. And it would still mean people could use your company name in their releases.
We're trying to craft an open statement that means any rule or game element from one of our products someone would like to use in their product they can. And call it by the same name. But we don't want other people releasing things as "Super Genius Games" products, so we can't just say 'everything is open.'
For example for Dream magic, we declare as Product Identity "The OtherWorld Creations (OWC) and Super Genius Games (SGG) company names and logos; the “The Genius Guide To:” name and logo; the Dream Magic name, background, and logo; all artwork, trade dress, and graphic design elements;"
And we make open "All game mechanics of The Genius Guide to: Dream Magic is Open Game Content as described in Section 1(d) of the License."
But we realized that might not be enough. If someone wants to use a nocnista in their gamebook, or make a wizard NPC a nightmare specialist, we want them to be able to use those rules AND reference those things by name. Doing that without giving away SGG's name itself takes a carefully crafted statement, which we are still working on.
|
|
2 of the 3 LMPJr products we examined didn't have an OGL included at all so we consider those specific products 0% Open Game Content. That may just be an error in those products, or those products are the exception to the norm, but just saying, in 2 of the 3 products we looked at there wasn't an OGL included.
Those two products, for reference purposes are "Races of Obsidian Twilight: Lykian Preview", and "Races of the Bronze Sky: Kaylethon Preview." I suppose it is possible since these are "preview" products that didn't appear to include any real mechanics that they aren't the "real" products but that the real products may in fact be more Open. I can say that one of the three products we examined ("Black Powder Weaponry (PRPG) Free Preview") was 100% Open Content based on our examination and scored a perfect "8" in our review.
If none of the mechanics accustomed to the OGL are included, is it even necessary to include such? It is, for intents and purposes, simply a preview. He should still be able to retain the rights to protect his product identity.
Just making an observation.
|
|
If none of the mechanics accustomed to the OGL are included, is it even necessary to include such? It is, for intents and purposes, simply a preview. He should still be able to retain the rights to protect his product identity.
Just making an observation.
Not disagreeing at all. Just noting it for the record. I also just looked at "World of Obsidian Twilight (PRPG) Preview" just now and it too does not have an OGL included. I'll probably have to alter my review criteria not to include "preview" materials that are basically all flavor text. Those should not skew a publisher's overall score. The fact that the one product from LMPjr that I looked at that is mostly mechanics is nearly fully Open Game Content is to be applauded and some flavor previews shouldn't detract from that.
Edit: I've removed the products from the table that are designated "previews" and which are basically all flavor text. I don't want "low" scores in those products to give an incorrect impression.
If none of the mechanics accustomed to the OGL are included, is it even necessary to include such? It is, for intents and purposes, simply a preview. He should still be able to retain the rights to protect his product identity.
Just making an observation.
Not necessarily. A few years ago fantasy artist Larry Elmore released the Elmore Character Clip Art & Color Customizing Studio, and released it under the OGL. It is all artwork. No game stats/mechanics at all. But the art that is included that is designated as Open Content is usable in other products so long as the OGL is included in that product and the ECCA&CCS is included in section 15 of the OGL.
Ideally, a product, even a preview with no game mechanics, that is part of any OGL system should include the OGL and a designation of Product Identity.
Not necessarily. A few years ago fantasy artist Larry Elmore released the Elmore Character Clip Art & Color Customizing Studio, and released it under the OGL. It is all artwork. No game stats/mechanics at all. But the art that is included that is designated as Open Content is usable in other products so long as the OGL is included in that product and the ECCA&CCS is included in section 15 of the OGL.If none of the mechanics accustomed to the OGL are included, is it even necessary to include such? It is, for intents and purposes, simply a preview. He should still be able to retain the rights to protect his product identity.
Just making an observation.
Obviously that's an exception as there was a necessary intent to do so.
BTW -- where can I find that?
BTW -- where can I find that?
Noble Knight has one in stock. Larry doesn't list them in his web store any longer, though.