Maybe a clause requiring that if they choose to indicate compatibility, they must ALSO indicate, in no less a prominent fashion, that they are not affiliated with or endorsed by said system or the company who made it?

Fair is fair. They get to indicate compatibility without insinuating endorsement or approval.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 15, 2023, 08:08:50 PM
Maybe a clause requiring that if they choose to indicate compatibility, they must ALSO indicate, in no less a prominent fashion, that they are not affiliated with or endorsed by said system or the company who made it?

Fair is fair. They get to indicate compatibility without insinuating endorsement or approval.

I like this.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 07:59:00 PM
For me, the most valuable part of the OGL was "safe space" for content creators it provided.

Sure, you can't copyright mechanics, but you can copyright their expression. And what the original OGL did was allow you to just cut and paste the provider's mechanics without fear of infringing on that expression part... nor when using concepts that are copyrightable that were included (ex. sorting dragons by color/metal, reptilian kobolds, the D&D catalogue of demons and devils, arcane/divine magic, D&D's specific eight schools of magic, the nine levels of spells and specific spells' placement within that framework, etc.).

Access to those without having to consider whether your particular expression is going to be close enough the originator can hit you with a C&D will save a lot of development time for content creators; freeing them to be able to focus on the parts that will actually offer additional value to their product (and therefore the customers).

Similarly, the "no claims of compatibility without separate written permission" is a valuable benefit to game system creators who want to project a specific image to their clients. It's not like it has to be hard or cost money to get that permission... but the ability of say, a Christian ttrpg system creator, to not allow a third party using their mechanics to produce a module glorifying the Church of Satan and claim compatibility with the Christian's system is of value to the Christian content creator.

Put more simply, Freedom of Association can't be a one way street where only one of the parties has a choice as to whether to be associated or not. One should not be able to release "the pedophile's guide to grooming" with "a supplement for [insert your game system here]" in two-inch high letters on their front cover and you have no say in the matter because they aren't using your actual logo while doing so.

That's the value of that clause of the OGL... its an important protection for the producer side of the license.

Thus, each party gets something of value. The third parties get to use cut and paste expressions of mechanics instead of having to waste time rewriting then in their own words and access to a variety of pre-built mechanical widgets with varying degrees of conceptual fluff text attached. The granters gain the assurance that no one cutting and pasting those mechanics will be able to claim compatibility with their product without their active permission.

That actually provides much more of a "safe workplace environment" than reliance upon a more open license (where the rights flow only one way) would.

See daddy warpig's comment above, I kinda agree.

In my view, the ideal would be having IP laws and judiciary that didn't allow for bullshit lawsuits, like TSR's attempted lawsuits against Mayfair Games and GDW. As I see it, anyone shouldn't need a license to create and publish:

1) Original new settings for a given game system
2) Original new adventures for a given system, in their own setting or generic
3) Other supplements for a given system that don't copy content from the original
4) New systems that are significantly different offshoots of the original - like True20 from D20, or Pundit's games like Lion & Dragon or Arrows of Indra compared to any version D&D

The tricky case is

5) Close copies like retro-clones or Pathfinder (compared to D&D 3.5)

I think that most companies don't want another company to be able to take their whole system and market an offshoot of it.

The ideal Open License and practice would be ensure #1 - #4, but I don't think it needs to allow #5.

Quote from: jhkim on January 15, 2023, 08:19:04 PM
In my view, the ideal would be having IP laws and judiciary that didn't allow for bullshit lawsuits, like TSR's attempted lawsuits against Mayfair Games and GDW. As I see it, anyone shouldn't need a license to create and publish:

1) Original new settings for a given game system
2) Original new adventures for a given system, in their own setting or generic
3) Other supplements for a given system that don't copy content from the original
4) New systems that are significantly different offshoots of the original - like True20 from D20, or Pundit's games like Lion & Dragon or Arrows of Indra compared to any version D&D

The tricky case is

5) Close copies like retro-clones or Pathfinder (compared to D&D 3.5)

I think that most companies don't want another company to be able to take their whole system and market an offshoot of it.

The ideal Open License and practice would be ensure #1 - #4, but I don't think it needs to allow #5.

But you can't copyright mechanics or rules so, IMHO this "In my view, the ideal would be having IP laws and judiciary that didn't allow for bullshit lawsuits, like TSR's attempted lawsuits against Mayfair Games and GDW."

Contradicts this "The tricky case is

5) Close copies like retro-clones or Pathfinder (compared to D&D 3.5)

I think that most companies don't want another company to be able to take their whole system and market an offshoot of it.

The ideal Open License and practice would be ensure #1 - #4, but I don't think it needs to allow #5."

