Let's discuss the OGL

Gaming
1

I keep reaching for a random SRD to make into a simple, readable HTML archive. But then I figure I could just rewrite the mechanics as public domain content, and then my interest wanes…

I personally don’t like the OGL. It isn’t really for my purposes, its for the RPG-as-an-Industry people. I just want text explaining rules.

Now everyone calls their thing a System Reference Document, they must be RPG “engineers”. I’m note interested in a database of mechanics, with game product descriptions as lists of mechanics as components. Then I could randomly generate all the game! :sunglasses:

2

The Cepheus Engine SRD has the following:

  1. 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.

That’s part of the OGL, of course. It allows the SRD to include the following:

Publishing Your Own Materials
As you can see at the beginning of this System Reference Document, all of the text in this document is designated as Open Gaming Content, except for the titles of products published by Samardan Press, and the trademarks “Cepheus Engine” and “Samardan Press”.
This means you can copy whatever parts of the Cepheus Engine you want, add your own content, change the content around, and publish the result. Note that you will have to comply with the Open Gaming License, as reproduced at the end of this document. If you don’t mention any of the trademark elements, you don’t need to do anything else.
However, you can use the “Cepheus Engine” trademark, under certain circumstances, to indicate compatibility with this rules system. You have to follow the requirements of the Cepheus Engine Compatibility-Statement License (CSL), but if you do, you can state that your published material “is compatible with the rules of Cepheus Engine” or, “with the Cepheus Engine rules” or, “with the Cepheus Engine game.” Here are those requirements:

The Cepheus Engine Compatibility-Statement License (CSL)
1. You must state on the first page where you mention Cepheus Engine that “Cepheus Engine and Samardan Press are the trademarks of Jason “Flynn” Kemp,” and that you are not affiliated with Jason “Flynn” Kemp or Samardan Press™.
2. If you’re using the license to commit legal fraud, you forfeit the right to continue using the license: specifically, if you are claiming compatibility with the rules of Cepheus Engine, the claim must not constitute legal fraud, or fraud in the inducement, under the laws of the State of Texas. Note that this requirement is almost impossible to violate unintentionally—it’s largely intended to keep me out of trouble, not to restrict legitimate statements of compatibility.
3. You must comply with the terms of the OGL if the terms apply.
4. Your cover must include the words “House Rules” or “Variant Rules” or “Alternate Cepheus Engine Universe” near the title if the document is a full, free-standing game that includes modifications. Feel free to contact the author if you wish to use a different form of disclaimer.
5. Selling a full version of this game with your house rules incorporated into it is perfectly permissible, but you may not sell an effectively unchanged copy of the rules for money.
6. If your document is a private house rules document, not being sold for profit or general use, you may scan and use artwork (including the cover) from the printed version, published in print under the title of Cepheus Engine Core Rules, provided that the cover contains the words “House Rules,” near the title, and that the artists are appropriately credited.
7. Your rights under this CSL cannot be revoked, and are perpetual, unless you breach the terms of the license, in which case your rights terminate.
8. If you comply with the above, you may state that your resource is “for use with the Cepheus Engine Core Rules”, “compatible with the core rules of Cepheus Engine” or “with the Cepheus Engine Core Rules.”

This is the part that sucks about the OGL, it let’s someone swipe you with a separate license if you want to say basic facts about reality, such as, “this book works with Traveller RPG”. That is bullshit. It was bullshit when WotC didn’t want the Book of Erotic Fantasy saying it worked with D&D.

I’m not in the industry, but I’ve read it doesn’t make sense to use it if one wants to work in the industry, and yet so many hobbyist projects just embrace it. I suppose it does the heavy lifting? List after list of “free” games are OGL, very few CC or other open licenses.

3

If I made a game, I wouldn’t say it was compatible with other games. I’d say they were compatible with mine. :sunglasses:

4

Ive been chatting up a friend of mine, over some of the wierd licensing issues in some third party community content licensing programs that have become popular with RPGs lately.

The conversation turned back to the OGL. Mainly in that it was cool and interesting that Wizards of the Coast popularized a kind of open culture licensing in that community; but that largely unfortunate that it’s only with that single license.

