I would love for a company to come to an agreement with WotC and be allowed to update some of the non-OGL 3.5 D20 material to Pathfinder.
The fact that Libris Mortis is closed content annoys me more than I can say.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would call it an "oligarchy", but yes.Just going from the specific to the general, and at the risk of derailing this thread completely, but it is important, do you think therefore that we live in a plutocracy, and that the principal means by which we are controlled by the wealthy is through fear of litigation?
Richard
That is something which should be fought, IMO.
This is one of the reasons why I resist the suggestion that you should always consult a lawyer. It excludes people who can't afford to do so, or forces them to go to publishers who may reject them.
I have nothing against either lawyers or publishers, but I don't think they should be mandatory. Everyone should have the right to write. Of course there are going to be rules, but the whole thing shouldn't be some sort of horrendous mine-field. I would hope that anyone who takes sensible steps such as reading the licence guidelines and maybe some of these forum posts would be able to produce gaming material off their own back with minimal cost to themselves. It doesn't mean anyone is going to read it or buy it, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to produce it, and without running up huge lawyer bills or lying awake at night worrying about litigation.
This goes outside of gaming as well, of course. If you lose your free speech you pretty soon lose your freedom.
Richard
The right to write and the right to be paid for it are not always the same-- you can write anything you want completely ignoring the OGL, and all copyright issues and post it on the internet for free and no one will ever sue you.
Don't believe me? Take a look at the homebrew portions of this forums. . . ask people posting things like conversions of the Avengers or Star Wars to PF rules if they've been sued by WotC (or Marvel/Disney for that matter).
But if they were selling that stuff, it would be a different story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is absolutely no requirement that an OGL product disclose what, if any, of its PI was licensed from someone else and under what terms. You can always email a publisher and say, "Hey, can I reference the proper name of your patron deity of the gluten-free diet?" and if they say yes, you just save the email in case they try to sue you later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is something which should be fought, IMO.This is one of the reasons why I resist the suggestion that you should always consult a lawyer. It excludes people who can't afford to do so, or forces them to go to publishers who may reject them.
Technically, I agree 100%. Most legal systems are terrible if you can't afford expensive lawyers, at least when it comes to civil cases, and that desperately needs to change.
Practically, until the system changes I'll tell people they should consult a lawyer, despite the fact I'm partially perpetuating the problem by doing so, because I'd hate someone to get into trouble after following my advice and because despite being pretty darned familiar with the OGL in particular and copyright in general from my previous lives, I don't know enough about the legal side of things - e.g. similar cases that can be used for citing precedent and the technicalities of I.P. licensing laws - to be 100% certain about anything.
However, I do generally assume that anyone asking advice is probably going to completely ignore the line I put about consulting a lawyer. It's more a disclaimer than anything else. Kinda like the health warning on a cigarette packet, I suppose, because if they were taken seriously the manufacturers would be out of business tomorrow :) It would be irresponsible of me to not include that warning, just in case of the rare scenario where someone assumed they could take everything I said as literally being worth betting their home on.
There is absolutely no requirement that an OGL product disclose what, if any, of its PI was licensed from someone else and under what terms. You can always email a publisher and say, "Hey, can I reference the proper name of your patron deity of the gluten-free diet?" and if they say yes, you just save the email in case they try to sue you later.
Yeah. "But they did it" isn't a good justification for just about anything, really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the reasons why I resist the suggestion that you should always consult a lawyer. It excludes people who can't afford to do so, or forces them to go to publishers who may reject them.
I have nothing against either lawyers or publishers, but I don't think they should be mandatory. Everyone should have the right to write. Of course there are going to be rules, but the whole thing shouldn't be some sort of horrendous mine-field. I would hope that anyone who takes sensible steps such as reading the licence guidelines and maybe some of these forum posts would be able to produce gaming material off their own back with minimal cost to themselves. It doesn't mean anyone is going to read it or buy it, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to produce it, and without running up huge lawyer bills or lying awake at night worrying about litigation.
This goes outside of gaming as well, of course. If you lose your free speech you pretty soon lose your freedom.
Richard
I think you should consult a lawyer when you want a legal opinion (as you do).
I have no fear of litigation, I like to do things well. I'm building a conservatory at the moment - I could draw the plans up myself or I could come to the paizo forums and ask people for suggestions based on their houses, but I want it done properly so I'm hiring an architect. When I get sick, I go to a doctor (and pay them). Legal expertise should be valued, imo not dismissed as merely a "tool of those in power".
