TheRPGSite

We're not talking about anything else but TTRPGs, so what's the optimal Open License for us?

Let's start by defining an Open License:

IMHO it has to guarentee 3 freedoms:

The freedom to access (this doesn't mean free as in free beer but as in no one should be able to prevent you from buying/accessing the game).

The freedom to hack (which means no one should be able to stop ANYONE from creating a derivative work)

The freedom to publish/sell (which means no one should be able to prevent you from doing so)

While NOT infringing on your other rights.

All of which entails ZERO morality clause (not woke, not Christian, not anything period).

But allows the creator to retain his IP rights. Which means it needs to allow for an enumeration of stuff on the book that's NOT under the license.

So, by this definition the OGL was never an Open License, neither is the Cypher one is (since it contains a morality clause and other stuff but I won't go into a point by point analysis).

Thoughts? Needs to guarantee anything else?

One way or another the whole "indicate compatibility" issue needs to be addressed and settled. I'm not strongly married to any answer, but there should be an answer.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 02:16:10 PM
One way or another the whole "indicate compatibility" issue needs to be addressed and settled. I'm not strongly married to any answer, but there should be an answer.

But there's an answer: "Without infringing on your other rights"

By law you CAN, without the need for a special license do so.

So I'm on the side of "people should be able to indicate compatibility because it's the law, don't like it? Change the law!"

As a future published TTRPG designer I freaking LOOOOOOVE the idea of people writting and selling stuff that's compatible with my shit and saying so. It's a win-win IMHO.

Should the license allow people to create derivatives of the same?

IMHO? Maybe, provided the derivatives change the name so as to not cause confusion.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 02:20:29 PM
But there's an answer: "Without infringing on your other rights"

By law you CAN, without the need for a special license do so.

So I'm on the side of "people should be able to indicate compatibility because it's the law, don't like it? Change the law!"

Unfortunately this is an area where regardless of what the law says, the OGL (and, prior to the OGL, TSR) muddied the waters, so it probably pays to make it clear.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 15, 2023, 02:27:46 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 15, 2023, 02:20:29 PM
But there's an answer: "Without infringing on your other rights"

By law you CAN, without the need for a special license do so.

So I'm on the side of "people should be able to indicate compatibility because it's the law, don't like it? Change the law!"

Unfortunately this is an area where regardless of what the law says, the OGL (and, prior to the OGL, TSR) muddied the waters, so it probably pays to make it clear.

LOL, sorry, you meant in the actual text of the license? Yeah, I can see the need for that (thank you so much WotC).

Regarding WotC, maybe it also needs a reminder that rules/mechanics can't be copyrighted?

I don't think there will ever be an open license by your standards because publishers are going to want something. Control of compatibility claims (probably by a separate license, like the old d20 STL) is a big deal because it gives them brand protection.

Quote from: JeremyR on January 15, 2023, 05:23:56 PM
I don't think there will ever be an open license by your standards because publishers are going to want something. Control of compatibility claims (probably by a separate license, like the old d20 STL) is a big deal because it gives them brand protection.

Well, then those AREN'T Open Licenses.

As for the "there will ever be an open license by your standards"... The CC By SA already exists.

I think you have nailed it. When you submit something to the license, it needs wording that lets you keep out your specific things, such as cities, worlds, gods, etc., while allowing game mechanicy things whether or not those can actually be copyrightable, as well as a way to submit other things as freely useable.

The people using anything licensed in this way must be absolutely sure you haven't left any way in which you can trick them later.  Whatever you submit must be for all purposes, irrevocable, royalty free, etc.

Unlike the OGL, it cannot secretly try to make you not say "Rape Simulator 1000 is compatible with Paizo (TM)'s Pathfinder v2" or whatever.  You know, in the same way you have always been able to specify this sort of thing legally.  And as my hyperbole indicates, obviously no sketchy morality clause.

You can write whatever you want. It can be totally compatible to D&D mechanically. Just don't use their trademarked stuff.

They can't come after you for using the rules, and as long as you don't word-for-word use their SRD, but still use the mechanics, you're fine. The question now is - why require yourself to seek the license from a garbage company like WotC to do your game the way you want to do it?

Go write the game. Unless you want license your own creations to others... then you're going to have to create your own License... but to me that's putting the cart before the horse.

The 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".

I think a worthwhile question to ask is "is an open license even the best fit for the RPG industry if you're hoping to repeat the beneficial network effect the OGL used to provide?"

Sidebar: if you missed it in the other thread; Geeky, I was wrong and I apologize. I had confused you with another poster in that thread in my memory and so I apologize and will try to do better in the future.

Quote from: tenbones on January 15, 2023, 06:55:46 PM
You can write whatever you want. It can be totally compatible to D&D mechanically. Just don't use their trademarked stuff.

They can't come after you for using the rules, and as long as you don't word-for-word use their SRD, but still use the mechanics, you're fine. The question now is - why require yourself to seek the license from a garbage company like WotC to do your game the way you want to do it?

