I'm a big fan of Paizo's open policies toward community use and development of Pathfinder related content. As someone who likes to write software in support of his gaming habit, though, I find there is a lack of similar guidance in Paizo's licenses and community policy for writing code based on Paizo products. I'd appreciate a little bit of help figuring out what would or would not get me sued, particularly as applies to my current situation.
My girlfriend and I have been using Paizo's Harrow deck product in recent gaming. In online gaming with friends out of state, however, it really isn't very easy to use the physical deck. I was inspired last night to write a program to automatically generate what amounts to simplistic ASCII art Harrow fortune telling spreads (that is, outlines meant to represent the cards' locations with text inside the outlines indicating the salient characteristics of the specific cards). For an example of output, check out this sample result:
http://apotheon.net/rpg/tmp/sample_spread.txt
At the moment, generating random spreads like this is all it does. I would like to develop some more functionality in the future, including perhaps a Web interface, and maybe eventually a more graphically robust interface for the desktop. I'd like to add some useful documentation for how to interpret results and so on, too, of course. I want to put all the code on BitBucket (a free code hosting site) under an open source license (specifically, the Open Works License), but after going through the Community Use Policy materials, the Compatibility License, and everything else I could find with a fine-toothed comb, I'm not finding much that seems to apply to this situation. What little I do find (the minimal mention of what we get to do with the materials in Section 2 of the Community Use Approved Product List) is frankly discouraging. Knowing how supporting Paizo has been of community investment in the Pathfinder product lines in the past, though, I hold out hope that someone will allay any concerns I might have.
Of course, I'm pretty sure that the program as written right now should easily fall under the doctrine of fair use, but I'm no lawyer, and would be hard-pressed to justify the expense of a lawyer for something inconsequential like this, so I'd have to think long and hard before going that route. In any case, considering how much I like Pathfinder RPG, the way Paizo has been handling game development, and the community outreach the company and its staff have pursued, I'd much rather be a part of the officially supported community with this rather than having to step outside it and watch every move I make for signs I might accidentally overstep what the doctrine of fair use would clearly protect.
So . . . help? What can I do without getting DMCA takedown notices or subpoenas in my mailbox?
I'll poke somebody to take a look at this thread tomorrow - 'tis outside the scope of my ability to answer. :)
I'll poke somebody to take a look at this thread tomorrow - 'tis outside the scope of my ability to answer. :)
Thanks -- I appreciate it. I wasn't going to clutter up the thread, but I figured I shouldn't be one of the people whose fault it is that customer service people don't get enough thanks for their work.
additional information:
I've noticed there's a run-down on the Harrow deck's use for fortune telling, with (extremely brief) summary of each card's meaning, in the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP. That's in Section 1 of the Community Use Approved Product List, which suggests more leeway for me to create software that simulates Harrow spreads. I would still like some guidance on the matter particular to software (as opposed to just natural language independent game materials) and on how I may license the software, given that the OGL is so poorly suited for application to software.
For additional reference, see the Open Works License Website.
Chief Technical Officer
|
The reason we don't provide more information about how Open Game Content can be used is because it's the OGL itself that dictates how the content can be used.
As for your specific question, look to the last part of Section 2 of the OGL: "No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License."
In short, if you want to use Open Game Content without risk, you would use the OGL for your own product, and that means you cannot apply other terms or conditions to the Open Game Content—and that includes attaching another license to it, such as the Open Works License.
As for your specific question, look to the last part of Section 2 of the OGL: "No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License."
Does this even qualify as "open game content" in the OGL, though? It's basically just references to terms like "Harrow" and "The Liar" (one of the cards in the deck), which as I understand it qualify as Product Identity (thus exempted from the Open Game Content) that we only get to use in accordance with the Community Use Policy. Given that game rules as an algorithm are not covered by copyright, and the terms employed for identifying things are "product identity", my understanding of the interaction of policies and licenses here is that the Community Use Policy is what provides our guidance for use of the Harrow deck -- which needs clarifying where software is concerned.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, of course; I'd appreciate it, though, if you'd provide an explanation of how the legalities of the issue apply such that the OGL is the governing policy in this case, rather than the Community Use Policy.
. . . and, regardless of whether I use the OGL or the OWL for this software, there's still the question of whether including functionality that actually aids in the interpretation of the spread (summaries of card symbolism and meaning, for instance, briefly paraphrasing what's in the deck product's included booklet) would attract unwanted legal attention.
I don't wish to nag, but legal issues are always something of a sticky matter, and I want to make sure things are nailed down pretty precisely for my purposes.
EDIT: I'll just paint a picture of my current sense of the situation. I'll proceed with my explanation on the assumption that my picture is legally accurate in this description of my sense of things (though I make no such assumption at this time with regard to the disposition of my software). According to my understanding . . .
The software I'm writing, unless I actually excerpt explanatory text from the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP (CCT) or from the Harrow deck product materials themselves, does not actually have anything in particular to do with Open Content as defined in the OGL. The software basically only makes use of Product Identity such as the term Harrow and the names of the cards, plus some game rules stuff that is technically outside the realm of copyright and trademark.
