Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    Hahaha, aint that the truth.
    "Who was the first that forged the deadly blade? Of rugged steel his savage soul was made." --Tibullus

    "Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum." --Vegetius

    "Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war." --Homer

  2. #12
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 11:50 AM 5/6/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



    >OGC is different than OGL. OGC is a fairly recent concept from WotC that

    >has more open application than does OGL. OGC means that anything that is

    >OGC can be reused and `sold` by someone else in way desired. OGL material

    >is still `owned` by the parent company and can`t be used in that manner

    >although it can be referenced, etc.



    From what I can tell OGC (Open Game Content) is simply stuff released

    under the OGL (Open Game License.) At least, that`s how it appears to be

    defined in the OGL. OGC is owned by the author but the point in

    designating material OGC under the OGL is that anyone can reproduce that

    material freely. "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." At least, that appears to be Mongoose`s understanding of the

    concept as noted in one of their texts "In fact, material that is strictly

    rules related is Open Content. You can use this material in your own

    works, as long as you follow the conditions of the Open Game License. You

    can copy the material to your website or even put it in a book that you

    publish and sell." Basically, anybody can sell (or otherwise distribute)

    material by identifying it as OGC, including a copy of the license, and

    noting the owner of the OGC copyright.



    That is, the game mechanical aspects of such a text would be useable. One

    could not use the material that is Product Identity--generally, PI is

    campaign material. If their write up of bloodlines contains things that

    are specific to the campaign (their versions of bloodline derivations, for

    instance) then Mongoose`s permission is required to reproduce that

    material. However, the actual rules for bloodlines are OGC and can be

    reproduced freely. The concept and game mechanics of bloodline derivations

    would be OGC, but the bloodlines themselves would be PI. Generally, the

    Mongoose folks tend to designate a lot more of their material OGC than

    Product Identity. Nobody can say until they have the actual text, of

    course, but it`s entirely possible material from that product will be

    freely useable.



    Which is still not to say the book will be of any use to the BR community,

    however. I`ve come across lots of promos that sounded like they were going

    to do a BR-like thing, but when the actual product came out the system

    presented looked nothing like BR. In this case, it might be more or less

    inspired by BR, but when it comes to the portrayal of a "bloodline" in a

    RPG there`s really not much in the term alone that gives us a lot of hints

    as to what the actual themes, rules or concepts will be.



    >Again the problem is with the how Official fan site contract restrictions

    >place anything posted here as joint owned by the author and WotC, well OGL

    >is still owned soley by the author so what could conceivably happen is

    >that `we` copy some of the Bloodlines material (assuming it is OGL and

    >post it as part of the BRCS (or something similar) - well then WotC can

    >claim it as their IP and `sell` it, giving credit to the BR net authors as

    >joint authors, etc., etc. I think I`m going to go crazy here. . . .



    So you can`t post anything that is OGC as part of the contract with WotC,

    or is it that doing so would require putting a copy of the OGL and

    copyright notices in the BR update?



    Unless there is some additional condition in the WotC/Birthright.net

    contract that says no OGL material can be used then my understanding is

    that anything OGC is fair game for a BR update (or anyone else, for that

    matter.) Material already defined as OGC isn`t redefined as IP because it

    came out on birthright.net and IP material isn`t made OGC because it

    employs OGC rules. That is, if Mongoose came up with a bloodline system

    that had whole new OGC game mechanics then the BR update could use those

    game mechanics as OGC, but the material produced that was BR-specific would

    remain IP if properly identified in the work--which one has to do under the

    OGL anyway.



    Gary

  3. #13
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    From the WotC site:

    Q: Can a work be derived from both Open Game Content and Product Identity?
    A: Yes, but since the Open Game License only gives you the right to copy, modify and distribute Open Game Content, unless you had a separate license from whomever owned the Product Identity, you cannot legally copy or distribute a work that contained such material without a separate agreement from the owners of the Product Identity

    Link to the OGL Faq at WotC:

    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x...lfaq/20040123f

    And that gets me back to my earlier comment on lawyers. IT reminds me of trying the define the word "The" from the Clinton days.
    Duane Eggert

  4. #14
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 10:48 PM 5/6/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



    > Q: Can a work be derived from both Open Game Content and Product Identity?

    > A: Yes, but since the Open Game License only gives you the right to

    > copy, modify and distribute Open Game Content, unless you had a separate

    > license from whomever owned the Product Identity, you cannot legally copy

    > or distribute a work that contained such material without a separate

    > agreement from the owners of the Product Identity

    >

    > Link to the OGL Faq at WotC:

    >

    >

    >http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x...lfaq/20040123f

    >

    > And that gets me back to my earlier comment on lawyers. IT reminds me of

    > trying the define the word "The" from the Clinton days.



    It was "...what the definition of `is` is."



    In any case, the question above addresses whether you could make a product

    that used BOTH the OGC and PI aspects of a work. That is, the product uses

    parts of a work parts of which are designated OGC and others PI. In that

    case, one has to have a special license with the owner of the PI material

    because one always has to have a special license from the owner of any PI

    material. If the derivative work didn`t use the PI parts, however, it

    wouldn`t be a violation. Point being making part of a work OGC and part PI

    does not make the whole thing OGC, and something can be designated both OGC

    and PI at the same time in which case it is, basically, PI. That way

    someone might identify their work by saying "The contents of this text are

    OGC, and the following parts are PI" without losing the PI designation

    since it is "clearly identified" (in that vague, legalistic way) as both.



    The very next Q & A clarifies the important bit for use in a BR product:



    Q: If I identify something as Product Identity that was previously

    distributed as Open Game Content, does the material become Product Identity?



    A: No. Once content has been distributed as Open Game Content, it cannot

    become Product Identity, even if you are the original creator of the content.



    So if they designate their bloodline system OGC and not PI it could appear

    in a BR text, or anybody else`s text if released under the OGL. Such a BR

    text would be both OGC and PI with the Mongoose rules OGC and the BR

    materials PI, and would have to have that "clearly identified" somehow in

    the text.



    If one were to use Mongoose`s _Seafarer`s Handbook_ in a BR update, for

    instance, everything in that book is OGC except the descriptions of races,

    prestige classes, and the illustrations, pictures and diagrams. Everything

    else can appear in a BR update. The rules on ship construction, the ships

    used as examples, naval battles, monsters, feats, use of skills, spells,

    etc. just so long as its origin is duly noted as belonging to Mongoose, the

    OGL is printed in the back of the book, and which bits of the work are OGL

    are "clearly identified."



    Of course, that`s only relevant if they designate their bloodline material

    as OGC and not PI, which they _tend_ to do a lot of, but we`ll have to see.



    Gary

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.