| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didnt want to derail another thread, but the way this is discussed has often confused me.
I've heard many people say that 5E "has no OGL" or similar (presumably, in contrast to 3.5). Am I right in my understanding that that is a misuse of terminology? As I understood things, nothing in the 3.5 core books was open game content and there wasnt a sense in which it was "released under the OGL" other than coming out at around the same time as the license did.
What 3.5 had (and PF has, for that matter) that 4E and 5E dont is a separate, standalone compatibility license (as required by the OGL - if you want to advertise your OGL product as compatible with another company's trademark).
Is my understanding correct? That people requesting "a 5E OGL" are actually looking for a compatibility license - and that the OGL is there and you can release OGL content for any game, provided you dont advertise your OGL work as compatible with said game?
I think the 4E GSL (or whatever it was) muddied the waters - it gave the impression that you need a new license with a new game. In reality, it was WotC's attempt to walk back the OGL and was intended to replace it functionally. When a new game comes out - there's no actual need for an OGL at all, since the one we have is irrevocable, courtesy of WotC.
I'd appreciate any comment from people-in-the-know. I'm not seeking any kind of legal advice, but I've begun to wonder if I've misunderstood things.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, saying 5e is "not OGL" is a a misuse of the term. But it is a misuse inline with calling a tissue a "Kleenex." When people ask for an OGL for 5e, they are looking for any kind of compatibility license instead of having to rely on copyright law or on using a license that corresponds to a set of terms that are free and open to use that was designed for a different version and is not designed with this specific version of D&D. What we want is a simply, easy to understand (since few of us are lawyers in the day job) way of saying this is for use with 5e and if you use these terms (terms being anything from "blue dragon" to "advantage"), Wizards will not care one way or the other what happens.
5e has no free, open license of any kind to date. There is no list of terms or phrases that are allowed to be used that directly corresponds to 5e. And there is no official way to indicate compatibility. Can you make a 5e adventure with all the tools available to you right now? Yes. It is not as easy as the OGL, but it can be done.
So how much do publishers want some kind of 5e license? Roughly the same amount a GMs wants an adventure. And for similar reasons: we're busy and don't have time to learn copyright law, some are more risk averse and want a simple clear license that says this is what you can do and this is what you cannot, and some just flat out like running a company with the OGL.
Does this make sense?
It makes a lot of sense - I am really being pedantic, but I think (when it comes to legalities like this) pedantry has got a bit going for it.
It seems to me that you want (and I do to):
1. A compatibility license to sit alongside the OGL, as required by clause whatever-it-is that says you need one to advertise your material as "compatible"
2. An updated (or additional) SRD with terms specific to 5E (like advantage - good example). I'd missed the need for this second point.
From what I have seen discussed elsewhere, what allows companies already publishing compatible material is that anything in 5th edition that was also in 3rd edition is still covered by the 3rd edition OGL, at least for now. Also, it seems some companies are assuming that anything published in the free Basic rules pdfs is also allowed to be used without a new 5th edition OGL.
And speaking of an SRD, I am thinking those same Basic rules are the closest thing WotC is going to make available to compare to an actual SRD.
My main point is that there's really no such thing as "the 3rd edition OGL".
There's an OGL, there's a separate license to indicate compatibility with 3.5 (is that the d20 license? Or was that something more?) and there's an SRD.
As I say, it's pedantic. But I think being clear is necessary when it comes to legalese - if the licensing arrangement is truly going to carry minimal risk.
Not sure of all the terminology, but 3.x had the OGL for D20 products and 4th had the more restrictive GSL. And fortunately, for all those companies putting out D20-based products, WotC never cancelled or voided the OGL, if they even could. I do not know the legality to something like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My main point is that there's really no such thing as "the 3rd edition OGL".
There's an OGL, there's a separate license to indicate compatibility with 3.5 (is that the d20 license? Or was that something more?) and there's an SRD.
As I say, it's pedantic. But I think being clear is necessary when it comes to legalese - if the licensing arrangement is truly going to carry minimal risk.
There is no such thing as "the 3rd edition OGL". You're correct about that. Nor is there a "d20 license".
