Quote from: Jaeger on March 17, 2024, 07:17:04 PM

Ok, I gotta be missing something Big here. But I'll expose my massive ignorance anyway...

Why can't the Cepheus people take Wotc's OGL, change the company name, and the D&D specific nomenclature, replace it with theirs, then just re-use that document as their own 'Cepheus Engine OGL' ?

I'm definitely confused by the responses to this query. The answer as far as I know is: they can.

More to the point, again as far as I know, they (or anyone) can use the OGL (or any license) as-is. I suppose the wording of the license might be protected by copyright in some cases, but that's only protection for right of authorship. As long as they don't claim to have written it, I don't see an legal issue with them declaring "these terms, written by someone else, are exactly how we're licensing our stuff."

WoTC can (try to) pull the license for their IP, but the author of the license has no legal jurisdiction over whether or not the same wording is binding between two other parties.

Note however that without trying (like WoTC, and mostly likely failing, like WoTC) to pull the license itself, you can't UNlicense a previously licensed IP. Cepheus can produce a new license for their material, but anyone wanting to leverage the prior license for the material it applies to still can.

Quote from: Zalman on March 18, 2024, 09:09:27 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on March 17, 2024, 07:17:04 PM

Ok, I gotta be missing something Big here. But I'll expose my massive ignorance anyway...

Why can't the Cepheus people take Wotc's OGL, change the company name, and the D&D specific nomenclature, replace it with theirs, then just re-use that document as their own 'Cepheus Engine OGL' ?

I'm definitely confused by the responses to this query. The answer as far as I know is: they can.

More to the point, again as far as I know, they (or anyone) can use the OGL (or any license) as-is. I suppose the wording of the license might be protected by copyright in some cases, but that's only protection for right of authorship. As long as they don't claim to have written it, I don't see an legal issue with them declaring "these terms, written by someone else, are exactly how we're licensing our stuff."

WoTC can (try to) pull the license for their IP, but the author of the license has no legal jurisdiction over whether or not the same wording is binding between two other parties.

Note however that without trying (like WoTC, and mostly likely failing, like WoTC) to pull the license itself, you can't UNlicense a previously licensed IP. Cepheus can produce a new license for their material, but anyone wanting to leverage the prior license for the material it applies to still can.

The thing is, it is different when you are a small time publisher whose livelihood is dependent on this. Most of the CE creators I have talked to don't want to take the risk. If it went to court, just the legal fees alone to fight it would bankrupt most of them.

Quote from: BadApple on March 18, 2024, 08:17:08 AM
Given the OGL itself is under CC, WOTC no longer has the ability to void it.

Wait, what? Where? When? Can you point us to the proof?

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 18, 2024, 10:25:41 AM
The thing is, it is different when you are a small time publisher whose livelihood is dependent on this. Most of the CE creators I have talked to don't want to take the risk. If it went to court, just the legal fees alone to fight it would bankrupt most of them.

That makes sense for small publishers making money off of someone else's IP. But not for someone licensing their own IP with a license that someone else wrote. I think such a lawsuit would not only be spurious, I'm dubious that they could even identify a law to cite to establish their case.

Methinks there are two concepts being improperly conflated here.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 18, 2024, 11:23:24 AM

Quote from: BadApple on March 18, 2024, 08:17:08 AM
Given the OGL itself is under CC, WOTC no longer has the ability to void it.

Wait, what? Where? When? Can you point us to the proof?

The put the 5e SRD core documents in CC as their way to stop the bleeding about a month after the OGL debacle started early last year when it was obvious that it would continue to rage past the initial couple of weeks.  They promised to put other editions into CC as well but haven't had any public progress on that front since the controversy died down.

https://dnd.wizards.com/resources/systems-reference-document

"The full contents of SRD 5.1 are now released under both the terms of OGL 1.0a and the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International ("CC-BY-4.0"). "

Quote from: RNGm on March 18, 2024, 01:32:58 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 18, 2024, 11:23:24 AM

Quote from: BadApple on March 18, 2024, 08:17:08 AM
Given the OGL itself is under CC, WOTC no longer has the ability to void it.

Wait, what? Where? When? Can you point us to the proof?

The put the 5e SRD core documents in CC as their way to stop the bleeding about a month after the OGL debacle started early last year when it was obvious that it would continue to rage past the initial couple of weeks.  They promised to put other editions into CC as well but haven't had any public progress on that front since the controversy died down.

https://dnd.wizards.com/resources/systems-reference-document

"The full contents of SRD 5.1 are now released under both the terms of OGL 1.0a and the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International ("CC-BY-4.0"). "

Yes, the 5.1 SRD but BadApple was talking about the license, the OGL being put under CC By too, IF that's true then it's a huge development that flew under everybody's radar.

edit:  Nevermind.  My mistake.

CC or OGL, I would never trust a company that uses Pinkertons or lawfare as part of their standard business model.

Quote from: RNGm on March 18, 2024, 01:43:53 PM
It was big news a little over a year ago in the TTRPG space with tons of folks talking about it along with the OGL debacle.  You might have missed it and that's fine but it was prominently covered in the fandom and industry FWIW.

The terminology in this thread is baffling.

The "OGL" is not "released under CC". Both are licenses, not IP. IP is "released" under a "license."

Much of the WoTC IP that had been previously licensed under the OGL, has also been licensed under CC, since WoTC backtracked on trying to "revoke" the license (a legally dubious move, based on the fact that the OGL didn't contain the word "irrevocable". CC does contain that word.) Now anyone wanting to make content for D&D can do so under either license, at their option! (Why anyone would choose OGL over CC as a licensee is beyond me, but it's possible).

