I have some questions about the Open Gaming License that I'd like to pose to those more familiar with it. I'll start off simple to get the ball rolling and go from there.
- How binding is the OGL? More specifically, to what degree does the OGL dictate the content that must be included from the System Resource Document (SRD)?
- Must every rule from the SRD be included in derivative works?
- Can new rules be substituted for rules that exist in the SRD?
The real upshot of what I'm asking is, to what degree can the body of the SRD be changed or ignored before the new work is no longer "derivative"?
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI have some questions about the Open Gaming License that I'd like to pose to those more familiar with it. I'll start off simple to get the ball rolling and go from there.
- How binding is the OGL? More specifically, to what degree does the OGL dictate the content that must be included from the System Resource Document (SRD)?
- Must every rule from the SRD be included in derivative works?
- Can new rules be substituted for rules that exist in the SRD?
The real upshot of what I'm asking is, to what degree can the body of the SRD be changed or ignored before the new work is no longer "derivative"?
!i!
I worked with OGL with the two games I co wrote for Chine Games, Aquavita and Tribes of Mother Night, both of which used the OGLed system F20. IIRC:
1: The OGL does not dictate what content must be included. It dictates that whatever OGL content is included must clearly and unambiguously be labeled as such, and demarcated from original content, and that all OGL content must be properly attributed.
2: You can pick and choose what you want from the SRD.
3: You can substitute new rules for those in the SRD. You can either label them as original content not covered by the OGL, or release those new rules under the OGL, as you choose.
Anyone with better knowlege of the OGL, please step in and correct me, as it has been a few years.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceI worked with OGL with the two games I co wrote for Chine Games, Aquavita and Tribes of Mother Night, both of which used the OGLed system F20. IIRC:
1: The OGL does not dictate what content must be included. It dictates that whatever OGL content is included must clearly and unambiguously be labeled as such, and demarcated from original content, and that all OGL content must be properly attributed.
2: You can pick and choose what you want from the SRD.
3: You can substitute new rules for those in the SRD. You can either label them as original content not covered by the OGL, or release those new rules under the OGL, as you choose.
Anyone with better knowlege of the OGL, please step in and correct me, as it has been a few years.
-clash
I think that about covers it for the d20 OGL, although there are certain formatting things as well, like all OGL spells must be in italics etc.
As for the new fangled Runequest and Traveller OGLs. I guess it's a case of reading the small print to see if they are any different.
Quote from: One Horse TownI think that about covers it for the d20 OGL, although there are certain formatting things as well, like all OGL spells must be in italics etc.
This is not my understanding. You just need to demark your Open Content. This also speaks to Clash's first point (which seemed unclear to me). An example would be to state in your Designation of Open Content something like "All Open Content spells will be in italics". Then, any spells you put in italics would be open for other publishers to reuse or modify.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltThis is not my understanding. You just need to demark your Open Content. This also speaks to Clash's first point (which seemed unclear to me). An example would be to state in your Designation of Open Content something like "All Open Content spells will be in italics". Then, any spells you put in italics would be open for other publishers to reuse or modify.
Bill
That's as I understood it, Bill. But if you use italics, you had best not use italics for anything else... :D
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice1: The OGL does not dictate what content must be included. It dictates that whatever OGL content is included must clearly and unambiguously be labeled as such, and demarcated from original content, and that all OGL content must be properly attributed.
So, must the OGL material be graphically set out within the layout of the document (i.e. using italics as Bill suggested, or bolded or boxed text), or can one simply attribute the material as OGL, section by section, in a disclaimer at the beginning of the document?
Can an entire document derived from OGL material, but not quoting specific text, simply be declared "derived from Open Game Content" and be done with it?
And, yes, in case anyone was wondering, I'm inquiring with regard to my
MARINER project. The work I have to date is actually derived from the original
Traveller, not Mongoose's work, but their
Traveller is also derived from the same source material I've used. Now that Mongoose is in posession of a license to the original material, arguably, anything I've done is derived from their legal property. Funny how this all works, isn't it?