If you can't sue people for using your rules and mechanics (as is already the case) then you can't stop them from using those rules and mechanics to make and sell an offshot of yours.

IMHO the solution is to change the rules so if They Sue Regularly comes after me with a frivolous case, they get to eat their AND my costs plus any damages I might have suffered (loss of sales, etc) and a hefty fine for using the court system in such a way. Bonus points if the case is settled in months and not years/decades.

This might be only needed for IP law tho, I don't know enough of your judicial system. But I think there's a reason those frivolous lawsuits don't happen in the UK or other places where the looser has to pay for everything.

It makes it very costly to temporarilly stop someone from doing bussiness.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 08:42:20 PM
But you can't copyright mechanics or rules...

But you CAN copyright their expression such that copy and pasting from their text and into your own is an infringement of their copyright.

You can use their mechanics, but you have to actually rewrite them in your words... and if you fail to do so while expressing identical concepts that can land you in some legal jeopardy.

There's also a bunch of genuinely copyrighted elements that a lot of people just frankly take for granted and don't even think about because they've been a part of the OGL/SRD for over two decades now; ex. the specific description of elves being taller but thinner than humans with wide almond shaped eyes and a lifespan of about 600 years. THAT is a very specific combination of features that is part of D&D's IP and is NOT found in other depictions of elves (i.e. it is not the mythological depiction of either traditional elves nor the Alfair nor Tolkein). WotC could absolutely hammer you over using their version of elves in your works.

Similarly, the particulars of Vancian magic, the divide between arcane and divine magic, the arrangement of eight specific schools of magic with nine specific levels of spells and specific spells being available at specific levels (is your fireball a level 3 evocation? will you find invisibility on the list of level 2 illusions? Is there a 1d8 healing spell that is a 1st level conjuration available only to divine casters?). Are your wizards forbidden heavy armor or skill with weapons while your cleric/priest class may use heavy armor and blunt weapons and is also able to affect undead with a spell-like effect? Is this also an expressly fantasy setting with humans, elves (as described above), dwarves (of the roughly human mass but shorter and broader variety) and halflings?

The more of those similarities that pile up, even if you are using your own words, the more it looks like you're infringing on WotC's specific IP if it gets to a judge.

By contrast a "spells known" + "spell points" system with a number of spell levels matching the character levels would sail by even in an expressly fantasy setting... and a 9 level Vancian system could also skate by in a post-apocalyptic or urban fantasy setting.

Frankly, having taken a close look at PF2 via their SRD as part of this, when they say "we only used the OGL as a formality" I think they're basically bluffing. Their raw mechanics might be distinct, but so so much of their fluff is right out of WotC's IP and expressed in ways extremely similar to WotC's IP. Without the OGL1.0a and 3.5eSRD to protect them, if WotC wanted to be aggressive they could pretty well destroy PF2 on IP infringement without even mentioning mechanics.

In short, Paizo is either banking on someone taking WotC to court over keeping the OGL1.0a license in force or is bluffing for the gamer cred while knowing they're going to have to do a metric ton of rewriting for large portions of their fluff text related concepts that originated in TSR/WotC's fluff text.

Or short version; yes, you can have elves without the OGL, but you can't have carbon copies of D&D's elves because those versions are NOT out of myth or legend, but are specific expressions of the concept of elves.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 11:27:17 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 08:42:20 PM
But you can't copyright mechanics or rules...

But you CAN copyright their expression such that copy and pasting from their text and into your own is an infringement of their copyright.

You can use their mechanics, but you have to actually rewrite them in your words... and if you fail to do so while expressing identical concepts that can land you in some legal jeopardy.

There's also a bunch of genuinely copyrighted elements that a lot of people just frankly take for granted and don't even think about because they've been a part of the OGL/SRD for over two decades now; ex. the specific description of elves being taller but thinner than humans with wide almond shaped eyes and a lifespan of about 600 years. THAT is a very specific combination of features that is part of D&D's IP and is NOT found in other depictions of elves (i.e. it is not the mythological depiction of either traditional elves nor the Alfair nor Tolkein). WotC could absolutely hammer you over using their version of elves in your works.

Similarly, the particulars of Vancian magic, the divide between arcane and divine magic, the arrangement of eight specific schools of magic with nine specific levels of spells and specific spells being available at specific levels (is your fireball a level 3 evocation? will you find invisibility on the list of level 2 illusions? Is there a 1d8 healing spell that is a 1st level conjuration available only to divine casters?). Are your wizards forbidden heavy armor or skill with weapons while your cleric/priest class may use heavy armor and blunt weapons and is also able to affect undead with a spell-like effect? Is this also an expressly fantasy setting with humans, elves (as described above), dwarves (of the roughly human mass but shorter and broader variety) and halflings?