Go write the game. Unless you want license your own creations to others... then you're going to have to create your own License... but to me that's putting the cart before the horse.

The 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".

I am writting the game (right now working on the bestiary), the license thing is to let others use my stuff without worries, and like I said I WANT them to say it's compatible with my stuff, because that creates a network effect, it's a win-win.

I don't want the license from any company, in my case I'm probably gonna use CC By SA, the thread is more of a hypotethical discussion as to what the optimal open license would look like.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 15, 2023, 07:00:33 PM
I think a worthwhile question to ask is "is an open license even the best fit for the RPG industry if you're hoping to repeat the beneficial network effect the OGL used to provide?"

Sidebar: if you missed it in the other thread; Geeky, I was wrong and I apologize. I had confused you with another poster in that thread in my memory and so I apologize and will try to do better in the future.

If it requires you to give credit to those you're taking stuff from? Yes, totally. The network effect came from two things: Compatibility (even if Wanker on the Beach didn't allow you to say it WAS compatible with their shit), plenty of OSR games say they are compatible with another.
Crediting the other games front and center, like White Star does with White Box who does it woth S&W.

No problem, don't worry and don't think about it.

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.

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 (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).

Compatibility is marketing nonsense intended to segment the market. You can mix dice pools with D20 systems with percentiles, and in fact I have in the past. One of my favorite mecha campaigns used a homebrewed roll over D100 system for the mecha and Savage Worlds for the pilots. If your game distinguishes between attack rolls and saving throws, your game has more internal compatibility issues than it does with a completely different system.

I'm sorry, I needed to vent.

If I were RPG King for a Day, I would say that all RPGs should have a set boiler-plate OGL.

• Acknowledgements of Inspirations and OGL components used from other games.
• Don't Touch Content: The original OGL called this Product Identity, but I would prefer to call it Retained Content.
• List of Explicitly OGL-ified Content
• How to contact the designer to make a proposal to go outside of the OGL.

I can see valid reasons for designers wanting to withhold content rather than opening it all up in a Creative Commons, and it goes well beyond just claiming a name. I am quite apprehensive about letting homebrewers and hackers run wild with my own system's Reaction subsystem (every action can be taken as a reaction) because I know it's a tempting thing to hack, but also requires a much tighter action economy balance than vanilla D&D or Pathfinder. A beginner designer wanting to release a hack of it is more likely to butcher their own project than make a good product because if you obey the player inclination and open up the action economy...it breaks in several ways at once. Players will lose the ability to keep track of all their actions and action queue stacks will balloon out of control at the same time. A copyright law manual override exists if you rename and rephrase everything, and hackers should be reminded of that if they want to shoulder all the risk of doing it wrong. But fundamentally I don't want inexperienced designers flipping switches in this part of the system because it will break. At least not without consulting me because I know how this part of the system breaks.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 03:39:34 AM

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.

Lets assume you publish your game "Fantasy Heartbreaker 2,128,653" without an open license, lets assume you create your own "open" license with such provisions that you think will protect your reputation (up to forcing the licensee to put as the cover : "Not affiliated, connected nor sponsored by XYZ" in huge font and nothing else) I don't see how the fuck does that prevent John Doe down the street from creating the module you say and puitting on the cover it's compatible with your game. I mean the law already allows for that.

You're creating a boogie man that only exists without morality clauses and or other stuff on the license, when, BY LAW, such things are already possible without your permission.

The only difference I see is that without a license most people wouldn't use your stuff to create modules.

But, here's an easy fix for you:

Publish your game WITHOUT an open license of any kind, THEN create an SRD (that doesn't share the name of your game) and put THAT under an open license WITHOUT such clauses.

Lets say your engine is called the d20+, so the SRD is the d20+ Engine SRD, compatibility would be to the SRD and games based on it.

Here's the bad news: That still doesn't prevent any schmuck from creating something YOU don't want associated with your game in any shape or form and indicating compatibility in the cover to your game, like Dredd would say: "IT'S THE LAW!"

Quote from: Fheredin on January 16, 2023, 11:17:43 AM
Compatibility is marketing nonsense intended to segment the market. You can mix dice pools with D20 systems with percentiles, and in fact I have in the past. One of my favorite mecha campaigns used a homebrewed roll over D100 system for the mecha and Savage Worlds for the pilots. If your game distinguishes between attack rolls and saving throws, your game has more internal compatibility issues than it does with a completely different system.

That's... so overly simplistic it hurts.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 10:40:17 AM

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).

I can do it right now without a license of any kind, I could write the most "incel, shitlord, alt-right, notzee (by the woke standards)" suplement and put on the cover it's compatible with D&D 5e, there's NO LAW preventing me from it. Furthermore, IF Hasbro/WotC tried to stop me it now becomes a first amendment case if I'm not mistaken. Hell I could do it for every edition of their game and they can do jack shit about it, beyond lawfare.