Not entirely correct on the no "d20 license" - there is a "d20 System Trademark License". It allowed the use of the d20 logo to indicate compatibility and allow the use of certain trademarked terms. The products also had to exclude character creation rules and be labelled as requiring the core rulebooks.
This was separate from the OGL, which was still needed to get the actual mechanics. You might remember the controversy about the Book of Erotic Fantasy - that was over whether it would be approved for the d20 license; it was denied, but was still able to publish under the OGL. See Wizards of the Coast's FAQ.
Edit:
The OGL does two things, it makes the content available for use to anyone and lets them, with some restrictions, claim their material is compatible with D&D.
I believe this is wrong as well - the OGL allowed the content to be designated as OGL compatible but it could not indicate it was compatible with D&D, but I haven't dug up a source for that (though it is what I recall from trying to buy products at the time).
My main point is that there's really no such thing as "the 3rd edition OGL".
There's an OGL, there's a separate license to indicate compatibility with 3.5 (is that the d20 license? Or was that something more?) and there's an SRD.
As I say, it's pedantic. But I think being clear is necessary when it comes to legalese - if the licensing arrangement is truly going to carry minimal risk.
There is no such thing as "the 3rd edition OGL". You're correct about that. Nor is there a "d20 license".
There is the OGL. The 3.0 Core rules were released under that. At least the portion of them in the SRD. I don't believe there was a different license for 3.5. There was a SRD for 3.5 too, available under the OGL.The OGL does two things, it makes the content available for use to anyone and lets them, with some restrictions, claim their material is compatible with D&D. I think you're confusing the SRD with a license. The SRD is a document containing the content that WotC applied the OGL to.
No, I'm aware of the difference. (The d20 license was a thing too, although not a compatibility license, by the sounds).
4E is not under the OGL.
There are OGL 4E products.
What do you mean not under the OGL? What would be different if it were "under the OGL"?
Now I think about it, perhaps there isn't a compatibility license allowing OGL products to advertise themselves as D&D compatible. Doesn't pathfinder refer to "the worlds oldest roleplaying game" or similar?
4E is not under the OGL.There are OGL 4E products.
What do you mean not under the OGL? What would be different if it were "under the OGL"?
There are OGL 4E products? Examples?
They may have used the 3.x OGL'd content + uncopyrightable rules hack I described. They likely have to dance around a lot of names and language that wasn't in 3.x.
If it was under the OGL, someone could put the system up on the web, like the various third party srd sites do. There's a great deal more flexibility in what you can do with it, but to an extent bugleyman's right when he keeps saying the cat's out of the bag.
Kobold Press released PF and 4e versions of Courts of the Shadow Fey. In the PF version only the new monsters are listed as open game content, and I haven't seen the 4e version, but I assume that counts as an OGL 4e product. I think Goodman Games may have had a bunch of 4e adventures published using the OGL rather than the GSL, but don't quote me on that.
Kobold press (open design they were back then, I think) was who I was thinking of.
4E is not under the OGL.There are OGL 4E products.
What do you mean not under the OGL? What would be different if it were "under the OGL"?
There are OGL 4E products? Examples?
They may have used the 3.x OGL'd content + uncopyrightable rules hack I described. They likely have to dance around a lot of names and language that wasn't in 3.x.
If it was under the OGL, someone could put the system up on the web, like the various third party srd sites do. There's a great deal more flexibility in what you can do with it, but to an extent bugleyman's right when he keeps saying the cat's out of the bag.
You can put 4E open content on the web.
Bugleyman being right is part of my point. There isn't a need for a new license - the one we have is sufficient and irrevocable. As Dale pointed out though, an SRD equivalent (or an expansion of the existent SRD) is another missing element.
Oh, right, Open Design; I still call them "Kobold Quarterly" half of the time. :P
It just seems funny that the 3.5 books are all entirely closed content, yet get referred to as "released under the OGL" whereas 4E isn't.
Never mind. I'm not making my point very well, clearly.
The 3.5 core books all state that none of their content is open content, don't they? (I don't have them any more, but I remember a fine print statement on the first page of the PH).
