License alternatives for 3rd party D100 supplements

[NickMiddleton]

Hence my earlier comments regarding the OGL being a trap. In one way it is open, but in another way it is more restrictive.

It's really not: if people go in to it without understanding it it can be a pain but it's actually a perfectly reasonable license. It's just not a trademark license, and people STILL (nearly ten years on from it's launch) confuse copyright and trademark and which part of a game is covered by which...

Even if the core rules are open and usable in (almost) any project, any invested energy can be quickly undermined.

No, it really can't - once text is designated Open Game Content it can not be made closed again.

As to the translation issue, as far as I am aware Dragonnewt is correct in that the OGL permits it. The MRQ STL specifically prohibited it for MRQ logo publications, and since any translation would itself (in some countries) be covered by copyright, you'd probably need an explicit declaration of the translation of the OGC to the target language as itself OGC, just to be sure... But as far as I can see the OGL is pretty language neutral.

Cheers,

Nick

[dragonewt]

However, if you would try to use it as the core of a court case in a nation with a different intellectual property law, you could face a nasty surprise, especially if someone else has a valid license for the same material and has already used it to publish that material.

What guarantees does the OGL have at all in European countries?

If there are issues with translations, does the OGL have any legal standing regarding any other section of the OGL (even with the original language)?

Do other "open" license such as the GDL or Creative Commons license have the same issues (eg: outside of USA)?

Edited December 11, 2009 by dragonewt

[dragonewt]

No, it really can't - once text is designated Open Game Content it can not be made closed again.

How does this affect Alephtar Games if they decide to continue to publish their originally MRQ oriented material, but without the RuneQuest logo and RuneQuest product linking?

[rust]

What guarantees does the OGL have at all in European countries?

If there are issues with translations, does the OGL have any legal standing regarding any other section of the OGL?

Do other "open" license such as the GDL or Creative Commons license have the same issues (eg: outside of USA)?

I am afraid this is almost impossible to answer with any certainty, mainly be-

cause there are few such court cases and court decisions, and without such

a precedent one can only guess how a court of a specific nation would de-

cide.

For example, the Creative Commons license was accepted as valid in court

decisions in (if I remember it right) the Netherlands and Spain. Therefore

there is a probability that courts in other EU countries would come to the

same opinion, but this is only an "educated guess" - a court in, for example,

Portugal or Bulgaria could see things quite differently, depending on the "fine

print" of the national intellectual property laws, previous decisions in other

intellectual property cases, and so on.

In the end, no license that was not written according to the specific national

law by someone who knows that law very well can offer a "guarantee", I think.

[RosenMcStern]

The point is not that the OGL would not stand. I think that if the OGL was brought to court it would be stated, after a painstaking debate, that it covers the rights to translation.

The problem is that the owners of translation rights have clearly stated that they would object (i.e. sue). And no one wants any suit here: it is simply not worth the effort.

Similiary, I think that if I continued to sell Stupor Mundi or Merrie England with the RQ logo, a court would find it appropriate, as Mongoose stated that it would only withdraw the right to use the logo to protect the RQ trademark from disreputable publications. However, it would be stupid for us to seek an argument with Mongoose, so we will transition to BRP. I will not transition to OpenQuest because I know that using it could cause a litigation if I wanted to translate the materials. Which does not mean that I think I would lose the suit, just that I do not want any litigation.

[vagabond]

You can still say it is compatible with RuneQuest. The only think you cannot do is use the RQ logo.

I don't think so. RuneQuest is a trademarked name owned by Greg Stafford,

licensed to Mongoose. Mongoose may have had an agreement that allowed

publishers to use the MRQ STL and say their product is compatible with

RUneQuest, but since Mongoose is pulling the MRQ STL, legally you cannot claim

compatibility with RuneQuest unless you get permission from Greg Stafford

and/or Mongoose.

As far as OGL and language translations, as stated earlier, it depends on each

country's copyright and/or IP law. However, US copyright law holds that system

mechanics cannot be copyrighted, only the words used to describe those

mechanics. As such, the reason the OGL permits translation is because the

SRDs are written in English, and once translated, are no longer using the

exact words anyway. So, if the country in question follows US copyright

law with respect to rules, translations would be legal.

Ian

[vagabond]

Exactly. The above explanation was confirmed to me - in public - by the company that holds the rights to the Traveller Italian translation. They would simply not allow anyone to publish any Traveller OGL materials in Italian.

I believe you can publish material using translated Traveller OGL mechanics,

but you cannot sell them as Traveller material since Traveller itself is not

open - just the mechanics. Companies pay to translate games - system

and setting. If the system is divorced from the setting, then I believe you

are OK.

Ian

[RosenMcStern]

Mongoose may have had an agreement that allowed

publishers to use the MRQ STL and say their product is compatible with

RUneQuest, but since Mongoose is pulling the MRQ STL, legally you cannot claim

compatibility with RuneQuest unless you get permission from Greg Stafford

and/or Mongoose.

You can claim to have used the OGL as base, which is the same.

So, if the country in question follows US copyright

law with respect to rules, translations would be legal.

US laws are in effect in the US, not abroad.

[Thalaba]

But could you possibly claim your product is compatible with "MRQ"? I doubt anyone has trademarked that, despite the fact that most of the internet fanbase is calling it that.

[rust]

But could you possibly claim your product is compatible with "MRQ"? I doubt anyone has trademarked that, despite the fact that most of the internet fanbase is calling it that.

In many countries a trademark does not necessarily have to be registered,

and what you describe could be seen as a case of "Passing Off" in some

countries:

Passing off - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[NickMiddleton]

I don't think so. RuneQuest is a trademarked name owned by Greg Stafford, licensed to Mongoose. Mongoose may have had an agreement that allowed publishers to use the MRQ STL and say their product is compatible with RuneQuest, but since Mongoose is pulling the MRQ STL, legally you cannot claim compatibility with RuneQuest unless you get permission from Greg Stafford and/or Mongoose.

Depending on jurisdiction you are operating in you MAY be able to indicate "usability with" - in some countries laws, it is permissible to reference the name of a product or service that your own product or service can be used with, without claiming any direct compatibility or endorsement. In the US you can't use the trademarks themselves (hence the absence of references to D&D on kenzer&Co's 4e Kingdoms of Kalamar setting book).

As far as OGL and language translations, as stated earlier, it depends on each country's copyright and/or IP law. However, US copyright law holds that system mechanics cannot be copyrighted, only the words used to describe those mechanics. As such, the reason the OGL permits translation is because the SRDs are written in English, and once translated, are no longer using the exact words anyway. So, if the country in question follows US copyright law with respect to rules, translations would be legal.

I think it goes further (Where's Peter?!) - the OGL explicitly permits "translation" as one of it's categories of "Use". The issue then becomes the status of the translated text: my guess is that the unique translation in many jurisdictions (including the EU, UK and US) would count as a new unique form of expression such that is is covered by it's own separate copyright (albeit probably as a derivative work of the original English text) - so it might require a separate explicit license for use of that copyright in order to comply with the OGL; but since any attempt to "close" OGC is a breach of the terms of the OGL, actually you probably DON'T, and the terms of the OGL require the translation to be declared as OGC as well...

I believe you can publish material using translated Traveller OGL mechanics, but you cannot sell them as Traveller material since Traveller itself is not open - just the mechanics. Companies pay to translate games - system and setting. If the system is divorced from the setting, then I believe you are OK.

My reading would be that the thorny issue lies in the status of a specific translation (see above), but if one were to commission ones own fresh translation of existing english language OGC, that would be fine (subject to the complications mentioned above)...

Everybody else's heads spinning?

Nick

[Jarulf]

Everybody else's heads spinning?

Oh, yes. In several directions at once

[Atgxtg]

Oh, yes. In several directions at once

THat's just a side effect of the Earth moving through space, son't worry about it.

[Jarulf]

THat's just a side effect of the Earth moving through space, son't worry about it.

So it's perfectly normal to do it then? I am so relieved. :-)

Wheee!

[Nightshade]

But if I were running a game company, I would never touch OGL RPGs again. To great a chance of getting caught "with your pants down". I suppose Mongoose would have been put in a tough spot with D&D 4 if they weren't getting most of their income from miniatures.

It depends on what you're trying to do. If you're trying to write suppliments for an extent OGL game, you've got the problem you mention. On the other hand, if you're using the OGL to scarf mechanics for your own game you think will benefit from cross-familiarity, you don't lose much when the source game vanishes. Both Mutants and Masterminds and (I think) the Spycraft line have gone on fine without the continued existence of D&D3.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Nightshade

[vagabond]

You can claim to have used the OGL as base, which is the same.

The OGL is not RuneQuest. RuneQuest is a trademarked name, and that name is

considered IP by the OGL. You may be able to claim compatibility with the

"MRQ SRD" and "MRQ OGL", but you cannot claim compatibility with RuneQuest

itself since Greg Stafford holds that trademark. Now, in all reality, Greg

will most likely not care.