Quote from: Fheredin on January 16, 2023, 11:17:43 AM
Compatibility is marketing nonsense intended to segment the market. You can mix dice pools with D20 systems with percentiles, and in fact I have in the past. One of my favorite mecha campaigns used a homebrewed roll over D100 system for the mecha and Savage Worlds for the pilots. If your game distinguishes between attack rolls and saving throws, your game has more internal compatibility issues than it does with a completely different system.

I'm sorry, I needed to vent.

If I were RPG King for a Day, I would say that all RPGs should have a set boiler-plate OGL.

• Acknowledgements of Inspirations and OGL components used from other games.
• Don't Touch Content: The original OGL called this Product Identity, but I would prefer to call it Retained Content.
• List of Explicitly OGL-ified Content
• How to contact the designer to make a proposal to go outside of the OGL.

I can see valid reasons for designers wanting to withhold content rather than opening it all up in a Creative Commons, and it goes well beyond just claiming a name. I am quite apprehensive about letting homebrewers and hackers run wild with my own system's Reaction subsystem (every action can be taken as a reaction) because I know it's a tempting thing to hack, but also requires a much tighter action economy balance than vanilla D&D or Pathfinder. A beginner designer wanting to release a hack of it is more likely to butcher their own project than make a good product because if you obey the player inclination and open up the action economy...it breaks in several ways at once. Players will lose the ability to keep track of all their actions and action queue stacks will balloon out of control at the same time. A copyright law manual override exists if you rename and rephrase everything, and hackers should be reminded of that if they want to shoulder all the risk of doing it wrong. But fundamentally I don't want inexperienced designers flipping switches in this part of the system because it will break. At least not without consulting me because I know how this part of the system breaks.

You lost me when you went all authoritarian, your way means the rights of the developer, publisher have been violated by YOU forcing them to put their shit as Open Content.

Geeky, that particular thread was getting really long and nested so I'm starting fresh with this post just for sanity and readability.

The primary distinction I see is that, without license protection the content creator COULD go after a third party under libel laws if their claims of compatibility are so prominent that a layperson would assume association and thereby harm your reputation.

Trademark also isn't just a specific logo... the phrase "Dungeons & Dragons" itself trademarked. Similarly, you can't put out a book titled "The Adventures of Clark Kent" regardless of the font used (even if you could use the name Clark Kent inside the book) because Clark Kent is a registered trademark of DC Comics.

There is a solid case that plastering "compatible with [trademarked title]" even in plain text prominently in promotional material or prominently on a cover is trademark violation as you're attempting to use the trademarked term to promote your material via its prominence on your cover/promotions rather than just indicating compatibility, which could be done via a notice in a normal sized font inside the book.

If the use was also connected to a product that could be perceived as harmful to the reputation of the trademark holder an additional charge of libel I would think could be attached as you are using their registered trademark in a more prominent than required fashion to imply a connection to laypersons that is harmful to the trademark holder's reputation.

The problem as I see it currently is many of you deriding any license restrictions are operating on the assumption that everyone is going to approaching these licenses in good faith. You've never dealt with exploitive and malicious opportunists before in a legal sense (I have and it was both painful and costly).

You don't need a license for those operating in good faith. You need it to protect yourself (to the degree its possible) from those NOT acting in good faith.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 11:51:00 AM
Geeky, that particular thread was getting really long and nested so I'm starting fresh with this post just for sanity and readability.

The primary distinction I see is that, without license protection the content creator COULD go after a third party under libel laws if their claims of compatibility are so prominent that a layperson would assume association and thereby harm your reputation.

Trademark also isn't just a specific logo... the phrase "Dungeons & Dragons" itself trademarked. Similarly, you can't put out a book titled "The Adventures of Clark Kent" regardless of the font used (even if you could use the name Clark Kent inside the book) because Clark Kent is a registered trademark of DC Comics.

There is a solid case that plastering "compatible with [trademarked title]" even in plain text prominently in promotional material or prominently on a cover is trademark violation as you're attempting to use the trademarked term to promote your material via its prominence on your cover/promotions rather than just indicating compatibility, which could be done via a notice in a normal sized font inside the book.

If the use was also connected to a product that could be perceived as harmful to the reputation of the trademark holder an additional charge of libel I would think could be attached as you are using their registered trademark in a more prominent than required fashion to imply a connection to laypersons that is harmful to the trademark holder's reputation.

The problem as I see it currently is many of you deriding any license restrictions are operating on the assumption that everyone is going to approaching these licenses in good faith. You've never dealt with exploitive and malicious opportunists before in a legal sense (I have and it was both painful and costly).

You don't need a license for those operating in good faith. You need it to protect yourself (to the degree its possible) from those NOT acting in good faith.

I'm not sure you understand trademark law.

Indicating compatibility in the cover is how it used to be done BEFORE the OGL, even using the logo or other trademarks is allowed. What's not legal is to do it in such a way it indicates you're sponsored or tied in any other way to the trademark holder.