If youre worried about cost, you should consult a lawyer. They're not that expensive when it comes to advice like this (unless you're only planning on publishing one book or something). The situation where you do your own legal work, get it wrong and then end in court is what's going to cost you a lot.
Most lawyers will do a consult for $20-100 dollars, but most lawyers aren't going to be experts in this specific kind of law. . .
And while in general consulting a professional is the correct thing to do, there has to be a cost/expected return payoff for something like this.
I assume that your conservatory has an expected return either in enjoyment value or return on investment that is high enough to justify the cost of the architect.
With illnesses we all always do a return on investment analysis internally before deciding to go to the doctor-- you wouldn't go for a cough or cold on the first or second day (but if you were violently ill for more than a day you probably would).
Should you consult a lawyer before self publishing something with OGL? Probably, but for small, fairly personal projects when you are already investing a budget that is probably more than you will see returned to put the book together the cost may not be worth it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other words, could I publish an adventure which uses the OGL (and the Pathfinder licence) and include within it additional material which is either:
a) non/pre OGL, or
b) OGL where nothing was designated open contentbut using only rules-based mechanics.
For example, the 3.5 D&D book Ghostwalk is of type (b) above. This book contains within it a spell called "Bonerattle" which I would quite like to use in my adventure. Although written for 3.5 D&D it hardly needs any conversion. Could I include it in my adventure using the OSR-style copyright exclusion principle and, if so, what should I be careful to do or not do?
Richard
Here is a question I have to ask: Why do you want to do this?
Do you want to be a 3PP? Good. Learn to be creative and come up with your own ideas for products. Because I am sure if the situation was reversed you would do everything to stop someone from doing what you are asking to do. Just my observation of this situation.
Still a bit puzzled,Here's the thing to remember: with few exceptions, none of us publishers can survive the time/expense of a law suit. If a publisher decided to put another publisher out of business, all they would have to do is examine all of their products, find something that is "close enough," hire a lawyer and file a law suit. None of us want it to happen and to my knowledge it hasn't happened, yet....
Well, it hasn't happened to my knowledge in the gaming industry, but it has happened in the mobile games industry, although just last week it was put to rest amicably. Though it seems the bigger company is still cracking the whip on every single OTHER mobile game on the iTunes and Android markets that use their new trademarked word. Granted, I don't know full legal details, just what I've read on the websites of the parties involved and various gaming news sites covering the lawsuit.
But, my point here is to further show the OP how he should consult with a lawyer if he's at all even thinking he MIGHT be breaking copyright.
There also was some issues with White Wolf about ten years back vs. the real life Obeah religion they were fighting with over trademark of a vampire power named and inspired from the religion's beliefs, although details on it are strangely hard to find today (like no idea how WW managed to scour the internet, but they did!)... but I heard about it when it was going on because it all started when a member of the religion wanted to start a newsletter and was told he couldn't as White Wolf had trademarked "Obeah" and the wording of their trademark claim pretty much spelled out the religion's core beliefs. White Wolf won the lawsuit, and they had to (at least for awhile) change their name in print. IT's also why I had to rewind Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man's Chest and turn on the subtitles to be sure they said that Tia Dalma was Obeah.
Most lawyers will do a consult for $20-100 dollars, but most lawyers aren't going to be experts in this specific kind of law. . .
And while in general consulting a professional is the correct thing to do, there has to be a cost/expected return payoff for something like this.
I assume that your conservatory has an expected return either in enjoyment value or return on investment that is high enough to justify the cost of the architect.
With illnesses we all always do a return on investment analysis internally before deciding to go to the doctor-- you wouldn't go for a cough or cold on the first or second day (but if you were violently ill for more than a day you probably would).
Should you consult a lawyer before self publishing something with OGL? Probably, but for small, fairly personal projects when you are already investing a budget that is probably more than you will see returned to put the book together the cost may not be worth it.
That was what I meant by: "They're not that expensive when it comes to advice like this (unless you're only planning on publishing one book or something)."
My suggestion to someone just looking to dabble and who perhaps cant afford legal advice (or doesnt think it's worth it) would be to play it straight down the line and not try and push any boundaries.
Trying to fiddle things based on "I guess...", "I'd hope...", "It wouldnt surprise me..." etcetera just seems like home surgery to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My comments so far are all quite apart from the ethical element - a publisher has specifically said "this is not open content". I dont see any other interpretation to this other than: "We could have made this available for use in other OGL products, but we decided not to".