Like there seems to be a current of OGL or Proprietary in that hobby; without any nuance or other shades. There are a few creative commons works; but for the most part its largely the other two; and quite a lot just operating with zero license for any derivatives.

I see a lot of stuff licensed OGL primarily either because they have to (viral). Or because the community just doesn’t really know or recognize many other open licensing options. Despite the fact that lots of document licenses exist.

1 Like
5

I can’t be sure, but it seems like folks look to professionals to emulate their hobby work, but this is a case where the “hobby” and “industry” are not aligned. The hobby of roleplay might notice if the industry of roleplay disappeared. But the industry creates many objects people want, hence the weight of its opinions on licensing.

Or not. I don’t know, trying to figure it out. :slight_smile:

6

More thoughts:

I think part of it too is tied up in how D&D was such an anchor for the whole hobby and D20 was such an explosion in the hobby and how the OGL was so synonymous to it.

That is not to say D&D makes or breaks the hobby. There is a lot of interesting that isnt D&D; hell stuff that is MORE interesting than D&D. However it’s cultural weight; and the relatively small pond of the hobby means it kind of often setting the tone and tempo for things to come.

D20 and the OGL blew up big enough in the relatively small community it really did take over in some ways. Like lots of third parties had ported their settings over to D20 in the 3.x era and abandoned their house systems.

In some respects the whole span of time that was D&D 4E was kind of the hobby rediscovering it was ok to have different mechanics again. Once D20 was officially old hat, they reverted to norm and start doing house systems again; many of which were proprietary.

Anybody who wanted to continue to do open-content / freeculture work had an established well trod route.

Meanwhile open content was also incubated heavily by the OSR & Retroclone communities. Who mostly had to traffic in the OGL, because of it’s viral nature and so many of them were retrocloning D&D. And given it’s viral nature means their is lots of incentive within their remix culture to all be on the same license.

1 Like
7

Great summary! :slight_smile:

I keep thinking how funny it is I support A/GPL, but hate the OGL. In part because of the viral nature. For certain use cases it makes sense to protect community interest in software. Content licensing as viral (including CC-BY-SA) always creates problems for me.

The principle behind CC0 is why I choose it, but the practicality is CC0 is as good as CC-BY.

Because software allows codifying behavior, it should have a viral wedge always in place. But content is for ideas and discourse, and it doesn’t make much sense to me to put any licensing constraints on those. “Licensing” is a tool of capitalism, inappropriate to apply to discourse.

That’s me trying to explain that from a few angles. Do you think if I made a concise, easy to understand pitch for this, it would be received? I feel like escaping capitalism via rejection of IP law concepts is a hard sell (or is it sale?). :slight_smile:

8

Your not the first who has articulated something like this; and it’s honestly a good point. I’m also not sure it isn’t applicable to software too sometimes, when I stop and squint at it.

The problem that always arises; in terms of this sort of position.There is no escaping or rejection of IP law.

It is in a very real sense allready too late. We live in a world where everything is copyrighted by default. Discourse and ideas are born into the world already shackled by the legal world we operate under. It is only at a later second step do we allow others to use them, or waive ownership.

That always leaves people by default in the position of choosing what bits of licensing-protection-or-chaffe to remove or keep.

In a very real way there is no escape from IP for the person. Just the chance to free fragments of their experience. Because the next thing they create will be copyrighted again, and they will have to stop and explicitly free it again, ad nauseum.

And there are ecosystems of megacorps out there seeking to slice up our experiences into smaller more easily monetized fragments.

Which always makes waiving all-ownership, all protections an act of courage or principle.

1 Like
9

I will add my own thoughts on licensing are misscalibrated a bit right now; in that I don’t know what my own position is on some of these issues anymore.

The whole shenanigans with the FSF recently has left me questioning a lot of my own assumptions and ive not found a tidy way of picking up the pieces yet.

Though im also starting to wonder if the one-copyright-solution-for-everyone strategy itself isn’t also inherently flawed.

1 Like