By simply stating "Compatible with D&D" in the cover it doesn't indicate anything of the sort. Furthermore I could put in the first page a legend saying imnot in any way shape or form tied to the trademark holder thus shielding me from the law (not lawfare but that's thanks to the fucked up American justice system).

You're thinking like the woke, guilt by association. Where compatibility means sponsorship or agreement with the supplement. It doesn't.

WITHOUT a license, right now, I could write a supplement compatible with D&D and, IF lawfare wasn't a thing they could do jack shit, the same goes for smaller publishers since they lack the deep pockets Hasbro has.

Any license doesn't:
Supercede law
Restrict those who don't use the license
Ergo morality clauses and other restrictions make zero sense, because:

Those operating in good faith will do so license or no license
Those operating in bad faith will do so without using the license
Unless you have multimillion deep pockets you can't win a case in court, and if you do have those multimillion you won't win, you'll just make the other party quit.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 16, 2023, 11:26:45 AM
I can do it right now without a license of any kind, I could write the most "incel, shitlord, alt-right, notzee (by the woke standards)" suplement and put on the cover it's compatible with D&D 5e, there's NO LAW preventing me from it. Furthermore, IF Hasbro/WotC tried to stop me it now becomes a first amendment case if I'm not mistaken. Hell I could do it for every edition of their game and they can do jack shit about it, beyond lawfare.

Shorter version of what I said above; as the phrase "D&D" is a registered trademark they actually COULD slam you for trademark infringement if your announcement of compatibility was prominent enough to be construed as an attempt to use their trademark to promote your product.

You could probably successfully claim it was simply a "notice of compatibility" if it was say, 12pt plain text at the bottom of the cover or advertisement for your product. Somewhere between there and 144pt bold text on your cover and your claim evaporates as it's clear you are using the trademarked term to promote your product.

And if said product is also something that would be harmful to the trademark holder's reputation, they could slam you for Libel on top as your use of their trademark to promote your product also caused harm to the trademark holder's reputation.

All this "the laws don't mean a thing and can't stop you from doing whatever you want" is how a lot of people end up losing a lot of money because they never bothered to understand what the laws actually say. "screw the Man" great right up until you're filing for bankruptcy over having to cover their legal fees.

That's where something like the OGL is actually much better for lay users than the CC licenses; they took the legalese of the "No Endorsements" clause and the practical matter of trademark infringement (i.e. trademarks include plaintext of a product name and fair use notice of compatibility; which is already covered via the license; only extends so far) and simplified it down to the layman comprehensible "can't indicate compatibility with product without written permission."

i.e. it's basically a notice of how not to get sued under regular trademark laws while using the material offered.

Meanwhile, even if it's 90% just mechanics... copyright on expression does exist; meaning you do have to rewrite those mechanics in your own words... unless you have a license saying it's okay to cut and paste that particular expression into your material; saving you a lot of time and worry over whether you've differentiated your expression of the mechanics enough to avoid legal problems. That's of real value to a Licensee who doesn't want to deal with the hassle of rewriting mechanical expressions and would rather just get on to the cool idea they had which made them want to create a supplement in the first place.

A shorter version yet; a lot of these arguments for totally open licenses seem to be based on idealized and platonic ideals of human interaction and not how things actually work in practice. It's basically a variation of how Communism is always the perfect system on paper while Capitalism in the worst system in real life excepting every other system that's been tried.

I applaud your idealism, but I want a prsctical license that will actually work for my purposes and those of third parties who use it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 16, 2023, 12:24:14 PM
Unless you have multimillion deep pockets you can't win a case in court, and if you do have those multimillion you won't win, you'll just make the other party quit.

Those are the same thing.

Quote from: Bruwulf on January 16, 2023, 12:28:46 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 16, 2023, 12:24:14 PM
Unless you have multimillion deep pockets you can't win a case in court, and if you do have those multimillion you won't win, you'll just make the other party quit.

Those are the same thing.

Practically speaking yes, but you didn't win the case because it wasn't decided by the judge or jury.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 12:27:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 16, 2023, 11:26:45 AM
I can do it right now without a license of any kind, I could write the most "incel, shitlord, alt-right, notzee (by the woke standards)" suplement and put on the cover it's compatible with D&D 5e, there's NO LAW preventing me from it. Furthermore, IF Hasbro/WotC tried to stop me it now becomes a first amendment case if I'm not mistaken. Hell I could do it for every edition of their game and they can do jack shit about it, beyond lawfare.

Shorter version of what I said above; as the phrase "D&D" is a registered trademark they actually COULD slam you for trademark infringement if your announcement of compatibility was prominent enough to be construed as an attempt to use their trademark to promote your product.

You could probably successfully claim it was simply a "notice of compatibility" if it was say, 12pt plain text at the bottom of the cover or advertisement for your product. Somewhere between there and 144pt bold text on your cover and your claim evaporates as it's clear you are using the trademarked term to promote your product.