Why try and use that material? Even if there is some legal loophole allowing you to reprint their work - they've asked you not to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My comments so far are all quite apart from the ethical element - a publisher has specifically said "this is not open content". I dont see any other interpretation to this other than: "We could have made this available for use in other OGL products, but we decided not to".
Why try and use that material? Even if there is some legal loophole allowing you to reprint their work - they've asked you not to.
Doubly true in this particular case since 5 minutes of googling for spells with "bone" in the name reveals Bonshatter, a Cleric 5/Wizard 4 Necromancy spell where in "The target's bones or exoskeleton shiver and splinter, dealing 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 15d6). . ." which is OGL (Osirion, Land of Paroahs)
Perfectly legit for you to reference that book, reprint Boneshatter and then Add "Lesser Boneshatter" where you lower the damage from 4th level 15d6 save for half to 1st level worthy amount (5d4 save negates). . .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone should have the right to write.
Its like I tell my girlfriend all the time when she complains about the world. What should be and what is are two different things. Wishing doesn't change it. You can accept it the way it is or work to change it. Pretending that it is otherwise gets you nowhere.
This goes outside of gaming as well, of course. If you lose your free speech you pretty soon lose your freedom.
XKCD had a great comic on this, just this past Friday. Mind you, the author was talking about hateful forum commenters instead of corporate lawsuits, but the basic principle of not being shielded from consequences still applies.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I find that a good rule with the OGL (and with life really) is this. Strive to do what you believe is the right thing to do. Don't look for shifty grey areas you can exploit just to get what you want.
If a publisher chooses not to make something of thiers open content, that is perfectly acceptable and you should simply respect that and move on. Period.
9 times out 10, if you honestly and sincerely stick with trying to do the right thing, you'll be much better off.
|
|
I'd recommend asking the folks at Dreamscarred Press how they handled it (with their updated ToB and MoI), or the folks at Little Red Goblin Games who updated the warlock, or the folks at Radiance House who updated the Binder, none of which were OGC originally.
And after that, stop taking advice from people with no knowledge of the subject (like non-developers and non-lawyers posting in this thread, including me:) ).
Speaking of Little Red Goblin Games, what happened to them? Most of their stuff is gone from the shop.
|
|
@ Jadeite: this may be of help to you. :)
Thanks. It's interesting in the context of this thread, though.
So, the way it seems to work is that any big company can sue any small company out of the water for something the little company has no real control over (other than deep-scruitizing every single word in thousands of published books) and, through the use of copyright and trademark laws, destroy said little company.
Two questions:
a) Is it really the artist/writer/etc that is protected, or is it the market position of the big companies?
b) Explain to me again how it works, this thing they always say, that IP laws are okay because you can't own an idea? I mean, if it works as above.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure where you get the idea that big companies can sue small companies out of existence. . .
After all, if you don't do sketchy things and present your own original work there wouldn't be grounds for those kinds of lawsuits.
@LazarX, I completely agree with you. My comment was in reference to a pretty dismal view of the world the Sissyl was suggesting.
Again though, as I pointed out there is an OGL option that accomplishes the same effect that the OP wanted (a 1st level "bone" spell that does 1d4 per CL maxing at 5), just have to redo the name and text to base it off Boneshatter instead of Bonerattle. . .
|
|
All IMO:
If you quote an OGL source in your OGL section 15 then you have to abide by the OGL rules. If you don't, then it's down to copyright law.
If you omit an OGL source, either deliberately or accidentally, then it's down to copyright law, in just the same way as a non-OGL source.
I see nothing immoral or unethical about this. Copyright law has matured over hundreds of years and it serves the purpose of protecting one creator without stifling others.
If you want to know how likely you are to get sued, look at what people get sued for and look at what they don't get sued for. It's no guarantee, of course, but as far as I can tell it's the only thing that you could call a fact in an area which is full to bursting with people's opinions.
Richard
P.S. LazarX: You are skirting very close to defamation of character. I have no desire to appropriate anybody's work for my own use. I resent your implication that I am trying to behave dishonestly. What I want to do is to have a discussion about where the boundaries of intellectual ownership are in order to try to get this sort of thing right, particularly outside of the OGL, i.e. within the normal realms of copyright. Like I said before, asking questions about where boundaries lie does not imply a desire to break either laws or ethics. I have been publishing for 18 months now, BTW, so I am no longer a "wannabe" (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/f/fourDollarDungeons)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see nothing immoral or unethical about this. Copyright law has matured over hundreds of years and it serves the purpose of protecting one creator without stifling others.