Wasn't that why paizo had to come up with their own experience point progression?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've heard many people say that 5E "has no OGL" or similar (presumably, in contrast to 3.5). Am I right in my understanding that that is a misuse of terminology? As I understood things, nothing in the 3.5 core books was open game content and there wasnt a sense in which it was "released under the OGL" other than coming out at around the same time as the license did.
Unearthed Arcana was released with some Open Gaming Content.
The SRDs does give a lot of material to work with.
Kirby
Zen Gaian Games
Yeah, that's really my point. "Being OGL" doesn't have anything to do with the core books (which aren't open in any edition).
I don't really count unearthed arcana as a core book.
The 3.5 core books all state that none of their content is open content, don't they? (I don't have them any more, but I remember a fine print statement on the first page of the PH).
Wasn't that why paizo had to come up with their own experience point progression?
I don't believe so. I don't have the 3.5 books either.
I do know they put out a 3.5 SRD as Open Content. I can't see why they'd make a point of stating in the books that none of them are Open Content and them making most of it Open Content anyway.
And yet they did.
I'm not really interested in arguing the why, just making the point that "being OGL" is this weird construction that was given life (in my view) by the GSL being released with 4E.
I think it doesn't mean anything really, when speaking about the various editions. (Though I take the point about terminology such as advantage).
3rd Edition Player's Handbook has no such caveat.
3.5 PH, however, notes,
This Wizards of the Coast© game product contains no Open Game Content. No portion of this work may be reproduced in any form without written permission. To learn more about the Open Gaming License and the d20 System License, please visit www.wizards.com/d20
Link for the curious. That one messes up, though (I tried it), so try this one instead (follow the links to the d20 System Archive for the liscence, which, when clicked, is downloaded as a Word Document).
Anyway, it's also, exceptionally deceptive, given the existence of the SRD.
Anyway, the full Open Game License, so we can discuss what we're dealing with:
OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a
The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.
1. Definitions: (a)"Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute; (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) "Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) "You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement.
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.
6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
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.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.
11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.
12 Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
13 Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
14 Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.
15 COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
3rd Edition Player's Handbook has no such caveat.
3.5 PH, however, notes,
This Wizards of the Coast© game product contains no Open Game Content. No portion of this work may be reproduced in any form without written permission. To learn more about the Open Gaming License and the d20 System License, please visit www.wizards.com/d20
Ah, I see. Thanks.
So 3.0 might be considered "released under the OGL", but not 3.5.Cool. :)
|
The 3.5 core books all state that none of their content is open content, don't they? (I don't have them any more, but I remember a fine print statement on the first page of the PH).
Wasn't that why paizo had to come up with their own experience point progression?
If I recall correctly, the experience progression was never part of the "open content" (or whatever the actual legal term is) in either 3.0 or 3.5. Why they chose to omit that chart, I'll never know.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that you want (and I do to):
1. A compatibility license to sit alongside the OGL, as required by clause whatever-it-is that says you need one to advertise your material as "compatible"
2. An updated (or additional) SRD with terms specific to 5E (like advantage - good example). I'd missed the need for this second point.
1. This would be nice, but I'd consider that a kickstarter stretch goal level of desire. I'll be happy with the revised 4e GSL. (The first version required that you stopped selling anything that used the OGL; the revised eliminated that part and was cool with dual stating a product, as long as the 4e portions were not open content.) I would have used the revised 4e GSL if I enjoyed 4e as a game, which I didn't.
2. Yes. Having a license is good and all but is useless without the terms that we are allowed to use. Again, this doesn't need to be 3.x level SRD here. Just a long list of terms that are ok to use ALA 4e's SRD.
To be honest, I'd be cool with a really short license that said:
you can use anything in the basic rules except for these words (see attached list, those words being FR/Eb/DS/etc specific places or deities that are mentioned in the basic rules). There is no need for anything long and complex. No need for a super huge SRD that is probably the hold up (if it is even being worked on at Wizards) that covers every allowable word. I'll be happy to make my own version of dragonborn and gnome and warlock, if I really needed to. What I want is something, anything I can work with. All I really want is something from Wizards that says, "as long as you stay in these simple guidelines, meh, we don't care."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 3e books were not released under the OGL. The 3e and 3.5 and d20 modern SRDs containing rules material identical to that in a few non-open WotC books were released under the OGL. So those components of those rules sets were released under the OGL. Compliance with the OGL is fairly easy for 3e based stuff.