"Revoking" a license as the licensor means for your IP. If successfully revoked, it means no one can use your IP any longer under that license. It doesn't affect anyone else using the same license to distribute their own IP in any way. It's the particular use of the license by the licensee that is being revoked.

Quote from: Zalman on March 18, 2024, 02:09:09 PM
The "OGL" is not "released under CC". Both are licenses, not IP. IP is "released" under a "license."

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 18, 2024, 01:40:29 PM
Yes, the 5.1 SRD but BadApple was talking about the license, the OGL being put under CC By too, IF that's true then it's a huge development that flew under everybody's radar.

Apologies.  I've made the error of conflating the license with what was covered under the license.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 17, 2024, 08:41:29 PM
The OGL itself is trademark and copyright WotC, so it would take a lot more work than you think and by lawyers to avoid any risk.

BUT, using the license to cover Cepheus Engine poses exactly ZERO risk for them, even if WotC did get rid of the OGL I don't think they can then retroactively apply the changes unless trademark/copyright law is really different from regular law.

What would happen is that nobody could publish NEW material under it.

There's always the ORC or failing that CC By/ CC.

Ahh, Ok so the OGL license itself is copyrighted...

So no copy-pasting to use it as one's own then unless you re-word the whole thing, and then run it by a lawyer.

*Yes, that would cost real money...

Me dense, Geeky Smart.


Personally, unless I got a lawyer to explain it to me like I was five; I'd NEVER trust the ORC license...

The OGL is like one page: The ORC, not so much...


*But if (Cephus/Mongoose) are paying lawyers anyway; Why not!?

Quote from: BadApple on March 18, 2024, 08:17:08 AM
Given the OGL itself is under CC, WOTC no longer has the ability to void it.

I believe they only put out the 5E Basic Rules, under Creative Commons?

Quote from: Jaeger on March 18, 2024, 03:10:51 PM
Ahh, Ok so the OGL license itself is copyrighted...

So no copy-pasting to use it as one's own then unless you re-word the whole thing, and then run it by a lawyer.

Not quite: just like any copyrighted work you can still copy and use the license for yourself. You just can't claim you wrote the license, or try to make money selling the license.

I did get my wires crossed, it was the SRD that was put under CC.

That said, based on similar types of contracts and licenses tested in court cases, WOTC doesn't have the authority to revoke the OGL 1.0a for what is already published.  It's extremely doubtful they could suspend or revoke the right to use the license itself or revert any material published under the OGL 1.0a that they own under a new license.

As far as the OGL being copyrighted, that's a sticky one but kind of a moot point.  Within it's own text it says that it's to be copied and place with the document that's to be covered under it.  That gives written permission to use the OGL in it's entirety for it's intended purpose.  Most of the OGL is written in standard legal terms and phrases so it's not really an original document until it's presented as a whole.  As such, a similar type of license is likely to contain wording very similar or identical even if it's prepared by a lawyer completely unfamiliar with either the OGL or the RPG industry.  Any judge would be very aware of this and a complaint of plagiarism simply would be laughed out of court before the defendant was even notified, even assuming you could find a lawyer dumb enough or desperate enough to take the case.

The funny thing is, half of what is covered under the SRD can't be covered by this kind of license due to the nature of the material.  Game mechanics would need to patented before they would be protected IP.  To get a patent, they would have to demonstrate a game mechanic is unique enough as to not be similar to another game mechanic.  On top of that, each and every individual mechanic would have to patented.  You could not simply lump them together and say these are a unique combination and therefore should be protected protected.

Quote from: Man at Arms on March 18, 2024, 11:33:15 PM
I believe they only put out the 5E Basic Rules, under Creative Commons?

This is my understanding, and if it was more I think we'd all know about it.  The 5e SRD isn't enough to play 5e in the way that most players want; it has one feat (grappler, which you should never take) and like one subclass for each class.  It has the core rules, but many of the later rules that clear up issues or exploits aren't there.  It's still immensely important for publishers, who can refer to those rules without worrying about their product getting undermined by WotC pretending they are capable of revoking the license- a real threat under the OGL, but no concern at all under creative commons.

But it's a common misunderstanding that they moved everything in the OGL to CC.  They did not.  For instance, the 3.5 SRD, still the core of Pathfinder 1 and 2, was not listed under creative commons.  While WotC stopped their assault, they have given no legal assurance that they won't start again; when last we heard, they believed they could "revoke" the existing OGL and replace it with a new one that has basically full control or whatever they deem possible.  They even tried to make it palatable to internet totalitarians by putting in some anti-hate clauses, but even that didn't fool people like they'd hoped.

As a result, Paizo quickly released what amounts to a Pathfinder 2.5e, wherein they drop everything that could be related to WotC, all the names, everything.  You basically have to mentally translate everything now and it is, in my personal opinion, a giant mess; if I thought I could get a table of my friends to try it out before, there's almost no chance now.

Archives of Nethys- which maintains all the open content Paizo produces- just gained the ability to be viewed in "remastered" or "legacy":
https://2e.aonprd.com/
The renaming hits very hard, with "force barrage" as the new magic missile and so forth.

This is done so that the new stuff can be added to the ORC and so that WotC can't potentially get them (or anyone using their stuff) on naming details.  I think Paizo should have found another way, but I do get it, and if WotC had not pulled this shit, none of this would have been necessary.