Publishing under the OGL only?

EDG

Mongoose
I have some hypothetical questions to bounce of Matt here, as I'm a bit confused about how this works:

1) if someone writes up a book of ship designs using the SRD, do all those designs have to be made available under the OGL?

2) If someone wants to add new tech or equipment to the OGL, does that mean that they can't charge for the product? Or can they only charge if there's stuff in there that isn't Open Content?

3) If third parties make new material available under the OGL alone, is that material added to the Traveller SRD? Or is it added only if the TLL is used?

4) Is there really any advantage to publishing material without the TLL? It seems that the TLL lets you say "this is a Traveller compatible product" (and be much more 'visible' to people as a result), but otherwise very little more has to be done to conform to it than one would have to do for publishing under the OGL alone. So why publish under the OGL alone at all? I guess the only advantage for publishing under the OGL alone is that Mongoose can't pull your license if they chose to (I can't imagine why that would happen though)?

Or have I missed a point somewhere here? ;)
 
EDG said:
4) Is there really any advantage to publishing material without the TLL? It seems that the TLL lets you say "this is a Traveller compatible product" (and be much more 'visible' to people as a result), but otherwise very little more has to be done to conform to it than one would have to do for publishing under the OGL alone. So why publish under the OGL alone at all? I guess the only advantage for publishing under the OGL alone is that Mongoose can't pull your license if they chose to (I can't imagine why that would happen though)?

Or have I missed a point somewhere here? ;)
Dunno ... but, say, you want to do a Tubepunk 1930's SF game using the Traveller SRD (I do!) or a more Space Opera-ish future SF game using the Traveller SRD (I do!), I don't need the TLL, since it's not Traveller ... but I could comment that it was compatible with the Traveller SRD under the OGL so that people would know it was a similar system.

Makes sense to me, anyway.

Phil
 
aspqrz said:
Dunno ... but, say, you want to do a Tubepunk 1930's SF game using the Traveller SRD (I do!) or a more Space Opera-ish future SF game using the Traveller SRD (I do!), I don't need the TLL, since it's not Traveller ... but I could comment that it was compatible with the Traveller SRD under the OGL so that people would know it was a similar system.

I don't think you could actually.

Remember when we had the d20 license and the WotC OGL? You could only use the d20 logo if you had the license for that - otherwise you had to come up with a kludge like "compatible with the world's most popular fantasy game". IIRC someone (Green Ronin, maybe?) eventually came up with a specific OGL d20 logo that could be used - but it wasn't WotC"s d20 system one because you needed to have signed WotC's trademark license to use that.

If the same logic applies here, then you can only mention Traveller on your product if you sign off on the TLL. Otherwise, you have to say something else (what that something else may be, I don't know).
 
You have to indicate your sources in section 15 of the attached copy of the OGL so you've already mentioned it once. It's a case of scale. Part of the blurb on the back cover shouldn't cause a fuss, but a big Traveller or Traveller logo on the front cover will be a problem.

What we need is for someone with a bit of artistic flair to whip up a 'TOGL' or 'TSRD' logo for such items. Trav OGL is another possibility. It just can't contain the words Traveller or Mongoose. :)
 
EDG said:
aspqrz said:
Dunno ... but, say, you want to do a Tubepunk 1930's SF game using the Traveller SRD (I do!) or a more Space Opera-ish future SF game using the Traveller SRD (I do!), I don't need the TLL, since it's not Traveller ... but I could comment that it was compatible with the Traveller SRD under the OGL so that people would know it was a similar system.

I don't think you could actually.

I do ... and so do you

EDG said:
Remember when we had the d20 license and the WotC OGL? You could only use the d20 logo

And where did I say that I would use the Traveller Logo?

I said, I would use the Traveller SRD!!!

NOT the Logo!

EDG said:
If the same logic applies here, then you can only mention Traveller on your product if you sign off on the TLL. Otherwise, you have to say something else (what that something else may be, I don't know).

What you cannot do is use the Traveller Logo.

What you can do is refer to a fact ... "This product uses the Traveller SRD (c) 2008 by Mongoose Games" which does not break the OGL.

In effect, that is what the OGL in the back, the OGL that you have to include in your work, says!

If you've got to acknowledge it in the back of your product there's no way it is illegal to acknowledge it on the cover!

This isn't terribly confusing if you think carefully about it.

Why, you could even say "For use with Mongoose Traveller (R)" (see the discussion at ... http://robertsongames.com/news/kenzer-co-dd-and-trademarks ... which, I must say, I am not planning to do.

Phil
 
Deniable said:
You have to indicate your sources in section 15 of the attached copy of the OGL so you've already mentioned it once.

Exactly!

Deniable said:
It's a case of scale. Part of the blurb on the back cover shouldn't cause a fuss, but a big Traveller or Traveller logo on the front cover will be a problem.

Indeed.

Which is why I specifically noted that I had no intention of using the TLL (the Logo).