4e did not have an SRD released under the OGL. The 4e rules were not released under the OGL. Some companies released OGL stuff for 4e. Early 4e Goodman games modules for example. They had to be careful about terms they used and such to comply with the OGL.
5e does not have an SRD released under the OGL. Anyone releasing 5e stuff under the OGL has to be careful about how they do it to comply with the OGL.
There is the OGL. The 3.0 Core rules were released under that. At least the portion of them in the SRD. I don't believe there was a different license for 3.5. There was a SRD for 3.5 too, available under the OGL.
The OGL does two things, it makes the content available for use to anyone and lets them, with some restrictions, claim their material is compatible with D&D. I think you're confusing the SRD with a license. The SRD is a document containing the content that WotC applied the OGL to.
Yes, a voice of reason! Thanks thejeff!
5e is my favorite game but I really want its text -- or the most important (ruleswise) portions of it in an SRD form -- released under the OGL or another copyleft license.That's what I mean when I say "I want OGL for 5e". I mean that I want game text (in SRD form or as a whole) released under the terms of the OGL or CC-BY-SA (not ND) or similar. I don't need a compatibility license because I don't need to use any of Hasbro's trademarks. But I do think that the game content itself being available as open source would be very useful. Imagine having all the monsters semantically marked up... so we could make a dungeon generator that could print out the monster stats for each room :D
Cutting down on prep time.
Complicating all of this is the fact that game rules aren't copyrightable. This allows the hacks that have produced the clones of older versions of D&D. You can take the content that was released under the OGL and mix it with uncopyrightable rules and get playable games. This is a bit risky and I don't think it's actually be fought out in court. Exactly what counts as "rules" and what counts as copyrightable content could get complicated.
It was a courtcase. Mayfair v. TSR 1993. But that was in the pre-DMCA era.
Retroclones such as Labyrinth Lord and our beloved Pathfinder are among my favorite games also. An overly draconic interpretation of copyright can have problematic implications for roleplaying and rules-homebrewing.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
I see what the OP is saying, but it seems more pedantic than practical.
The D&D 3x core rulebooks were not released under the OGL, true.
But the rules that were released in the OGL were highly compatible with most of the D&D 3.5 rules.
I think a main concern for those who want a 5e OGL is to avoid legal issues if they use new edition rules, concepts, or terminology in their new OGL games. For instance, Advantage/Disadvantage, Backgrounds, Short/Long Rest, Hit Dice healing, the Concentration mechanic, Strength Saving Throw (and other ability-related saving throws), Wisdom (Perception) check, Maneuvers, Channel Divinity, and other specific class-based terms and rules.
Some or all of these rules may be usable, but to those who aren't lawyers and who are risk-averse, it seems like dangerous territory.
I also think there are 3PP that want to maintain a good working relationship with WotC and the D&D community, and who want to avoid the perception of skirting the spirit of the OGL, not just the letter of the law. I think this is especially true of companies like Kobold Press, who created a D&D 5e licensed game and no doubt want the opportunity to get future licensed work. I'm sure Wolfgang would consider waiting to publish 5e content if he thought it would jeopardize working on actual licensed products that would sell better. Not to mention that most 3PP have a real love for the authentic D&D worlds and characters.
I see what the OP is saying, but it seems more pedantic than practical.
I've moved on from this particular bugbear, however I should point out that it was definitely a pedantic point, not a practical one. The point I was trying to make (though not very well) was that it's important to be pedantic, when talking of legal concepts.
So here is a quick question...
If I write a module using the rules of 5e or create home brew rules and make them available to anyone who wants to use them for free, am I violating some sort of copyright?
As long as you are not profiting from it or preventing WotC from profiting on their own stuff, you are fine, I believe. WotC often even features homebrew stuff on their Facebook feed. The only thing I've noticed them be a bit cagy about was when they issued to C&Ds to a couple of websites that offered free 5E character creation programs and/or apps. Even that was only during the ramp up to "Morningstar", and when that fell through, the C&Ds were lifted.