RuneQuest SRD & Logo Licence

Discover the Legend RPG, Mongoose's fantasy game.
PhilHibbs
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1453
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby PhilHibbs » Sun May 29, 2011 3:27 pm

Vile wrote:I don't believe it's possible to retroactively remove Open Content. From the WotC OGL FAQ:
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.
This is pretty unambiguous. If the material was legitimately included in an Open Content SRD, it will remain Open in perpetuity.
Only if the party that designates it as OGL has the right to do so, if it's Greg's product, Mongoose can't declare it Open Content.
Morgan d'Barganfore
Mongoose
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:55 pm

Postby Morgan d'Barganfore » Sun May 29, 2011 5:36 pm

Might depend if there's a reassignment clause buried somewhere..
Vile
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:01 am
Location: The Maze of Peril
Contact:

Postby Vile » Mon May 30, 2011 2:03 am

PhilHibbs wrote:
Vile wrote:I don't believe it's possible to retroactively remove Open Content. From the WotC OGL FAQ:
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.
This is pretty unambiguous. If the material was legitimately included in an Open Content SRD, it will remain Open in perpetuity.
Only if the party that designates it as OGL has the right to do so, if it's Greg's product, Mongoose can't declare it Open Content.
Exactly right, that's why I made the point "legitimately". Either Mongoose had the right to to so and the original SRDs are valid, or they did not and some or all of the SRDs were never Open Content in the first place (which makes them completely pointless as SRDs). One side or the other were clearly under a misapprehension when they were first first published.

The only way to settle this at this point is an unequivocal statement from Mongoose and Issaries as to which of the three SRDs are valid, if any. Those SRDs which are not correctly labelled as Open Content should be discarded in their entirety by any publishers using or intending to use them, unless they are willing to contend the issue in court.

Of course, it is always possible for Mongoose and Issaries to agree on issuing revised SRDs, but given that even the 2nd edition of this game will soon be OOP this seems somewhat unlikely.

Personally, I think I'll wait and see what will happen with the proposed open-in-some-way "Wayfarer"* which Matt mentioned, rather than get entangled in the MRQ1 mess.

*In quotation marks as I understand the producers of Wayfarers (with an 's') have contacted Mongoose about the name issue. I hope this will be settled quickly and amicably.
RosenMcStern
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:06 pm
Location: Somewhere in the EU
Contact:

Postby RosenMcStern » Mon May 30, 2011 4:09 am

Just to add some more speculation, I remind you that there is one commercial game out there based on the SRDs, and clearly very well known to Issaries as the publisher also publishes one zine and one HQ supplement for Glorantha.

Taking this fact into consideration, I doubt the SRDs can or will be declared invalid per se. At least one of them is absolutely and thoroughly valid (the core book is declared as OGC and has no reference to Glorantha in it). I think I should go look for a copy of the Companion SRD with the OGC declaration in it, as I might need that part of the rules for a project of ours that is in progress. But that is all.

OTOH, as the work you are working on is intentionally targeted at Glorantha, Vile, I think the best solution for you is to just wait for lawstaff's opinion about the subject.

That said, I think I am going to have a loooong talk with Jeff about the subject at Castle Stahleck. Luckily, this will allow me to drown the legal nuisances into some fine German ale.
Vile
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:01 am
Location: The Maze of Peril
Contact:

Postby Vile » Mon May 30, 2011 5:02 am

RosenMcStern wrote:OTOH, as the work you are working on is intentionally targeted at Glorantha, Vile, I think the best solution for you is to just wait for lawstaff's opinion about the subject.
I believe the solution for Glyphmaster lies in a generic approach, so that's not really a problem. The only contentious issue would have been the Gloranthan monster names, and they can be excised at need. My present approach will be to wait and see what, if any, the Wayfarer Openness will entail.

I have received some direction from Jeff, but it's not really relevant to the general situation regarding the MRQ1 SRDs, so I wish you luck and good drinking!
Morgan d'Barganfore
Mongoose
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:55 pm

Postby Morgan d'Barganfore » Mon May 30, 2011 8:07 am

Is it legal to use re-spelling as a work-around?
e.g . assuming a random company owns the name "Mongoose-goblin" for a beastie,
could a random (other) company legally use ""moongise-goblyn", or similar?
Vile
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:01 am
Location: The Maze of Peril
Contact:

Postby Vile » Mon May 30, 2011 10:02 am

People have used "work-arounds" in these sorts of situations, but there is no hard-and-fast rule. Copyright is a murky area open to some interpretation. I prefer not to sail so close to the wind.

However, Matt has posted on the RPGnet thread that Mongoose considers the SRDs valid, which is encouraging.
Morgan d'Barganfore
Mongoose
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:55 pm

Postby Morgan d'Barganfore » Mon May 30, 2011 1:10 pm

Ok, thanks Vile
Pendraig
Shrew
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 4:33 pm
Location: Virginia

Ah the Irony

Postby Pendraig » Tue May 31, 2011 4:53 am

I was just in a knock-down-drag-out with a very unpleasant individual about USC Title 17 law, specifically section 101 about "derivative work".

This is not a criticism of the above conversation, just my observation. I understand people have families to feed. But if the gaming community has become this litigious, to combat "piracy and protect intellectual property" then it is time to move on.
"The soldier knows little of philosophers but in him and in his deeds life expresses itself more profoundly than any book can"
- Ernst Junger
Vile
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:01 am
Location: The Maze of Peril
Contact:

Postby Vile » Tue May 31, 2011 5:12 am

Remember the 80's, when anyone and everyone published "derivative works" in general RPG magazines like White Dwarf?

Happy, innocent days. :wink:
Pendraig
Shrew
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 4:33 pm
Location: Virginia

Postby Pendraig » Tue May 31, 2011 5:31 am

Vile wrote:Remember the 80's, when anyone and everyone published "derivative works" in general RPG magazines like White Dwarf?

Happy, innocent days. :wink:
I have to be honest I never really read White Dwarf....then It was Dragon and TAS Journal. Further now more than ever I would love to bask in the blissfully ignorant days of the 80s Golden Gaming Era. I wonder what happened, was it corporate?, did the players demand to much?, or did we all grow up to be AHs.
"The soldier knows little of philosophers but in him and in his deeds life expresses itself more profoundly than any book can"
- Ernst Junger

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests