Robert

On 4/8/2020 at 10:36 AM, AndreJarosch said:

*NOT being misinterpreted as being or copying CoC, RQ/Glorantha or KAP

Or Worlds of Wonder, various Elric RPGs, Elfquest, Magic World, Nephlim, Ringword, Prince Valiant, 7th Sea, Superworld, and Thieves World.

Worlds of WOnder, Magic WOrld and Superworld are particularly problematic as they are designed to be generic in terms of their setting.

7 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

This is exactly Jeff's point. The D20 SRD allows you to tailor the rules to your setting. The BRP OGL mandates this by not providing some important contents (for example, magic).

I understood exactly what Jeff is saying. What I am saying that mandate acts as disincentive to authors just interested in adventures and settings.

18 minutes ago, Jeff said:

By providing a bare-bones system, we are having third party publishers tailor the system for their setting.  And that's a key difference here. 

There is no requirement that one has to use of all of the D20 SRD or the open content of Legends. Having the bulk of the rules as open content particularly the “lists” like creatures, items, spells, etc was an aide for those us who focus on adventures and settings. To use the BRP SRD an author has to focus on coming up with those items first and then they can get on with their adventure or setting.

1 hour ago, JonL said:

While I won't pretend that I like the choices you've made with this license, I do respect them.

Likewise, I worked with the staff of Fantasy Flight and Daniel Proctor to resolve issues with their community content program license and the content they offer. I am an advocate of open content licenses that are free in both sense of the word particularly for systems, but I understand if a company want to retain tighter control especially if a system it tightly woven with a particular setting IP. 

1 hour ago, JonL said:

I'm not bringing things up in some sort of spiteful gotcha game. 

The same here, which is why here I am focusing on the issue I feel that is the most critical to the BRP OGL Namely protecting their the setting IP and the mechanics that implement setting details found in many of their RPG. There are other issues with the BRP OGL but this one is the most critical at the moment in my view. What is permitted or not permitted and how can a third party figure this out in a why that satisfies Chaosium's intent and legally binding on both so the BRP open content can be used by the third party without dispute.

9 hours ago, Rick Meints said:

HG Well's Martians are fine to use in general, regardless of being in Malleus

Why? When the wording of the license preclude such use. My point about the license strict wording over the use of concepts and characters that appear in Chaosium branded RPGs hasn't been addressed. Instead we have various staffers, like yourself, assure people that it is OK. So why it is OK for me to use a Knight, Martians,  a Dragon, a Chimera, a Merchant when it is not OK to use the Questing Beast, Hastur, Broos, etc when the wording of the licenses concerning Prohibited Content doesn't make a distinction between the two lists? Should I consider the statements made by you and other staff legally part of agreeing to the license? If so that would be highly unusual.

1 hour ago, MOB said:

No, only works related to Le Morte d’Arthur are Prohibited Content, as noted in the OGL. Jeff responded to a similar question in the BRP System Reference Document/OGL Questions Thread thusly:

 

My point is if that Chaosium intent that not how the license reads. It prohibits the use of any element from Le Motre d’Arthur in conjunction with BRP open content and thus knocks out many of the pillars of traditional fantasy roleplaying.

1 hour ago, Crel said:

How does this fall into prohibited content? I don't think these are either proper names or characters.

A monster is a character. 

For example Carrion Crawlers, Beholders, and Mind Flayers are unique monsters found in Dungeons & Dragon that are the original work of Gary Gygax or TSR. It clear that Wizards can choose to share them or not. When the D20 SRD came out they were not found in the open content and moreso Wizards explicitly explained that they were among a list considered to be product identity and thus not available for use via the OGL.

The BRP OGL has among other things a restriction on one's use of public domain material if it was published in a Chaosium product. Because of Wizards  D20 SRD there is precedent for a company to have control over the IP rights when the "character" is a type of monter. As far as I understand limiting one's ability to use the Public Domain is something that can be part of a license (or contract) in exchange for something of value. In this case the BRP rules declared as open content. The OGL 1.0a has also has structurally similar clause whereby by using the open content you give the right to cite compatibility without a separate license. 

Since the above list is found in a Chaosium product by the wording of Section 1(e) it is considered prohibited content. The same with list of medieval characters and creatures found in various editions of King Arthur Pendragon.

None of the above is unique or unusual in the world of licenses and contracts.

The issue I am raising in my reply is whether the license convey Chaosium's intent. While I do have an opinion on its inherent fairness and other points, my reply is about whether the license by itself clearly and completely state what Chaosium is sharing and the conditions in which it is being used. Based on the responses of Chaosium staff here and other areas, it doesn't for the reason in this reply and in my previous reply. 