And if said product is also something that would be harmful to the trademark holder's reputation, they could slam you for Libel on top as your use of their trademark to promote your product also caused harm to the trademark holder's reputation.

All this "the laws don't mean a thing and can't stop you from doing whatever you want" is how a lot of people end up losing a lot of money because they never bothered to understand what the laws actually say. "screw the Man" great right up until you're filing for bankruptcy over having to cover their legal fees.

That's where something like the OGL is actually much better for lay users than the CC licenses; they took the legalese of the "No Endorsements" clause and the practical matter of trademark infringement (i.e. trademarks include plaintext of a product name and fair use notice of compatibility; which is already covered via the license; only extends so far) and simplified it down to the layman comprehensible "can't indicate compatibility with product without written permission."

i.e. it's basically a notice of how not to get sued under regular trademark laws while using the material offered.

Meanwhile, even if it's 90% just mechanics... copyright on expression does exist; meaning you do have to rewrite those mechanics in your own words... unless you have a license saying it's okay to cut and paste that particular expression into your material; saving you a lot of time and worry over whether you've differentiated your expression of the mechanics enough to avoid legal problems. That's of real value to a Licensee who doesn't want to deal with the hassle of rewriting mechanical expressions and would rather just get on to the cool idea they had which made them want to create a supplement in the first place.

A shorter version yet; a lot of these arguments for totally open licenses seem to be based on idealized and platonic ideals of human interaction and not how things actually work in practice. It's basically a variation of how Communism is always the perfect system on paper while Capitalism in the worst system in real life excepting every other system that's been tried.

I applaud your idealism, but I want a prsctical license that will actually work for my purposes and those of third parties who use it.

Hasbro can fuck you over using a d20 in your game if they so want. Because they have the money to do so, it's called lawfare.

But we're not speaking about them, we're speaking of us tiny fish, So lets think it through:

UNLESS I put your trademark in such a way and position as to make others think it is YOUR product I'm safe. I don't have the time to search it but find the Lost Worlds supplement for Champions/Hero, it says it's compatible with in the bottom of the cover, IIRC it even uses the logo, and it's older than the OGL IIRC.

So my cover says supplement XYZ, published by NOT YOU, and it also includes a big enough font as to be seen without holding the book on your hands a declaration of compatibility with YOUR game up to and including using YOUR logo.

There's exactly jack shit you could do, because you will lose in court. Even if it's the most "bigoted" supplement ever.

More so if I include (as it's normal) a notice in the first page that I'm in no way shape or form affiliated, sponsored, etc by YOU.

And your license can't stop me because I would need to use it to be constrained by it and I'm acting in bad faith so I don't. Since your license can't supercede law you're fucked anyway.

The optimal license would be a Trademark license, as that's ultimately the only thing you're giving rights to, because third party publishers:

• already have a right to reference, copy, and remix your Mechanics.
• already have a right to claim their product is Compatible with yours.
• can (and likely will) remix your work to the point it's no longer covered by your Copyright.

The ONLY thing they cannot do is use your Trademarks. In other words all the elements which make your game setting unique. Everything else is moot. This is why the OGL permitted you to use named elements declared as Open Game Content, and even that's moot if those elements couldn't be protected as Trademarks in the first place.

Because unlike other media RPGs aren't just discreet works of art, but a set of processes and practices designed to generate unique content in connection to other content. They have more in common with software than the written word here, but named entities are not considered Trademarks in the former, which is why Copyright licensing while not ideal has been sufficient.

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.

The law already requires you to not insinuate endorsement or approval when making claims of compatibility. That's literally the metric they use when deciding if you violated Trademark rights when doing so.

The more I look into these matters, the more it becomes apparent that these open source licenses are completely toothless.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 03:39:34 AM
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.

Yeah I'm a bit uncomfortable with that ambiguity too, but given it's a Copyright license the concept of 'compatibility' or 'interoperable' really don't apply. Again the thing RPGs need to license are concepts, not specific documents or images. And just because someone gives you the Copyrights to a specific work doesn't mean they give you the Trademark rights to the entities referenced in that work.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 16, 2023, 11:29:02 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on January 16, 2023, 11:17:43 AM
Compatibility is marketing nonsense intended to segment the market. You can mix dice pools with D20 systems with percentiles, and in fact I have in the past. One of my favorite mecha campaigns used a homebrewed roll over D100 system for the mecha and Savage Worlds for the pilots. If your game distinguishes between attack rolls and saving throws, your game has more internal compatibility issues than it does with a completely different system.

I'm sorry, I needed to vent.

If I were RPG King for a Day, I would say that all RPGs should have a set boiler-plate OGL.

• Acknowledgements of Inspirations and OGL components used from other games.
• Don't Touch Content: The original OGL called this Product Identity, but I would prefer to call it Retained Content.
• List of Explicitly OGL-ified Content
• How to contact the designer to make a proposal to go outside of the OGL.