Because Product Identity is basically what the Community Use Policy addresses, that means that the software itself is subject to the Community Use Policy in terms of what I'm allowed to do with it. Since the Product Identity used in the software is included in a Community Use Approved Product List Section 1 product (CCT), which allows essentially full use of terms and concepts under the Community Use Policy, that would seem to me to indicate that I can release the software under any license I like that does not have direct commercial implications, so long as I also include some indication of the applicability of the Community Use Policy and provide access to the software for free (and so long as the license I select allows such combination with an external agreement).
Unfortunately, copyright (and, to a lesser extent, trademark) is a protean legal landscape built on a foundation of sand, and I'm no lawyer, so I'm seeking direct guidance on this matter given that the Community Use Policy is somewhat unclear on matters related to software.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Does this even qualify as "open game content" in the OGL, though?
You want to utilize the spread mechanic—that's Open Game Content by our declaration. And if you want to make any reference to the primary attributes or the alignment system, that's Open Game Content from Wizards' SRD.
I'm not in a position to provide any advice about how to use anything that either we or Wizards have declared Open Game Content without using the OGL. If you want to attempt to do that under copyright law alone, you should really consult a lawyer specializing in that area.
Since the Product Identity used in the software is included in a Community Use Approved Product List Section 1 product (CCT), which allows essentially full use of terms and concepts under the Community Use Policy...
Our Community Use Policy does *not* allow "full use of terms and concepts." The CUP is designed to complement the OGL, so it does not overlap with it—that is, it does not provide any access to anything declared as Open Content, such as the mechanic of the spread.
(Also, since you mentioned the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License in your first post, you should note that it only applies to books, electronic books, and freely available websites published under the OGL, so it definitely is not an option for your product in any case.)
Okay, thanks for clarifying some of that. I guess the attributes and alignments stuff, where the specific terms are used, does indeed fall under the OGL; I'd managed to forget about that take on it. Could you direct me to where the declaration of the spread mechanic as being open game content was made (if only to satisfy my own curiosity)?
My reference to "full use of terms and concepts" was meant to apply only to the product identity stuff. I apologize if that was not clear in my statement.
So, based on your statement about what the Compatibility License covers . . . should we assume that there is no possibility of being able to make statements about Pathfinder RPG compatibility, or use logos to that effect, for any software or anything else that is not strictly textual in nature?
Also, to hopefully wrap this all up: If, after examining the OGL one more time to see whether it is at all reasonable to apply it to my software, I would like to release it under the OGL+CUP, as appropriate. Is there anything else I need to know before doing so about the possibility of litigation, DMCA takedown notices, et cetera? Is there some specific set of materials related to the Harrow deck and its use that I should avoid incorporating into the software and its associated materials to remain compliant with Paizo's licenses and policies?
Thanks for your time and help. As a final note, I'd like to encourage you guys to provide some FAQ, license, community policy, or other official, "standardized" (for lack of a better term) guidance for people who want to share software written to support Pathfinder RPG.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Could you direct me to where the declaration of the spread mechanic as being open game content was made (if only to satisfy my own curiosity)?
Our declaration of Product Identity and Open Content was mistakenly left out of the product, but you can find it on the product page here. Even without that statement, though, the OGL makes it clear that any mechanic derived from Open Content (that is, "is an enhancement over the prior art") is defined as Open Content. So since the spread mechanic is derived from the Open Content alignment mechanic, the spread mechanic is Open Content.
So, based on your statement about what the Compatibility License covers . . . should we assume that there is no possibility of being able to make statements about Pathfinder RPG compatibility, or use logos to that effect, for any software or anything else that is not strictly textual in nature?
The OGL prohibits doing that without "another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark," and when it comes to specifically indicating compatibility, the Compatibility License is the only agreement we're offering.
Is there anything else I need to know before doing so about the possibility of litigation, DMCA takedown notices, et cetera? Is there some specific set of materials related to the Harrow deck and its use that I should avoid incorporating into the software and its associated materials to remain compliant with Paizo's licenses and policies?
Just make sure you do everything those licenses tell you to do, and don't do anything they tell you not to do. I'd especially draw attention to all of the categories listed in the Harrow Deck's Product Identity that *aren't* mentioned in the CUP, because those categories aren't available for your use. (Mainly, I'm talking about artwork and trade dress, but check the whole list for yourself.)
As a final note, I'd like to encourage you guys to provide some FAQ, license, community policy, or other official, "standardized" (for lack of a better term) guidance for people who want to share software written to support Pathfinder RPG.
Because of the way it interacts with the OGL, there are no stock answers here.
Thanks for all your help in clarifying the issue. I think that tells me what I need to know for now. I'll go pore over the OGL once more (and the CUP again, just for the sake of measuring twice and cutting once), and eventually probably release my program under the OGL or rewrite it so I can separate any OGL materials from the software itself.