Deniable said:
What we need is for someone with a bit of artistic flair to whip up a 'TOGL' or 'TSRD' logo for such items. Trav OGL is another possibility. It just can't contain the words Traveller or Mongoose. :)

I am not so sure about that. Since the material is the Traveller SRD and is copyright by Mongoose you could possibly include one or both in any OGL Logo, but you couldn't include any element that is part of the TM of Traveller (the red pointy line, for example ... though I will be using a red line across the cover as it is part of my established trade dress for PGD, see my covers on RPGNow) or, for example, any Mongoose related logo element.

However, IANAL :twisted: , so if I wanted to go that way I would pay lots of dosh for a specialist IP lawyer to advise me. Fortunately for my pocketbook, I don't want to go that way, but I suspect, within limits, it would be feasible.

Phil
 
aspqrz said:
And where did I say that I would use the Traveller Logo?

I said, I would use the Traveller SRD!!!

NOT the Logo!

Hrm. Well the logo is the thing that says "Traveller compatible product". I would have thought it a bit strange to be able to just run around that and say "this product uses the Traveller SRD (c) 2008 by Mongoose Games" - then you're saying it's a Traveller compatible product without having to conform to the TLL aren't you?

And I find all legalese to be terribly confusing ;). Ultimately I hope Matt will provide a definitive answer.
 
EDG said:
aspqrz said:
And where did I say that I would use the Traveller Logo?

I said, I would use the Traveller SRD!!!

NOT the Logo!

Hrm. Well the logo is the thing that says "Traveller compatible product". I would have thought it a bit strange to be able to just run around that and say "this product uses the Traveller SRD (c) 2008 by Mongoose Games" - then you're saying it's a Traveller compatible product without having to conform to the TLL aren't you?

Yes and no.

1) Yes, you are saying it uses the Traveller SRD ... which is true.

1a) You HAVE to say that you're using the Traveller SRD if you use it, even if you don't use the TLL.

1b) Therefore how could they say "You can't say you're using the SRD"

Short answer?

They can't under their own license.

2) No. You can't use the LOGO.

2a) And you can't say "This is an officially licensed Traveller product even if I can't set it in the OTU"

Since I only plan to do 1a), I am actually adhering to the OGL!

EDG said:
And I find all legalese to be terribly confusing ;).

The whole Wizards OGL was (and remains) a giant bluff. Legally (see the the link in my previous post) no-one can prevent you from referring to their TM.

So, for example, "This handle accepts standard Gillette blades" is perfectly legal for a non-Gillette handle.

Or "Pepsi tastes better than Coke, as our blind test proves" is likewise legal (and you probably remember the actual TV ads from some years ago if you're old enough.

My favourity DTP software, Serif Pageplus, refers to the fact that it requires Microsoft Windows (R) to run.

So, if you wanted to say that "This product compatible with Mongoose Traveller (tm)" you can ... but you better be d**n sure you don't mention any TM'ed terms (such as, say "Vilani") in your product ... because that would be infringing TM. Of course, you could hint at it ... "Old Imperials", for example.

Read the article referred to elsewhere. It's pretty simple.

However, as I noted, you want to be real careful to NOT use any TM'ed terms in your modified SRD stuff.

Which is what everyone's been saying anyway.

This is a matter of some considerable, indeed, perennial, interest on various ePublisher forums ... even moreso with Kenzer & Co's actions with "Kingdoms of Kalamar" ... mentioned in the link I cited previously.

Phil
 
I'll do what I can with these.

EDG said:
1) if someone writes up a book of ship designs using the SRD, do all those designs have to be made available under the OGL?

The parts come straight out of the SRD have to be OGL while anything else does not. Ex. If you say that your ship is streamlined in the ship's stat block, that part has to be OGL. But if in the description, you go into detail about how the ship is streamlined (things like aerodynamic hull design, recessed fuel scoops, etc), that part does not.

EDG said:
2) If someone wants to add new tech or equipment to the OGL, does that mean that they can't charge for the product? Or can they only charge if there's stuff in there that isn't Open Content?

You can charge for your product regardless if there is Open Content in there or not. Heck, some people took D&D's SRD, put it into PDF format and sold it. If another company wants to use your OGC (open game content) you can't charge them to use it; that is freely available to them.

EDG said:
3) If third parties make new material available under the OGL alone, is that material added to the Traveller SRD? Or is it added only if the TLL is used?

Neither. While Mongoose can add material to the Traveller SRD, adding material to open content does not necessarily mean that it is added to the SRD. Other companies can reference your material.

EDG said:
4) Is there really any advantage to publishing material without the TLL?

Yes, several.
A) You can publish a complete game.

B) Some companies figured out that the d20 license would not last much longer and stopped using the license to publish their material long before wizards announced 4E. Now they don't have to remove all the d20 references from their material. Whenever the next version of Traveller is released (and Mongoose is currently saying 10 years), it'll probably have a new TLL and now logo.