7 hours ago, Jeff said:

A game involving Rome occupying Gaul or Britain is not a problem AT ALL. First off, the Lunar Empire is not the Roman Empire. Beyond both being iempires n an "ancient world" they don't really have that many resemblances - not in history, not in institutions, not in religion, not in costume, and the list goes on. Nor are the Orlanthi Gauls or Britains. See previous point.

And the Roman Empire really existed. If we wanted to block off specific historical settings, we could have. But we didn't.

Jeff

From the BRP SRD Page 1 Section 1(e)

Quote

All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, place names, etc.), plots, story elements, locations, characters, artwork, or trade dress from any of the following

and

Quote

including those that are otherwise public domain; and all works related to Le Morte d’Arthur

From Book V Le Morte D' Arthur

BOOK V.
 CHAPTER I. How twelve aged ambassadors of Rome came to King Arthur to  demand truage for Britain.
 CHAPTER II. How the kings and lords promised to King Arthur aid and  help against the Romans.
 CHAPTER III. How King Arthur held a parliament at York, and how he  ordained the realm should be governed in his absence.
 CHAPTER IV. How King Arthur being shipped and lying in his cabin had a  marvellous dream and of the exposition thereof.
 CHAPTER V. How a man of the country told to him of a marvellous giant, and how he fought and conquered him.
 CHAPTER VI. How King Arthur sent Sir Gawaine and other to Lucius, and  how they were assailed and escaped with worship.
 CHAPTER VII. How Lucius sent certain spies in a bushment for to have  taken his knights being prisoners, and how they were letted.
 CHAPTER VIII. How a senator told to Lucius of their discomfiture, and  also of the great battle between Arthur and Lucius.
 CHAPTER IX How Arthur, after he had achieved the battle against the  Romans, entered into Almaine, and so into Italy.
 CHAPTER X. Of a battle done by Sir Gawaine against a Saracen, which  after was yielden and became Christian.
 CHAPTER XI. How the Saracens came out of a wood for to rescue their  beasts, and of a great battle.
 CHAPTER XII. How Sir Gawaine returned to King Arthur with his  prisoners, and how the King won a city, and how he was crowned
 Emperor.

From the BRP SRD Page 1 Section 1(e)

Quote

All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, place names, etc.), plots, story elements, locations, characters, artwork, or trade dress from any of the following

and 

Quote

...,Worlds of Wonder...

From the 1982 Worlds of Wonder Boxed, Magic World, Section IV Creatures Great and Small

Chimaera, Demons, Dragons, Dwarves, Elves, Ghosts, Goblins, Horses, Manticores, etc, 

=============================================================================================================================

Chaosium's intent as expressed by your reply is not clearly stated in the license. The license is specifically designed to preclude the use of public domain material in a way that prevent the release of a retro-clone using the open content of BRP. However as a result of that it also precludes the use of the same elements in any supplemental material based on the BRP SRD. A fallout of the fact that so much of fantasy tabletop roleplaying is based on the fantasy elements introduced first in Dungeons & Dragon which Chaosium took partial advantage of in Runequest and full advantage of in Magic World. Along with that many important fantasy elements of Dungeons & Dragons were taken from the Le' Morte d'Arthur. 

In addition from my copy of King Arthur Pendragon 5th edition (and earlier editions) Appendix Two: Characters and Creatures covers a wide range of character types and creature commonly used in fantasy medieval settings whether they are based on the myths of King Arthur or not. 

The problem don't stop there. Call of Cthulu and many related products from Chaosium also covers many elements used in tabletop RPG settings targeting the modern era. Again a strict reading and a focus on excluding public domain material means those elements are not available for use in a supplement based on the BRP SRD.

For works shared under the Open Game License 1.0a or a Creative Common License it is far more clears about what is allowed and not allowed. The open content can be used under the terms of the license, and the rest is treated under traditional copyright law including the use of the public domain.

While you can clarify things here, when it comes to a dispute the license text is the authority not what is posted in a internet forum or on a website. This reply and other replies only adds to the confusion of what allowed or not allowed by the license. I or any other author should not have to come here to find out what is or is not covered. The BRP OGL is requiring more restriction for the use of the BRP SRD, and these restrictions are vaguely written. 

11 minutes ago, Numtini said:

OGLs do not expire with the end of a contract. They are perpetual. I believe the correct formulation you're looking for here is that Mongoose did not have the rights release a perpetual OGL under their license from Issaries, therefore any OGL release of licensed material in their publications are void under Section 5 of the OGL, not to mention basic bedrock legal principles. It didn't expire. It never existed because Mongoose didn't have rights to create it.