I can see valid reasons for designers wanting to withhold content rather than opening it all up in a Creative Commons, and it goes well beyond just claiming a name. I am quite apprehensive about letting homebrewers and hackers run wild with my own system's Reaction subsystem (every action can be taken as a reaction) because I know it's a tempting thing to hack, but also requires a much tighter action economy balance than vanilla D&D or Pathfinder. A beginner designer wanting to release a hack of it is more likely to butcher their own project than make a good product because if you obey the player inclination and open up the action economy...it breaks in several ways at once. Players will lose the ability to keep track of all their actions and action queue stacks will balloon out of control at the same time. A copyright law manual override exists if you rename and rephrase everything, and hackers should be reminded of that if they want to shoulder all the risk of doing it wrong. But fundamentally I don't want inexperienced designers flipping switches in this part of the system because it will break. At least not without consulting me because I know how this part of the system breaks.

You lost me when you went all authoritarian, your way means the rights of the developer, publisher have been violated by YOU forcing them to put their shit as Open Content.

Uhhh...no. You can just state the entire work is Don't Touch Content. The only requirement I would say should be enforced is Acknowledgements. If you can't put a Works Cited in your RPG, you really shouldn't be writing an RPG. The point is that this would be a standard format everyone could follow which would enable content creators to retain all rights, release all rights, or put the peg anywhere between, and hackers would know exactly where to look to find the terms of the OGL.

Geeky, don't get in a huff while putting straw man arguments in other people's mouths. That's SJW nonsense.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 16, 2023, 01:39:34 PM
The optimal license would be a Trademark license, as that's ultimately the only thing you're giving rights to, because third party publishers:

• already have a right to reference, copy, and remix your Mechanics.
• already have a right to claim their product is Compatible with yours.
• can (and likely will) remix your work to the point it's no longer covered by your Copyright.

The ONLY thing they cannot do is use your Trademarks. In other words all the elements which make your game setting unique. Everything else is moot. This is why the OGL permitted you to use named elements declared as Open Game Content, and even that's moot if those elements couldn't be protected as Trademarks in the first place.

Because unlike other media RPGs aren't just discreet works of art, but a set of processes and practices designed to generate unique content in connection to other content. They have more in common with software than the written word here, but named entities are not considered Trademarks in the former, which is why Copyright licensing while not ideal has been sufficient.

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.

The law already requires you to not insinuate endorsement or approval when making claims of compatibility. That's literally the metric they use when deciding if you violated Trademark rights when doing so.

The more I look into these matters, the more it becomes apparent that these open source licenses are completely toothless.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 03:39:34 AM
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.

Yeah I'm a bit uncomfortable with that ambiguity too, but given it's a Copyright license the concept of 'compatibility' or 'interoperable' really don't apply. Again the thing RPGs need to license are concepts, not specific documents or images. And just because someone gives you the Copyrights to a specific work doesn't mean they give you the Trademark rights to the entities referenced in that work.

Assuming you trademarked EVERYTHING that makes your game unique, at $1,000+ US a pop that's a lot of money.

I already can use one type of trademark, namely brand or logo to indicate compatibility.

Yes, you CAN remix my stuff until it's no longer covered by copyright, and you could do the same for trademark, but at that point it's no longer recognizable as the same as mine.

An Open License serves the purpose of allowing you to NOT remix/reword/etc my stuff and use it without worries even if it's ONLY covered by copyright.

With the added benefit that if enough people create stuff that's compatible with yours then a network effect starts to take place, you sell their shit without even trying and they sell yours.

Okay, well say I made a smash hit game, the equivalent of D&D and Forgotten Realms, so a system and a setting that people adore.  What I would want as the creator is open access to the system, but restricted access to the setting.  If someone wanted to make Dickgirl Simulator 2000 with my system, I couldn't really stop them from doing it in any event, so whatever, but if someone wanted to create content for my setting, I would demand that it be subject to my approval if it's going to be put on the market so I can be sure that nobody's out there kickstarting Forgotten Realms But Everyone's a Dickgirl Edition, or just generally incoherent shitty fanfic-level content.  I'd also want a cut if someone's using my setting to sell content, though not something crazy like 25% of gross sales.  I'd extend that across platforms; you want my system in a video game or a VTT, great, you want my setting or characters or adventures, need approval and pay me money.

Quote from: Valatar on January 16, 2023, 03:03:19 PM
Okay, well say I made a smash hit game, the equivalent of D&D and Forgotten Realms, so a system and a setting that people adore.  What I would want as the creator is open access to the system, but restricted access to the setting.  If someone wanted to make Dickgirl Simulator 2000 with my system, I couldn't really stop them from doing it in any event, so whatever, but if someone wanted to create content for my setting, I would demand that it be subject to my approval if it's going to be put on the market so I can be sure that nobody's out there kickstarting Forgotten Realms But Everyone's a Dickgirl Edition, or just generally incoherent shitty fanfic-level content.  I'd also want a cut if someone's using my setting to sell content, though not something crazy like 25% of gross sales.  I'd extend that across platforms; you want my system in a video game or a VTT, great, you want my setting or characters or adventures, need approval and pay me money.