The more of those similarities that pile up, even if you are using your own words, the more it looks like you're infringing on WotC's specific IP if it gets to a judge.

By contrast a "spells known" + "spell points" system with a number of spell levels matching the character levels would sail by even in an expressly fantasy setting... and a 9 level Vancian system could also skate by in a post-apocalyptic or urban fantasy setting.

Frankly, having taken a close look at PF2 via their SRD as part of this, when they say "we only used the OGL as a formality" I think they're basically bluffing. Their raw mechanics might be distinct, but so so much of their fluff is right out of WotC's IP and expressed in ways extremely similar to WotC's IP. Without the OGL1.0a and 3.5eSRD to protect them, if WotC wanted to be aggressive they could pretty well destroy PF2 on IP infringement without even mentioning mechanics.

In short, Paizo is either banking on someone taking WotC to court over keeping the OGL1.0a license in force or is bluffing for the gamer cred while knowing they're going to have to do a metric ton of rewriting for large portions of their fluff text related concepts that originated in TSR/WotC's fluff text.

Or short version; yes, you can have elves without the OGL, but you can't have carbon copies of D&D's elves because those versions are NOT out of myth or legend, but are specific expressions of the concept of elves.

I'm not worried about their expresion, and I'm not using Elves/dwarves/etc in any of my games, except as part of the Fae in one and the description isn't lifted from D&D. I'm also not using Vancian anything, because I don't like it the problem is creating the spells from scratch, but I might have a solution for that (need to polish it and have it playtested).

It's the advantage of not writting a Fantasy game.

None. In the USA, the best choice is the Fair Use laws.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators

For someone who wants to make a game that is similar mechanically to Dungeons and Dragons, and even announce that the game is compatible with Dungeons and Dragons, it has always been more advantageous as a matter of law to ignore the OGL. Practicality may dictate a different result when up against the legal team of a large corporation, but if the terms of the OGL are revoked and the new OGL proves even more onerous, that might change the calculus for creators going forward.

However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation recommends the Creative Commons and GNU Public License. I could see the CC license being great for the OSR.

Open licenses can involve a lot of legalese that makes them hard for a layperson to understand, but if you're going to rely on one, or if you want others to rely on your own open license, it's important to use one that is robust and meets your needs. Licenses like Creative Commons and the GNU Public License were written to serve the interests of creative communities, rather than a corporation, and it shows. Beware corporate policies about the acceptable use of their copyrighted materials that wind up being restrictions on your fair use rights rather than the grant of meaningful permission.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 08:15:59 PM

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 15, 2023, 08:08:50 PM
Maybe a clause requiring that if they choose to indicate compatibility, they must ALSO indicate, in no less a prominent fashion, that they are not affiliated with or endorsed by said system or the company who made it?

Fair is fair. They get to indicate compatibility without insinuating endorsement or approval.

I like this.

Except this proves my point as we've now stepped away from an open license into one that imposes restrictions on the licensee that are not a part of any CC license.

Then it's just a matter of which non-open license term is better for both parties in regards to resolving Freedom of Association; must the Licensee get permission from the Licenser if they wish to indicate association or are they compelled to make public declarations of non-affiliation in addition to declarations of compatibility?

Personally, I think the former is less onerous and fosters better relationships between parties. If the blanket rule is cannot indicate compatibility nor use logos, etc. then all third-party creations are on a level field by default and to indicate compatibility you must form some type of relationship with the Licenser to change that... a voluntary association.

By contrast, the second option requires no relationship with the licenser, just a decision of whether or not indicating non-affiliation is worth the benefit of indicating compatibility. In essence, each licensee remains an island who needs no contact with other parties.

Again, this is just me, but I would definitely prefer the one that fosters personal relationships because those relationships with people of similar mindset enables the prospect of collaborative work that could be greater than the sum of its parts, while each atomized livenser and licensee of the second need never even meet nor understand what the others might bring to the table if working together.

Maybe I'm hopelessly naïve about all that... maybe it's better for content creators in a hobby that's all about coming together to create things to remain independent islands... but I tend to doubt it.

Quote from: tenbones on January 15, 2023, 06:55:46 PMThe caveat, of course, is nothing stops WotC lawyers from coming after you *regardless* of whether it's legal or not, if they want to just scare you off, or bankrupt you. They're likely going to ignore you, unless your game becomes a real "threat".