Seriously?
The publisher had the option of labelling the feat you want to use open content but instead chose to make it closed and you see nothing unethical with trying to use it in an OGL product via your interpretation of "copyright law"?
What do you think a publisher is trying to achieve by declaring something closed content?
If you quote an OGL source in your OGL section 15 then you have to abide by the OGL rules. If you don't, then it's down to copyright law.
I think it's more accurate to say that if you publish a product under the OGL then you have to abide by the terms of the license.
It wouldn't surprise me if, as part of using the OGL license, you are ceding some rights. The OGL was introduced as a "safe" way for people to publish, within certain boundaries, without having to stress about copyright law. I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Theoretical boundaries aside, +1 for lesser boneshatter.
|
|
Seriously?
The publisher had the option of labelling the feat you want to use open content but instead chose to make it closed and you see nothing unethical with trying to use it in an OGL product via your interpretation of "copyright law"?
What do you think a publisher is trying to achieve by declaring something closed content?
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I think it's more accurate to say that if you publish a product under the OGL then you have to abide by the terms of the license.
It wouldn't surprise me if, as part of using the OGL license, you are ceding some rights. The OGL was introduced as a "safe" way for people to publish, within certain boundaries, without having to stress about copyright law.
I'm not sure it's more accurate but I certainly agree with you.
I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
I'm not.
Richard
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious what you are actually attempting to accomplish with these threads. You write off every bit of advice that doesn't agree with what you want to do as "fear of litigation controlling you".
Are these threads just you looking to get your (rather loose) interpretation of the OLG a pat on the back?
Theoretical boundaries aside, +1 for lesser boneshatter.
Lesser Bonshatter has no theoretical boundaries-- its an adaption (or theoretical since I didn't write the entire spell) of a spell that IS OGC from Osirion, Land of the Pharoahs player companion book.
Bonerattle is a non-OGL spell from the 3.5 Ghostwalk setting and reprinting it would be a no no.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.Seriously?
The publisher had the option of labelling the feat you want to use open content but instead chose to make it closed and you see nothing unethical with trying to use it in an OGL product via your interpretation of "copyright law"?
What do you think a publisher is trying to achieve by declaring something closed content?
I'm talking about your example.
In other words, could I publish an adventure which uses the OGL (and the Pathfinder licence) and include within it additional material which is either:
a) non/pre OGL, or
b) OGL where nothing was designated open contentbut using only rules-based mechanics.
For example, the 3.5 D&D book Ghostwalk is of type (b) above. This book contains within it a spell called "Bonerattle" which I would quite like to use in my adventure.Although written for 3.5 D&D it hardly needs any conversion. Could I include it in my adventure using the OSR-style copyright exclusion principle and, if so, what should I be careful to do or not do?
I'm astonished you see nothing unethical about using bonerattle in an OGL product when the publisher of that spell decided not to make it open content. What do you think they were trying to achieve when they decided to exclude it from being open content?
I think it's more accurate to say that if you publish a product under the OGL then you have to abide by the terms of the license.
It wouldn't surprise me if, as part of using the OGL license, you are ceding some rights. The OGL was introduced as a "safe" way for people to publish, within certain boundaries, without having to stress about copyright law.
I'm not sure it's more accurate but I certainly agree with you.
I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.I'm not.
Sure you are. You want the protection of the OGL without the restrictions (on only using open content).
I see nothing immoral or unethical about this. Copyright law has matured over hundreds of years and it serves the purpose of protecting one creator without stifling others.Seriously?
The publisher had the option of labelling the feat you want to use open content but instead chose to make it closed and you see nothing unethical with trying to use it in an OGL product via your interpretation of "copyright law"?
What do you think a publisher is trying to achieve by declaring something closed content?
Actually the publisher did not have to declare it closed content. What he did not do was give it an exception to copyright protection, by including it within the SRD under the terms of the Open Gaming License, specifically declaring it as open content by the procedures specified in the OGL.
Third party companies like Paradigm Press and Necormancer Games HAVE gotten licenses to use WOTC's closed content in the past. But those are professional companies with the wherewithal and the professional reputation to back it up.