So you declare the parts of your game you want as open content, the system is already open by law but you could make it easier by making it so Dickgirl Simulator 2000 creator can use your exact wording, but declare the setting as NOT open content.

Therefore, anyone wanting to use your setting for whatever reason/purpose HAS TO go to you and get a waiver or pay for the rights.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 10:40:17 AM

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

I'm confused. You claim that malicious users can harm your reputation and there's nothing you can do, but in your next post you say,

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 11:51:00 AM
There is a solid case that plastering "compatible with [trademarked title]" even in plain text prominently in promotional material or prominently on a cover is trademark violation as you're attempting to use the trademarked term to promote your material via its prominence on your cover/promotions rather than just indicating compatibility, which could be done via a notice in a normal sized font inside the book.

I agree with your latter statement. If someone indicates compatibility in giant letters such that the product seems to be an official release for the system, then it is a trademark violation and you can sue the person using it.

You claimed that there was no recourse against a malicious user - but what you say shows clearly that you do have recourse - namely sue them for trademark violation. Unless the open license says something to give such permission, then normal trademark law applies.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 16, 2023, 12:27:38 PM
That's where something like the OGL is actually much better for lay users than the CC licenses; they took the legalese of the "No Endorsements" clause and the practical matter of trademark infringement (i.e. trademarks include plaintext of a product name and fair use notice of compatibility; which is already covered via the license; only extends so far) and simplified it down to the layman comprehensible "can't indicate compatibility with product without written permission."

i.e. it's basically a notice of how not to get sued under regular trademark laws while using the material offered.

But it isn't just an explanation of trademark law. Regular trademark law allows someone to indicate "for use with", like a program is for use with the Windows operating system - without violating Microsoft's trademark. The WotC OGL v1.0a was far *less* open than normal law allowed, such that software would have to say "for use with the world's most popular wall-aperture-like operating system".

If the open license wants simply to clarify, then it should say something like "compatibility can be indicated only by the phrase "for use with" and plain text of the system, in a font no larger than 2% of the cover height or 12pt at the smallest".

I don't think it's idealistic to say that an "open license" shouldn't mean more restrictions than publishing without the open license.

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

If you go back to AD&D 2e, Elves are shorter (except in Dark Sun), and while described as thinner, if you actually look at the weight range tables and compare them to height, are more solidly built than humans. In Birthright, Elves are immortal. So you have a fair degree of flexibility to work with. They've changed it multiple times, so you have to just decide which combination to take. Want to make an AD&D 2e clone? Take out the explicit description, and fix the height and weight tables to actually produce the result you want. Not interested in making an exact clone because you want to make something actually innovative? Decide what you want to emphasize, and make sure your elves in description and mechanics fit the role you want them to.

Quote
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?

First you would want to look at the stuff you actually want to keep. Invisibility was a problem spell even in the early days, you may want to change it anyway. Do you actually want to maintain D&D's hit point system that really doesn't mechanically work the way it is theoretically supposed to work? Do you want the 8 schools as they are presented, or do you figure that making magic items is more the realm of transmutation, and leave enchantment to be the domain of affecting minds and emotions? There's a lot of stuff that you don't want to keep exactly like D&D in the first place. If you're not trying to make an exact retro-clone, you don't need to.

Quote
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.

You don't even have direct compatibility with PF2e and any version of D&D. That would be a strong case in their defense.

Quote from: jhkim on January 16, 2023, 04:44:09 PMBut it isn't just an explanation of trademark law. Regular trademark law allows someone to indicate "for use with", like a program is for use with the Windows operating system - without violating Microsoft's trademark. The WotC OGL v1.0a was far *less* open than normal law allowed, such that software would have to say "for use with the world's most popular wall-aperture-like operating system".

If the open license wants simply to clarify, then it should say something like "compatibility can be indicated only by the phrase "for use with" and plain text of the system, in a font no larger than 2% of the cover height or 12pt at the smallest".

I don't think it's idealistic to say that an "open license" shouldn't mean more restrictions than publishing without the open license.

I believe the original reason for the OGL not permitting users to claim compatibility with D&D was because it was concurrent with the D20 logo licence (a similar thing happened with Mongoose and their Traveller and RuneQuest logo licences). The effect was to have a separate, more restrictive logo licence which allowed WotC more control over 3rd party publications. There is really no reason why a new open licence must have this clause.

If a 3PP produces something that is not compatible, yet claims to be, and the 3PP refuses to change even after being notified - there are other recourses thanks to the internet. The publisher can publicly proclaim the incompatibility, as can buyers. They can directly contact DTRPG or other platforms. In practical terms, anyone falsely claiming compatibility will soon be outed.

So IMO a real open licence should allow claims of compatibility where it exists.