US laws are in effect in the US, not abroad.

Yes and no. Some countries honor US copyright and trademark laws, and

some, even if they do not directly, will assist in persecution of people who

violate them.

Ian

[rust]

Yes and no. Some countries honor US copyright and trademark laws, and

some, even if they do not directly, will assist in persecution of people who

violate them.

True, but even in those countries which do honour US laws, the reaction

varies between a stiff fine (I know of a case where someone had to pay

6,000,- Euros and went bankrupt) and a "Please do not do it again"-letter

one can safely ignore.

In the end, the only good way to do it remains to politely ask the IP owner,

and the second best, more expensive and not really recommended way is

to ask a specialized lawyer.

The third way, just doing it, is much like a lottery where one risks to lose

more than the price of the lottery ticket.

[peterb]

Interesting discussion...

On the OGL and referencing trademarks.

The relevant article in the OGL is:

“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.”

Product Identity (PI) is defined in 1.e as:

“(e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;”

So RuneQuest would be PI if it's clearly identified as PI. AFIK there are no PI declarations in any of the RQ SRD. If you compare with the d20 SRD, that document does have a PI declaration. It reads:

“The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, d20 (when used as a trademark), Forgotten Realms, Faerûn, proper names (including those used in the names of spells or items), places, Red Wizard of Thay, the City of Union, Heroic Domains of Ysgard, Ever-Changing Chaos of Limbo, Windswept Depths of Pandemonium, Infinite Layers of the Abyss, Tarterian Depths of Carceri, Gray Waste of Hades, Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, Nine Hells of Baator, Infernal Battlefield of Acheron, Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia, Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, Twin Paradises of Bytopia, Blessed Fields of Elysium, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Olympian Glades of Arborea, Concordant Domain of the Outlands, Sigil, Lady of Pain, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-ti.”

[Edit: Mindflayers ate my brain. I mixed two subjects up really badly.. Here's the correct answer...]

[New section]

So If RuneQuest is a trademark in your jurisdiction then art 7. would still kick in. If not then it would kick in if RuneQuest had been declared PI. If that would not be the case then, from a formal POV art. 7 of the OGL would not kick in if someone indicated compatibility with “RuneQuest”. Would Mongoose complain? Probably... Would they stand a chance in court? Well, that would depend on where in the world you live...

NB! RuneQuest is only a registered trademark in the US... The owner would have serious trouble proving that it has acquired a secondary meaning here in Europe.

[Old section]

So... from a formal POV art. 7 of the OGL would not kick in if someone indicated compatibility with “RuneQuest”. Would Mongoose complain? Probably... Would they stand a chance in court? Well, that would depend on where in the world you live...

Edited December 13, 2009 by peterb

[peterb]

Depending on jurisdiction you are operating in you MAY be able to indicate "usability with" - in some countries laws, it is permissible to reference the name of a product or service that your own product or service can be used with, without claiming any direct compatibility or endorsement. In the US you can't use the trademarks themselves (hence the absence of references to D&D on kenzer&Co's 4e Kingdoms of Kalamar setting book).

[Edit: error correction!]

It really depends on whether the mark has been declared as Product Identity or not (see my post upthread) and/or whether or not the mark qualifies as a trademark. If the mark does not qualify for trademark protection and it's not declared as PI you may of course indicate compatibility as you see fit. Otherwise section 7 of the OGL prevents compatibility statements.

I think it goes further (Where's Peter?!) - the OGL explicitly permits "translation" as one of it's categories of "Use". The issue then becomes the status of the translated text: my guess is that the unique translation in many jurisdictions (including the EU, UK and US) would count as a new unique form of expression such that is is covered by it's own separate copyright (albeit probably as a derivative work of the original English text) - so it might require a separate explicit license for use of that copyright in order to comply with the OGL; but since any attempt to "close" OGC is a breach of the terms of the OGL, actually you probably DON'T, and the terms of the OGL require the translation to be declared as OGC as well...

The OGL allows you to create derivative works. A translation is a derivative work. Thus translations are covered by the license. The license is an agreement between you and the party who issued the license (the publisher). The OGL do not create any contractual obligations between you and any third parties, who may have entered into another kind of license relationship with the publisher.

If you translate Traveller to Italian, making use of the offer in the OGL, then a Italian publisher, who has entered into an agreement with Mongoose, cannot sue you for breach of contract (the OGL). You and they have no contractual relationship. Further, they cannot sue you for copyright infringement, because you are acting in compliance with the OGL, the license explicitly allows translations.

Edited December 13, 2009 by peterb
Error correction