Sure. There's obviously no problem using someone else's IP if they give you permission, that's not what the OP is wanting to do though.
I'm genuinely surprised that someone so keen on the rights of authors would not see anything unethical in using material that isn't declared open content.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously?
The publisher had the option of labelling the feat you want to use open content but instead chose to make it closed and you see nothing unethical with trying to use it in an OGL product via your interpretation of "copyright law"?
What do you think a publisher is trying to achieve by declaring something closed content?
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
What he means is that if Wizards wanted that spell to be OGL, they had the chance (twice infact, once for 3.0 and once for 3.5) to release it OGL. They didn't. You can honor their wishes and leave it alone (playing nice, as many off us publishers try to do) or you can thread the needle in the loophole in the law (and not play nice). Not playing nice tends to result in tighter restrictions like tighter licenses like the 4.0 GSL.
Actions have consequences. Some directly affect you, some directly affect everyone. I suspect that more often than not, such actions fly under the radar, but do you really want to take that chance of being the next Book of Erotic Fantasy.
What he means is that if Wizards wanted that spell to be OGL, they had the chance (twice infact, once for 3.0 and once for 3.5) to release it OGL. They didn't. You can honor their wishes and leave it alone (playing nice, as many off us publishers try to do) or you can thread the needle in the loophole in the law (and not play nice). Not playing nice tends to result in tighter restrictions like tighter licenses like the 4.0 GSL.Actions have consequences. Some directly affect you, some directly affect everyone. I suspect that more often than not, such actions fly under the radar, but do you really want to take that chance of being the next Book of Erotic Fantasy.
While I absolutely agree with you, I do feel we need to bear something in mind here:
Anyone that's published a standalone d20-based OGL game with character creation rules (so yes, I do mean Pathfinder as well as numerous others by more than a few successful RPG companies) has done exactly the same thing that I feel the OP is asking here - recreating in their own words a relatively small set of mechanics that were not released under the OGL.
I think we've forgotten that in the grand scheme of things, making a single lookalike spell (especially if it does, say, d8 damage where the original did 2d4) does seem to be a relatively minor thing comparable to that reconstruction of character creation rules. Obviously, there's also a difference between one spell comprising 0.1% of a product and bringing out a book that's full of nothing but attempts to recreate from scratch every non-OGL WotC spell, ever. Taking inspiration from a spell and coming up with something similar and placing that single spell within, say, an adventure module isn't on the same level as trying to do a book full of blatant ripoffs.
That said, it's still true, of course, that any attempt to do even that 0.1% needs to avoid countless traps in the legal copyright minefield, and that it only takes a publisher with a pile of cash to come up with something that vaguely resembles a valid case (enough that a judge is willing to open the doors and listen rather than throw it out immediately) to pretty much finish you, and really that's the important part here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, it's still true, of course, that any attempt to do even that 0.1% needs to avoid countless traps in the legal copyright minefield, and that it only takes a publisher with a pile of cash to come up with something that vaguely resembles a valid case (enough that a judge is willing to open the doors and listen rather than throw it out immediately) to pretty much finish you, and really that's the important part here.
I don't think that's the important point - I really think the chance of a lawsuit is negligible. (And by the sounds of it, would be easily sidestepped by just pulling any offending PDFs when the cease and desist letter arrived).
I think the important point is doing the right thing. That involves respecting the creative output of others and using their material in accordance with their wishes.
Bringing "ethics" into this is a opening a big can of wyrms. Whether or not someone wishes their work to be assimilated into mass culture or not, we are talking about, firstly, legal issues, and second, practical issues. I know how the Candy Crush people felt about other people using the word "candy" in computer games, and frankly, it doesn't matter how they felt. They didn't, and don't, own the word candy.
It is completely legitimate to ask whether something is likely to be infringing (though a lawyer can give you a more bankable, thought not necessarily more correct, answer). Whether or not it's considered "rude" depends on a lot of things, including context and the personal opinions of everyone involved. It can also be considered rude to make use of a lot of OGC while offering little in return. So, rather than dwell on such murky matters, I would suggest we stick with practical comments.
The "Lesser Bonewhatever" thing is probably the best answer. not only does it solve the present dilemma, it offers a template for dealing with similar obstacles in the future.