Some thoughts on the thread;

1. With an open license, there is another factor to consider. The market's embrace of that product. Much of the "d20 glut" was just that. Cruft. The cream floated to the top. If you're worried about Frank stealing your system for "Dickgirl 2000", it's not likely to gain enough traction in the overall market to have any appreciable impact on you. In fact, you could turn it around to say that by supporting freedom of speech and opposing censorship, that the existence of "Dickgirl 2000" shows how open the license really is.
2. I agree with OP's list. I also hope any future licenses leave out moral clauses. Either your license is open or it's a Restricted license and should be billed as such.

Quote from: trechriron on January 17, 2023, 06:53:52 PM
Some thoughts on the thread;

1. With an open license, there is another factor to consider. The market's embrace of that product. Much of the "d20 glut" was just that. Cruft. The cream floated to the top. If you're worried about Frank stealing your system for "Dickgirl 2000", it's not likely to gain enough traction in the overall market to have any appreciable impact on you. In fact, you could turn it around to say that by supporting freedom of speech and opposing censorship, that the existence of "Dickgirl 2000" shows how open the license really is.
2. I agree with OP's list. I also hope any future licenses leave out moral clauses. Either your license is open or it's a Restricted license and should be billed as such.

I'm leaning towards CC By SA but recent developments around the ORC have made me think it's best to wait till that one is out and see if it's fit for purpose or not.

Just saw Mat Finch make a statement on Facebook that they are not intending to have a morality clause in their license.

Quote from: rkhigdon on January 17, 2023, 10:49:23 PM
Just saw Mat Finch make a statement on Facebook that they are not intending to have a morality clause in their license.

It's worst than that, they've got Alexander Macris in the comittee or whatever it's called for the creation of the thing!

I'm not sure what you mean.  Why is not having a morality clause or having Alex Macris involved a bad thing.

one option is to copyright your game but then create an SRD that includes stuff anyone can use and license that. it's an extra step but removes all confusion about what it available for use and what is not.

Quote from: rkhigdon on January 18, 2023, 09:30:59 AM
I'm not sure what you mean.  Why is not having a morality clause or having Alex Macris involved a bad thing.

It's not, I'm being a smartypants. I'm saying that whatever Matt Finch says or not is way less important than having known free speech advocate and anathema to the woke cult involved, the moment they try and insert such we'll know, the moment they kick him off we'll know.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 18, 2023, 10:48:22 AM
one option is to copyright your game but then create an SRD that includes stuff anyone can use and license that. it's an extra step but removes all confusion about what it available for use and what is not.

Yes, that's one way to do it, a little more work, sure but it removes ALL claims of confussion.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 18, 2023, 11:30:21 AM
It's not, I'm being a smartypants. I'm saying that whatever Matt Finch says or not is way less important than having known free speech advocate and anathema to the woke cult involved, the moment they try and insert such we'll know, the moment they kick him off we'll know.

Ah...gotcha.  That's much more in line with what I thought your general stance was on the issue, but I wasn't 100% sure it was sarcasm or that I had totally misunderstood your views.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 16, 2023, 02:19:13 PM
Assuming you trademarked EVERYTHING that makes your game unique, at $1,000+ US a pop that's a lot of money.

Yes, which is why #WotC invented the concept of Product Identity to protect their IP through the OGL.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 16, 2023, 02:19:13 PM
Yes, you CAN remix my stuff until it's no longer covered by copyright, and you could do the same for trademark, but at that point it's no longer recognizable as the same as mine.

In which case why bother with the license?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 16, 2023, 02:19:13 PM
An Open License serves the purpose of allowing you to NOT remix/reword/etc my stuff and use it without worries even if it's ONLY covered by copyright.

Which is useless for the majority of third party publishers, especially when they'll have to give up certain rights to do so.

Again, the optimal license has to act in a way similar to a Trademark one. It has to permit third parties to use the concepts the game is built on, not the literal text or images. But mechanics can only be protected under Patents, and named entities can only be protected under Trademark, and if they aren't their use is unrestricted to begin with.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on January 19, 2023, 08:03:15 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 16, 2023, 02:19:13 PM
Assuming you trademarked EVERYTHING that makes your game unique, at $1,000+ US a pop that's a lot of money.

Yes, which is why #WotC invented the concept of Product Identity to protect their IP through the OGL.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 16, 2023, 02:19:13 PM
Yes, you CAN remix my stuff until it's no longer covered by copyright, and you could do the same for trademark, but at that point it's no longer recognizable as the same as mine.

In which case why bother with the license?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 16, 2023, 02:19:13 PM
An Open License serves the purpose of allowing you to NOT remix/reword/etc my stuff and use it without worries even if it's ONLY covered by copyright.

Which is useless for the majority of third party publishers, especially when they'll have to give up certain rights to do so.

Again, the optimal license has to act in a way similar to a Trademark one. It has to permit third parties to use the concepts the game is built on, not the literal text or images. But mechanics can only be protected under Patents, and named entities can only be protected under Trademark, and if they aren't their use is unrestricted to begin with.

So you haven't read or didn't understand shit of the first post. Got it.