[od-discuss] Getting the Open Game License accepted under the Open Definition

Fri Oct 4 22:38:47 UTC 2013

Hi Mike, Rob, et al,

There is a very clear (albeit exhaustive) declaration from:
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35:

The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section
1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the
conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content:
Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual,
d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, d20 (when used as a trademark), Forgotten
Realms, Faerûn, proper names (including those used in the names of spells
or items), places, Red Wizard of Thay, the City of Union, Heroic Domains of
Ysgard, Ever-Changing Chaos of Limbo, Windswept Depths of Pandemonium,
Infinite Layers of the Abyss, Tarterian Depths of Carceri, Gray Waste of
Hades, Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, Nine Hells of Baator, Infernal
Battlefield of Acheron, Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, Peaceable Kingdoms
of Arcadia, Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, Twin Paradises of Bytopia,
Blessed Fields of Elysium, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Olympian Glades of
Arborea, Concordant Domain of the Outlands, Sigil, Lady of Pain, Book of
Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, beholder, gauth, carrion crawler,
tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer,
illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti.

All of the rest of the SRD is Open Game Content as described in Section
1(d) of the License.

Note that I don't think that any of those PI terms are found in the
documents on that page - Wizards of the Coast is just being exhaustive.

Going through some of the others, embarrassing that the Legal section is
missing for http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/, but if you go to the
Anime d20 SRD (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/animesrd/Legal.htm)
there's another clear declaration:

This publication is designated as Open Game Content and is licensed for
public use under the terms of the Open Game License v1.0.

I'm not seeing a problem with the d20 PF SRD either (
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-use):

*Designation of Product Identity*: The d20pfsrd.com website logo (wide and
square,) all company names and logos; all artwork, backgrounds, and logos;
all trade dress, and graphic design elements. Any mechanics or other items
which have previously been designated as Open Game Content or are in the
public domain are not included in this declaration. *Note*: This website
has received permission from some individuals and companies to use some of
their Product Identity (such as art for example.) Unless noted otherwise,
this content remains the Product Identity of the original owner and is used
here only by permission.

*Declaration of Open Game Content*: All content of this site not designated
as Product Identity is declared Open Game Content as described in Section
1(d) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a.

d20pfsrd.org is basically avoiding licensing any trade dress, trade marks,
etc.

http://www.traveller-srd.com/open-game-license is not in compliance because
it lacks a declaration of Open Game Content. A rival SRD is in compliance:
http://www.travellersrd.com/content/official/mongoose_traveller_srd/mongoose_traveller_srd_index.html.
The original is in compliance (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/*
travdevpack*.zip):

The entirety if [*sic*] this document is designated as Open Content.

Looks like a fine OGC declaration on the Swords & Wizardry one too (
http://www.d20swsrd.com/swords-and-wizardry-srd/legal-information):

This entire work is designated as Open Game Content under the OGL, with the
exception of the trademarks “Swords & Wizardry,” “S&W,” “Mythmere Games,”
“FGG,” “Frog God Games,” and with the exception of all artwork. These
trademarks, artwork, and the Trade Dress of this work (font, layout, style
of artwork, etc.) are reserved as Product Identity.

http://www.d20herosrd.com/open-game-license and
http://www.d20modernpf.com/ogl are not in compliance (no declaration of
OGC).

Could part of the disconnect be that Rob and I think of these sites as
presenting a text, and that text being OGC, while you're looking at these
sites as a whole work, and suspecting (rightly) that the website falls
within PI or at least outside of OGC?

Thanks for chasing this up, Mike.

*Chris Sakkas
**Admin of the FOSsil Bank wiki <http://fossilbank.wikidot.com/> and the Living
Libre blog <http://www.livinglibre.com> and Twitter
feed<https://twitter.com/#%21/living_libre>
.*

On 2 October 2013 15:26, Mike Linksvayer <ml at gondwanaland.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> > On 01/10/13 03:39 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> >> I wonder if (as Rob Myers suggested) that works under this Open Game
> >> License might be considered open, with the priviso that no Product
> >> Identity is specified by the licensor, like the FDL with no invariant
> >> sections etc?
> >>
> >> A reason to not stipulate this might be if the license in practice is
> >> never used without specifying PI. I have no data on this.
> >>
> >> Chris, Rob, or anyone care to provide data or otherwise comment?
> >
> > I don't have data on this. But there are a number of web sites and
> > products that present all the Open Content for a given game, sans
> > Product Identity:
> >
> > http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html
> > http://www.d20pfsrd.com/
> > http://www.traveller-srd.com/
> > http://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/
> > http://www.d20swsrd.com/
> > http://www.d20herosrd.com/
> > http://www.d20modernpf.com/
>
> These sites don't inspire much confidence for me. They're all really
> similar, except for the first, which has a broken link for "legal".
>
> Take http://www.d20modernpf.com/
>
> "Open Game Content: All material on this site is designated Open Game
> Content with the exception of content previously designated Product
> Identity."
>
> Previously designated where? http://www.d20modernpf.com/ogl doesn't
> mention PI, but unclear how the notices on top relate.
>
> http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-use does mention PI, and lots
> of stuff falls into it. I'm not certain what doesn't.
>
> The FAQ linked below says the publisher should clearly mark what is PI
> and what is Open Game Content, but that doesn't seem to be what is
> done.
>
> It could be unfamiliarity with this scene makes me blind to what would
> be obvious to anyone familiar with it about what is actually Open Game
> Content. But if that's not the case and these are good examples, I'd
> hate to see bad ones, and am doubtful OGL is used as an open license
> in practice. Not against the letter of the OD, but not sure approval
> would be proper either. Very happy to be shown to be blind or
> otherwise wrong about any of this.
>
> > Some references for parts of the license that concern me:
> >
> > Copyright in games (1.d):
> >
> >
> http://web.archive.org/web/20130822202515/http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
> >
> > Copyright in plots (1.e):
> >
> >
> http://www.copyrightcodex.com/infringement/16-infringement-substantial-similarity/infringement-plots-storylines
> >
> > Super-trademarks (7):
> >
> > http://www.earth1066.com/D20FAQ.htm#_C.08__
> >
> >
> > And Wizards Of The Coast have a FAQ regarding the license here, which
> > covers some of the terms of the license in more detail:
> >
> > https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f
> >
> > - Rob.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > od-discuss mailing list
> > od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> od-discuss mailing list
> od-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/od-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/od-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/od-discuss/attachments/20131005/92d3fe4f/attachment-0001.html>