There are others but these are IMO the two most likely reasons why a company would want to do so.
 
EDG said:
1) if someone writes up a book of ship designs using the SRD, do all those designs have to be made available under the OGL?

2) If someone wants to add new tech or equipment to the OGL, does that mean that they can't charge for the product? Or can they only charge if there's stuff in there that isn't Open Content?

3) If third parties make new material available under the OGL alone, is that material added to the Traveller SRD? Or is it added only if the TLL is used?

4) Is there really any advantage to publishing material without the TLL? It seems that the TLL lets you say "this is a Traveller compatible product" (and be much more 'visible' to people as a result), but otherwise very little more has to be done to conform to it than one would have to do for publishing under the OGL alone. So why publish under the OGL alone at all? I guess the only advantage for publishing under the OGL alone is that Mongoose can't pull your license if they chose to (I can't imagine why that would happen though)?

1. Yes. You are deriving those ships from Open Content (the SRD).
2. No, you can charge for Open Content. You could charge for the SRD itself if you wanted. . .
3. Nothing is added to the SRD - however, Open Content is automatically available to any and all in their own work.
4. Well, we did for the Conan RPG. There _are_ some reasons to do so, but they are very, very few. In most situations, you are better off with the Traveller name.
 
msprange said:
3. Nothing is added to the SRD - however, Open Content is automatically available to any and all in their own work.

So where would any new OGC released for use with the Traveller SRD be stored for others to access it easily? I thought Mongoose was interested in making some big archive for all the material released for the d20 OGL weren't they? That would be a good idea for that, why not do the same for Traveller? It'd be better to set that up now than have to hunt it all down in a few years time wouldn't it?
 
EDG said:
So where would any new OGC released for use with the Traveller SRD be stored for others to access it easily? I thought Mongoose was interested in making some big archive for all the material released for the d20 OGL weren't they? That would be a good idea for that, why not do the same for Traveller? It'd be better to set that up now than have to hunt it all down in a few years time wouldn't it?

1. There is no central repository - if you want to use Open Content, you likely have to buy it first!
2. Yes - but it took us 7 years and the imminent cancellation of the D20 logo to get round to doing it. . .
3. Way too much work for us at the moment, and I would not recommend it at this stage anyway. Remember, Open does not automatically equal Free.
4. Not from the perspective of potential publishers.
 
msprange said:
3. Way too much work for us at the moment, and I would not recommend it at this stage anyway. Remember, Open does not automatically equal Free.
I am a bit confused. If it is open, another publisher could use any or all of it without paying royalties, right? If so, why isn't the open content itself automatically free, even if it is included in a commercial book with closed parts as well?

In other words, if I understand this correctly, Open Content itself (the wording/rules/concepts/terms) is free, while the book it is published in is not necessarily so even if it contains nothing but open content. Am I correct?
 
Golan2072 said:
In other words, if I understand this correctly, Open Content itself (the wording/rules/concepts/terms) is free, while the book it is published in is not necessarily so even if it contains nothing but open content. Am I correct?

No :) A publisher can make Open Content free if they wish - but then they may not be in business for very long. . .
 
msprange said:
No :) A publisher can make Open Content free if they wish - but then they may not be in business for very long. . .
But then, in which way is open content different from traditional copyrighted material?
 
Golan2072 said:
msprange said:
No :) A publisher can make Open Content free if they wish - but then they may not be in business for very long. . .
But then, in which way is open content different from traditional copyrighted material?

It can be used without paying for the rights to do so.
 
msprange said:
It can be used without paying for the rights to do so.

Wasn't that the point of Open Content though - to create a body of work that anyone can pick and choose from for free to use in their own publications (with the idea being that they add to the body of work themselves too)?

Isn't that how Open Source software works? Isn't that the same sort of license?
 
msprange said:
Golan2072 said:
msprange said:
No :) A publisher can make Open Content free if they wish - but then they may not be in business for very long. . .
But then, in which way is open content different from traditional copyrighted material?

It can be used without paying for the rights to do so.
So if understand it correctly, if you buy the book you could later copy any part of its open content to an internet site for free (but you'll have the transcribing yourself) and/or use any open content in a book you publish for money. But you'll still have to pay to get the whole original book itself.

Did I get it right this time? ;)
 
Golan2072 said:
msprange said:
No :) A publisher can make Open Content free if they wish - but then they may not be in business for very long. . .
But then, in which way is open content different from traditional copyrighted material?
I think there is confusion over being "free" to use the OGC and getting a copy of that OGC without paying, i.e. "free".

The SRD contains Open Game Content and is graciously distributed for no cost. However just because a portion of a book is OGC does not mean the publisher is obliged to provide a copy of the text in a free format (e.g. an SRD or similar).

So sometimes to get access to a copy of some OGC you may have to buy a physical book. But then once you have that book you could re-type the OGC text and use it "freely" (i.e. without paying for the rights) in your own product.
 
Back
Top