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaSo, must the OGL material be graphically set out within the layout of the document (i.e. using italics as Bill suggested, or bolded or boxed text), or can one simply attribute the material as OGL, section by section, in a disclaimer at the beginning of the document?
Can an entire document derived from OGL material, but not quoting specific text, simply be declared "derived from Open Game Content" and be done with it?
And, yes, in case anyone was wondering, I'm inquiring with regard to my MARINER project. The work I have to date is actually derived from the original Traveller, not Mongoose's work, but their Traveller is also derived from the same source material I've used. Now that Mongoose is in posession of a license to the original material, arguably, anything I've done is derived from their legal property. Funny how this all works, isn't it?
!i!
Boxing it, italicizing it, sealing it off in a separate section (what I did) so long as it is clearly and graphically set off from non-OGL text. You do, however, have to attribute any OGL text you use, even if you declare everything to be OGL, including your own contributions.
-clash.
Poo. That'll completely dick the layout. And the layout is half the fun.
!i!
Quote from: flyingmiceThat's as I understood it, Bill. But if you use italics, you had best not use italics for anything else... :D
-clash
Clash,
More to your point. The issue I have is this part:
"It dictates that whatever OGL content is included must clearly and unambiguously be labeled as such, and demarcated from original content, and that all OGL content must be properly attributed."I think you are confusing OGC and PI. I could be wrong but you seem to indicate one must mark all OGC taken from other sources and link them to their sources. So, if I drew a monster from the SRD I would need to make a note that it (the specific entry) came fromt he SRD. This is not so. If it is not what you meant then I apologize for misunderstanding.
Second, OGC must be described in you Designation of OGC but only there. If you use a way to mark the text (Bolding or such) then that may appear in the text. On the other hand, you can also say "All monsters are OGC" and no makrs will show in your text to signify it is open. The point is, it must be a clear statement.
So, Ian, if you want to pick and choose your OGC you might go with text markups. If, like me, you want to avoid a truly annoying (to me) mark up in the text, you can denote it by content. My most common OGC Designation is:
"Designation of Open Game Content: All written setting material, setting character statistics, and system elements."
With exclusions in the PI:
"Designation of Product Identity: All graphic design elements, artwork, HinterWelt Logos and trade dress are to be considered Product Identity."
This leave no marks in the text and is clear to anyone who would wish to pull info from the files.
Bill
Quote from: flyingmiceBoxing it, italicizing it, sealing it off in a separate section (what I did) so long as it is clearly and graphically set off from non-OGL text. You do, however, have to attribute any OGL text you use, even if you declare everything to be OGL, including your own contributions.
-clash.
I do not believe you are correct here Clash. There is no requirement in the document for graphical delineation of OGC.
As to attribution of OGC, you do this in your Section 15. A list of work used and their copyrights. No in line annotation is needed.
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltI do not believe you are correct here Clash. There is no requirement in the document for graphical delineation of OGC.
As to attribution of OGC, you do this in your Section 15. A list of work used and their copyrights. No in line annotation is needed.
Bill
Like I said, it's been a long time. The phrase I was looking for is "clearly delineated," not "clearly and graphically set off ."
Thanks! :D
-clash
The License says it all.
Quote8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.
Quote from: estarThe License says it all.
Agreed. Much of what is being discussed is in the license...or not and therefore an answer in itself.
It was my understanding the OP was asking for those with experience with OGL and how they implemented it though.
Bill
Quote from: Ian Absentia...
The work I have to date is actually derived from the original Traveller, not Mongoose's work, but their Traveller is also derived from the same source material I've used. Now that Mongoose is in posession of a license to the original material, arguably, anything I've done is derived from their legal property. Funny how this all works, isn't it?
!i!
I'd be careful with that, the way it is worded doesn't make sense. Posession of a license does not mean ownership. It sounds like you were working under a separate licensing arrangement prior to Mongoose obtaining a license.
Or are you saying you are working on some Traveller material (without a license) and when you are finished you will seek to get it published under some exsiting license? That is you believe Mongoose license gives them the right to use an OGL (which would technically be a sub-license) and you wish to fit under that sub-license?
To be frank, I was working on a Traveller-derived project of my own accord (MARINER (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=75906&postcount=55)) and began pursuing a license from Marc Miller to publish it. At that point I was informed that there would be a means to obtain a license very shortly, and not long after that Mongoose made their announcement. I would have preferred a license directly from Marc/Far Future Enterprises, even if I had to pay for it, but it looks like Mongoose is the company to talk to now.
So, I have a work that's derivative of classic Traveller, not Mongoose's Traveller. Mongoose's Traveller, though, is also derived from classic Traveller (as well as Mega-Traveller and other subsequent works). So, we have common roots, but I will have to accommodate their Open Game Content.
Make sense?
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaTo be frank, I was working on a Traveller-derived project of my own accord (MARINER (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=75906&postcount=55)) and began pursuing a license from Marc Miller to publish it. At that point I was informed that there would be a means to obtain a license very shortly, and not long after that Mongoose made their announcement. I would have preferred a license directly from Marc/Far Future Enterprises, even if I had to pay for it, but it looks like Mongoose is the company to talk to now.
So, I have a work that's derivative of classic Traveller, not Mongoose's Traveller. Mongoose's Traveller, though, is also derived from classic Traveller (as well as Mega-Traveller and other subsequent works). So, we have common roots, but I will have to accommodate their Open Game Content.
Make sense?
!i!
It is a bit more work but you should be able to take Mongoose's OGC and modify it back to the original rules set. You cannot use any of the text from the original rules set so you would need to reword it. This depends in part what Mongoose does for it Designation of OGC and PI. Some companies sabotage their OGC on purpose in order to limit reuse. I do not know Mongoose's track record.
Also, a side point, are you just interested in using their OGC or do you wish to offer OGC of your own?
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltIt is a bit more work but you should be able to take Mongoose's OGC and modify it back to the original rules set. You cannot use any of the text from the original rules set so you would need to reword it.
This has been my intent from the outset, so no bump in the road there.
QuoteAlso, a side point, are you just interested in using their OGC or do you wish to offer OGC of your own?
I'm only just beginning to consider the implications of this.
MARINER has been rather an open project from the get-go, and I'd love to see others add to the body of the project. That carries certain risks, though, I suppose.
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThis has been my intent from the outset, so no bump in the road there.I'm only just beginning to consider the implications of this. MARINER has been rather an open project from the get-go, and I'd love to see others add to the body of the project. That carries certain risks, though, I suppose.
!i!
Essentially, you need to decide if you want others to take you project whole cloth and be more successful with it than you. That sounds harsh but I am really surprised at the number of publishers who use OGL without understanding this. They believe in the "spirit" of the OGL, This means that the guy who uses your project in theirs will improve it and not just take it all and reformat it, repackage it and sell it for $5 less than you did.
Essentially, I am saying:
1. Determine the parts you want in OGC.
2. Define the parts you do not want replicated and put that in your PI statement.
3. Do not be surprised if some guy takes the stuff you have declared as OGC and just reprints it. This is the permission you are giving to any user of OGL as long as they abide by the OGL.
Hope that helps,
Bill
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaTo be frank, I was working on a Traveller-derived project of my own accord (MARINER (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=75906&postcount=55)) and began pursuing a license from Marc Miller to publish it. At that point I was informed that there would be a means to obtain a license very shortly, and not long after that Mongoose made their announcement. I would have preferred a license directly from Marc/Far Future Enterprises, even if I had to pay for it, but it looks like Mongoose is the company to talk to now.
So, I have a work that's derivative of classic Traveller, not Mongoose's Traveller. Mongoose's Traveller, though, is also derived from classic Traveller (as well as Mega-Traveller and other subsequent works). So, we have common roots, but I will have to accommodate their Open Game Content.
Make sense?
!i!
That makes sense. So it sounds like your route to licensed use is through the OGL Mongoose is offering. So far Mongoose seems very support of 3rd party material. They may be willing to let you know if what you are doing conforms to the license as they see it. Anyway good luck, I for one always enjioy Traveller content especially when it is Classic Traveller based.