Back in the 90s, we saw TSR (and Palladium) spitting out "orders to cease and desist" which are not orders and held no legal weight whatsoever. They were simply instruments of fear and worked most of the time because they are scary, especially for people who don't understand the Fair Use laws.

My concern is WotC will attack small publishers via DriveThruRPG and Kickstarter, aka sending them marching orders to nuke the accounts of anyone who offends their delicate OGL sensibilities.

What will get interesting is whether WotC attacks Paizo and/or Castles & Crusades if they launch their own OGLs...or whether WotC only cares about the 6e VTT audience and what can be sold to them.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 12:25:23 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 08:15:59 PM

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 15, 2023, 08:08:50 PM
Maybe a clause requiring that if they choose to indicate compatibility, they must ALSO indicate, in no less a prominent fashion, that they are not affiliated with or endorsed by said system or the company who made it?

Fair is fair. They get to indicate compatibility without insinuating endorsement or approval.

I like this.

Except this proves my point as we've now stepped away from an open license into one that imposes restrictions on the licensee that are not a part of any CC license.

Then it's just a matter of which non-open license term is better for both parties in regards to resolving Freedom of Association; must the Licensee get permission from the Licenser if they wish to indicate association or are they compelled to make public declarations of non-affiliation in addition to declarations of compatibility?

Personally, I think the former is less onerous and fosters better relationships between parties. If the blanket rule is cannot indicate compatibility nor use logos, etc. then all third-party creations are on a level field by default and to indicate compatibility you must form some type of relationship with the Licenser to change that... a voluntary association.

By contrast, the second option requires no relationship with the licenser, just a decision of whether or not indicating non-affiliation is worth the benefit of indicating compatibility. In essence, each licensee remains an island who needs no contact with other parties.

Again, this is just me, but I would definitely prefer the one that fosters personal relationships because those relationships with people of similar mindset enables the prospect of collaborative work that could be greater than the sum of its parts, while each atomized livenser and licensee of the second need never even meet nor understand what the others might bring to the table if working together.

Maybe I'm hopelessly naïve about all that... maybe it's better for content creators in a hobby that's all about coming together to create things to remain independent islands... but I tend to doubt it.

I might be wrong but I think the CC By SA already has such a clause, where you can't write stuff that would make others think you're affiliated or stuff with the original creator. I'm perfectly fine with that.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 16, 2023, 01:53:45 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 12:25:23 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 08:15:59 PM

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 15, 2023, 08:08:50 PM
Maybe a clause requiring that if they choose to indicate compatibility, they must ALSO indicate, in no less a prominent fashion, that they are not affiliated with or endorsed by said system or the company who made it?

Fair is fair. They get to indicate compatibility without insinuating endorsement or approval.

I like this.

Except this proves my point as we've now stepped away from an open license into one that imposes restrictions on the licensee that are not a part of any CC license.

Then it's just a matter of which non-open license term is better for both parties in regards to resolving Freedom of Association; must the Licensee get permission from the Licenser if they wish to indicate association or are they compelled to make public declarations of non-affiliation in addition to declarations of compatibility?

Personally, I think the former is less onerous and fosters better relationships between parties. If the blanket rule is cannot indicate compatibility nor use logos, etc. then all third-party creations are on a level field by default and to indicate compatibility you must form some type of relationship with the Licenser to change that... a voluntary association.

By contrast, the second option requires no relationship with the licenser, just a decision of whether or not indicating non-affiliation is worth the benefit of indicating compatibility. In essence, each licensee remains an island who needs no contact with other parties.

Again, this is just me, but I would definitely prefer the one that fosters personal relationships because those relationships with people of similar mindset enables the prospect of collaborative work that could be greater than the sum of its parts, while each atomized livenser and licensee of the second need never even meet nor understand what the others might bring to the table if working together.

Maybe I'm hopelessly naïve about all that... maybe it's better for content creators in a hobby that's all about coming together to create things to remain independent islands... but I tend to doubt it.

I might be wrong but I think the CC By SA already has such a clause, where you can't write stuff that would make others think you're affiliated or stuff with the original creator. I'm perfectly fine with that.

The closest I found was section 2a6 (which is also in CC by A)

No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i).

Actually, "cannot assert or imply connection with" sounds an awful lot like the "can't indicate compatibility with" that the OGL1.0a used and has long been claimed as an undue restriction upon the OGL license users.

The alternative interpretation; that noting compatibility is not the same indicating a connection with the Licensor; by contrast is very problematic as it doesn't disallow the Licensee saying nothing about connection while leaving it to the layman to wrongly interpret things and thereby harming the reputation of the Licensor.

i.e. our worst case Licensee releases "the pedo's guide to grooming" with "compatible with [your game here]" in two inch high letters on the cover. Under the latter interpretation you have no recourse and must explain to layman that notice of compatibility doesn't indicate an actual connection while the malicious Licensee laughs at the harm they have done to your reputation while you can do nothing to them.

If it's the former interpretation then the OGL1.0a's section 7 provision was actually nowhere near as onerous as many have claimed it was and people should start accepting the inability to claim compatibility with other material without the use of another license (the OGL1.0a merely required written permission; a very light mini-license within the license vs. requiring a second entire license) as the norm and not some onerous provision tacked onto what would otherwise be an open license.

If it's the latter interpretation, then the CC licenses lack sufficient Licensor protections for my comfort as the only other protections would be 5b which holds you not legally liable for actions taken by the Licensee using your material, but offers no protection of reputation because the difference between "compatible" and "connected with" is not something laypersons will readily distinguish in the same way so many had confused "perpetual" with "irrevocable."

ETA: from the CC wiki, it appears CC holds the second interpretation as true or at least it's fuzzy enough I'd want more clarification before being comfortable with its use;

In plain English, this means the user is not allowed to use attribution to make it appear that you in any way support or approve of their uses or adaptations of your work.

By strict reading, an indication of compatibility is NOT claiming or asserting you support or approve of the work... but they are not required to actually say "while compatible, we are not connected with" in order to clarify matters for a layman who thinks "perpetual" is the same as "irrevocable."

If there is something which clarifies that indicating compatibility IS a violation of the "no endorsement" clause then that particular objection I have is obviated. If it is confirmed that the intention is indicating compatibility doesn't violate "no endorsements" then I'll never be comfortable with using a CC license.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 03:39:34 AM
i.e. our worst case Licensee releases "the pedo's guide to grooming" with "compatible with [your game here]" in two inch high letters on the cover. Under the latter interpretation you have no recourse and must explain to layman that notice of compatibility doesn't indicate an actual connection while the malicious Licensee laughs at the harm they have done to your reputation while you can do nothing to them.

If it's the former interpretation then the OGL1.0a's section 7 provision was actually nowhere near as onerous as many have claimed it was and people should start accepting the inability to claim compatibility with other material without the use of another license (the OGL1.0a merely required written permission; a very light mini-license within the license vs. requiring a second entire license) as the norm and not some onerous provision tacked onto what would otherwise be an open license.

It is already part of trademark law that you can't use other people's trademarks in such a way that it implies they are responsible for your product. That's the entire point of trademark law.

However, trademark law does allow for indicating compatibility - as long as you make clear that you're not part of or endorsed by the trademark user. This has been established specifically within gaming, like in "Sega vs. Accolade", where it was held that a game company could make games for use with another company's platform without violating their copyright or trademark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade

I cover a few more cases in my page on this:

https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/supplements.html

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 16, 2023, 12:21:13 AM
None. In the USA, the best choice is the Fair Use laws.

You are kind of ignoring a very key point in that snippet you quoted:

"Practicality may dictate a different result when up against the legal team of a large corporation"

The OGL may not have been "needed" in the strictest legal sense, but it was absolutely necessary to get the result the OGL got.

Quote from: jhkim on January 16, 2023, 10:04:19 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 03:39:34 AM
i.e. our worst case Licensee releases "the pedo's guide to grooming" with "compatible with [your game here]" in two inch high letters on the cover. Under the latter interpretation you have no recourse and must explain to layman that notice of compatibility doesn't indicate an actual connection while the malicious Licensee laughs at the harm they have done to your reputation while you can do nothing to them.

If it's the former interpretation then the OGL1.0a's section 7 provision was actually nowhere near as onerous as many have claimed it was and people should start accepting the inability to claim compatibility with other material without the use of another license (the OGL1.0a merely required written permission; a very light mini-license within the license vs. requiring a second entire license) as the norm and not some onerous provision tacked onto what would otherwise be an open license.

It is already part of trademark law that you can't use other people's trademarks in such a way that it implies they are responsible for your product. That's the entire point of trademark law.

However, trademark law does allow for indicating compatibility - as long as you make clear that you're not part of or endorsed by the trademark user.

I never said "use the trademark." I said plastered "a compatible supplement for [Your game here]" in two inch high letters on the cover... how many everyday consumers are going to really distinguish between the actual trademarked logo and say, the name of a company in Times New Roman at 144pt size with the words "a compatible supplement for" also in Times New Roman?

So unless there are specific rules related to how you can indicate compatibility in plain text, you're looking at a malicious user being able to harm your reputation without recourse (unless they're doing it without a license in which case Libel is an option).