Bringing "ethics" into this is a opening a big can of wyrms. Whether or not someone wishes their work to be assimilated into mass culture or not, we are talking about, firstly, legal issues, and second, practical issues. I know how the Candy Crush people [i]felt[/] about other people using the word "candy" in computer games, and frankly, it doesn't matter how they felt. They didn't, and don't, own the word candy.
It is completely legitimate to ask whether something is likely to be infringing (though a lawyer can give you a more bankable, thought not necessarily more correct, answer). Whether or not it's considered "rude" depends on a lot of things, including context and the personal opinions of everyone involved. It can also be considered rude to make use of a lot of OGC while offering little in return. So, rather than dwell on such murky matters, I would suggest we stick with practical comments.
I don't think the issue if including something specifically declared not open content in an OGL product s murky at all, to be frank.
The OGL allows you to use open game content and requires you to specify what is open in your own work and what isn't. I think that's a very clear statement as to how it should be used - what's the point in creating the segregation if both types of content can be used anyway?
Ethics may be difficult, but I still think they're important.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the important point is doing the right thing. That involves respecting the creative output of others and using their material in accordance with their wishes.
Again I point to the lack of stat-rolling rules in the SRD though... if everyone did the right thing, we'd not have Pathfinder or any of the many other d20-based games as standalone rulebooks, as we'd be required to refer to a 3.0/3.5 PHB for the rules to roll up new characters. Instead, Paizo and the other publishers wrote in their own substitute rules that did pretty much the same thing as the original ones without copying them directly.
I have real trouble seeing that as a bad thing. I do think there's an ethical difference in the amount of things you recreate, but when it amounts to a single paragraph in a book, I don't really see an ethical problem.
Now, if someone were to take an in-print non-OGL game (lets just randomly say World of Darkness or Doctor Who: Adventures in Time and Space) and try to recreate the entire thing for profit, that'd be crossing my personal line for sure.
I don't see it as the same thing as the OP is contemplating, though I'm leery to explain why. Nonetheless, as a general principle, I think "they did it" is a poor ethical argument.
I don't see it as the same thing, though I'm leery to explain why. Nonetheless, as a general principle, I think "they did it" is a bad ethical argument.
Oh, it is. I'm just wary of shooting down an attempt to recreate an alternate to a few lines of text because half the current industry is based around doing just that :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Paizo certainly has the money for legal advice for the character creation rules they made up to fill in what was left out of the OGL.
Also, as I recall Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed was one of the first complete alternate PHs to come out, anmd I'd guess he knew whether that was something the architects behind the OGL wanted to let happen or not.
I don't see it as the same thing, though I'm leery to explain why. Nonetheless, as a general principle, I think "they did it" is a bad ethical argument.Oh, it is. I'm just wary of shooting down an attempt to recreate an alternate to a few lines of text because half the current industry is based around doing just that :)
I think paizo did much more than file off the serial numbers without permission.
Well, Paizo certainly has the money for legal advice for the character creation rules they made up to fill in what was left out of the OGL.
Also, as I recall Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed was one of the first complete alternate PHs to come out, anmd I'd guess he knew whether that was something the architects behind the OGL wanted to let happen or not.
I do have a personal theory that much of what the OGL allows (or not), especially via loopholes, may quite possibly have been intended from the start - just that had anyone higher up at Hasbro realized what was and wasn't buried in the legalese, they'd have likely trodden on the idea...
However, that's as far as I'm willing to go on the topic ;)
I think paizo did much more than file off the serial numbers without permission.I don't see it as the same thing, though I'm leery to explain why. Nonetheless, as a general principle, I think "they did it" is a bad ethical argument.Oh, it is. I'm just wary of shooting down an attempt to recreate an alternate to a few lines of text because half the current industry is based around doing just that :)
Yup. And that's where I'm drawing my own line - if someone is creating something that's 99% their own work plus a single copied spell with the serial numbers filed off, that sounds to me like they're putting in enough effort to claim it as their own work. If they made a book that was *just* spells with the serials filed off, that's something else entirely. (And to be clear, now I'm talking purely ethics. Legally that spell is still a minefield, and that's why it's the legal bit that really matters - even if you're 100% ethically correct, you can still end up in the poorhouse from the court costs ;) )
Well, I think its obvious that if they could outright rescind the OGL they would-- they discontinued the d20 license and when they redid 4th edition's version it was much stricter, and we still haven't seen if there wil be or what the compatibility license will look like for Next.
But fortunately for us, the genie is out of the bottle.