 

That accurate if that was the case however Mongoose never licensed a set of Runequest or Basic Roleplaying rules from Greg Stafford while he was publishing as Issaries. They wrote their own from scratch.

21 minutes ago, g33k said:

I am actually not entirely clear with the post you're citing -- @Robert has mixed an explicit quotation with differently-font'ed text, some of which are quotations (e.g. from the text of the OGL) but others not -- such that I'm uncertain exactly what he means.

Sorry about that, I fixed it up. 

Quote

 

My initial reading was that he was claiming that all of Mongoose's efforts at OGL were equally valid, but when I went back to re-read it seemed like he was separating the older MRQ OGL and noting that MRQ has others' IP embedded which isn't OGL'able.

Is he saying that "MRQ" doesn't have a valid OGL attached?  Is he saying that the (c)'ed IP is "severable" and not OGL'ed, but the remainder of MRQ has a valid OGL... and it's up to the end-user to determine OGL-status of any given bit of text?  Or ... ?

 

My point is that the rules are Mongoose's own original creations. The two system reference documents, and the Legends RPG are the rules scrubbed of anything that Mongoose licensed from Issaries. And while I didn't say this clearly Issaries did not license the rules to Mongoose.

Again I apologize for the confusion.

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

Actually it does. Mongoose may have said its license was perpetual, but it's license with Issaries was not perpetual. Mongoose did not have the ability to issue a perpetual license to Third Parties, only a license with a duration equal to its own right to use the IP. So Section 4 was a bit of an exaggeration. 

Think of this like subletting a property you are renting on a monthly basis from another party. You might tell your subletter that their lease is perpetual, but if your landlord ends your lease, both you and your subletter are out.

I addressed this point, in case it wasn't clear. 

Mongoose didn't license the rules from Issaries. The rules are Mongoose own original creation. Which is why they could release them as Legends. The same with Runequest 6th edition rebranded as Mythras. They are certainly related as they share many mechanics but Legends, Mythras, and Basic Roleplaying are not the same RPG and only one of them was created by Chaosium. And none of them were owned by Greg Stafford while he was publishing as Issaries.

And to be I am aware that Glorantha, Call of Cthulu were never open content. Just I am aware that Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms where never released as open content by Wizards in any of their SRDs. I am also a Judges Guild licensee using their Wilderlands material in conjunction with the Swords & Wizardry rules. The material I create and anything derived from them are covered by the license the rules however are not as they are either adapted from Swords & Wizardry or my own original creation.

On 6/30/2019 at 7:43 AM, Jeff said:

Legend is its own thing and not under license from Chaosium or Moon Design Publications. Mongoose was perfectly entitled to take their work, remove from it those elements that were derived from RuneQuest or Glorantha and give it its own name, and then do with it as they see fit. Legend is not RuneQuest or BRP or Call of Cthulhu, and nor does it purport to be.

If Mongoose wants to do a OGL of their original work, that is not our issue or concern. My post is only to remind folk that the MRQ OGL has long since expired and not to rely on it. 

The Open Game License doesn't expire on content that has been released under its terms.

Per section 4

Quote

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

In addition the text Legend and all Legend of ... books have been declared as open content by Mongoose. The book sans art is the SRD for legends.

What people forget is that Mongoose did not have a license to the BRP system only the right to use the trademark Runequesr and the Glorantha IP. So they had to create an original but related RPG. Just as many companies back in the 70s and 80s created RPGs that had elements of D&D in their rules. Whether it was the 3d6 attributes like Runequest or class and level like Palladium Fantasy.

The OGL also forbids the use of trademarks or citing compatibility with trademark in Section 7

Quote

7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.

In addition Mongoose withdrew the compatibility license for their past SRD. The only one still active is the one for Legends. This is the source of the confusion over what Mongoose terminated.

Because of this section, because of much of an appeal of an RPG is the setting which is not open content many of the projects I see here in this thread can't done with the open content of Legends.

Not because the license on the open content expired or that Mongoose lost the right to use the Runequest trademark or the use of the Glorantha IP. Chaosium knows this which why they haven't issued DMCA take downs to the various sites with material based the Legends open content or open content based the old Mongoose SRDs like Openquest.

Nobody has to take my word for it just buy a copy of Legend and read everything for yourself. All the licensing is at the end of the book. But also mean that the moderator and Chaosium is correct in that you can't just write something for one of their RapGs or settings. While Cthulhu is public domain the trademarks are still in force. Hamstringing any projects without the advice of attorney. But for original ideas and setting the material that Mongoose released is still there and available for use.