RuneQuest SRD & Logo Licence

[Vile]

So what is the legal status of the MRQ1 SRD now that Mongoose no longer carries the RuneQuest licence? The RQ logo licence went out with the end of MRQ1, but the SRD is around in perpetuity as I understand it. Yet, the SRD contains many terms that were first used in RuneQuest/Glorantha, like dragonewts for instance.

Are those terms now untouchable again? I thought the OGL/SRD system let the genie out of the bottle in that regard, but did it, really?

 

[RosenMcStern]

D101 is using the SRD in a currently marketed (and greatly appreciated) game. Alephtar Games will do the same soon. So the OGL is alive. And kicking.

I think that the OGL is still as valid as always. It is non-revokable. This should include such words as Dragonewts, if they are in the SRD. If Issaries had had complaints about this, it should have prohibited inclusion of Gloranthan names in an OGL product in 2006. But IANAL.

What I think is that wrt this specific subject, you should simply ask Greg politely.

 

[Deleriad]

I would also note that unless I'm misremembering, OpenQuest does not use any uniquely Gloranthan creatures. The one slight exception are ducks but anthropomorphic ducks do pre-date Glorantha. There are also no Gloranthan variations on generic creatures. So the elves are not Aldryami they are generic elves, the troll is a generic troll and so on.

 

[Newtus]

I've deliberately stayed away from Glorantha with my OpenQuest.

The one exception was a one shot scenario in HiG #3 where I expressly got Issaries Inc's permission.

Ducks are generic, but I also passed that one past Issaries just to be sure.

The big lesson here before you start anything that even lightly touches on Issaries Inc's IP, be it Glorantha or RuneQuest, is to get in touch with Jeff Richard who manages licensing for them, right at the beginning. I've found Greg & Jeff are amazingly reasonable on this point, and willing to explain in layman's terms at great length what is going on.

Jeff's email is jeff@glorantha.com

 

[PhilHibbs]

I wonder if the wiki needs to worry about this. Can it still call itself "MRQ Wiki" and refer to the RuneQuest rules and to the Glorantha books?

 

[Newtus]

If you are worried email Jeff Richard to get the definitive answer.

 

[soltakss]

I wonder if the wiki needs to worry about this. Can it still call itself "MRQ Wiki" and refer to the RuneQuest rules and to the Glorantha books?

Call it Mr Qwiki - Everyone else does.

 

[soltakss]

But, seriously, I obtained an Issaries Licence for my website with no problem whatsoever. I'd contact Moon Design for a Website Licence, you have to sign a piece of paper and send it off and they send it back to you after a while.

Easy peasy.

 

[Vile]

Just to be clear, I should mention that I'm not talking about PI, but about things like creature names included in the MRQ1 Monsters SRD. My understanding is that these names can still be used in a product under the OGL, but I am seeking clarification from Issaries and other sources. Trademarks and PI are clearly excluded under the the terms of the OGL, as I'm sure anyone who has read the thing is well aware of.

The question here is not what can be done with the MRQ1 SRD, but what has changed - if anything - now that Mongoose no longer hold the RuneQuest licence.

 

[medievaladventures]

The question here is not what can be done with the MRQ1 SRD, but what has changed - if anything - now that Mongoose no longer hold the RuneQuest licence.

Nothing has changed as to what the OGL and SRD allow you to do. Once released as open content, it's forever open content.

 

[Vile]

A conclusion I am rapidly reaching, also. False alarm.

Although some scurrilous rumours about Mongoose's honesty and/or competence invalidating every 3rd party MRQ1 product's licence are loose on RPG.net:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?282858-Mongoose-RuneQuest-SRD-Released/page7

I wonder if Matt would care to comment? :wink:

 

[Vile]

The plot thickens. I note that none of the documents under the MRQ1 SRD have this little line, which is to be found on all WotC SRD documents:

This material is Open Game Content, and is licensed for public use under the terms of the Open Game License v1.0a.

Check them out.

MRQ1 SRD (Core)
MRQ1 SRD (Companion)
MRQ1 SRD (Monsters)

I believe I am about to step sharply away from OGL RQ at this point.

 

[Deleriad]

The plot thickens. I note that none of the documents under the MRQ1 SRD have this little line, which is to be found on all WotC SRD documents:

This material is Open Game Content, and is licensed for public use under the terms of the Open Game License v1.0a.

Check them out.

MRQ1 SRD (Core)
MRQ1 SRD (Companion)
MRQ1 SRD (Monsters)

I believe I am about to step sharply away from OGL RQ at this point.

The Core SRD has an explicit OGL declaration. Monsters and The Companion don't.

 

[Vile]

The Core SRD has an explicit OGL declaration. Monsters and The Companion don't.

It might have had at one point, but it doesn't now. Look at the files under the Core link.

I assume that the SRDs are now completely useless under the OGL.

 

[Deleriad]

My copy of Core chapter 1 starts

Creating an Adventurer

This section is designated as Open Content.

Characteristics
All characters and creatures have seven Characteristics.

The one currently online at Mongoose starts

Creating an Adventurer

Character Creation Checklist
Follow this checklist when creating a new character.

1. Determine the character’s Characteristics.

The one I have appears to have been last edited in June 2006 by Matthew Sprange. The one online appears to have been edited in October 2006 by "Belcher." So it does appear that the documents for the corebook I downloaded pre-date the current ones.

 

[Prime_Evil]

The Core SRD has an explicit OGL declaration. Monsters and The Companion don't.

However, the official announcement of the MRQ SRD explictly states that these are supporting documents that "expand the Open Content SRD". This may be regarded as an identification of Open Game Content that is in compliance with Section 8 of the OGL.

RuneQuest SRD and Open Licence Available

Also, the Mongoose website carries the following declaration of Open Game Content in the footer text, which covers the SRD material (since it was distributed via the website ):

This web site is presented under the Open Game and D20 Licences. All game stats and pages so designated are presented as Open Game Content. All other significant characters, names, places, items, art and text herein are copyrighted by Mongoose Publishing. All rights reserved.

Since Mongoose has already announced that the contents of the original MRQ SRD and any supplementary SRD material is Open Game Content, I figure that it is OK to continue regarding it as such.

The status of the Glorantha-specific material is a bit murky - especially if Mongoose can show that they were given "sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by [the OGL]" under the agreements that allowed them to publish MRQ.

I suspect that Mongoose and Moon Design will quietly come to an agreement that allows Mongoose to continue distributing OGC from MRQ, but which prohibits them from referencing anything specifically derived from the Glorantha setting. I suspect that some of these elements will reappear in a more generic form down the track - possibly borrowing names from the d20 or Pathfinder SRDs. For example, the 'Gorp' could easily be rebranded as any of the oozes or slimes from the d20 SRD. This would be a good outcome for everybody.

In any case, out of respect for the folks at Moon Design I think it is best for the community to avoid using material closely derived from the Glorantha setting without a seperate license.

I'm hoping that we get to see Wayfinder released under the OGL so that some third-party products can expand the system - it would be terrible if an ugly IP conflict between Mongoose and Moon Design reduces the chance that this will happen

 

[RosenMcStern]

The Core SRD has an explicit OGL declaration. Monsters and The Companion don't.

It might have had at one point, but it doesn't now. Look at the files under the Core link.

If it had at one point, then it still has. You cannot un-open a product released under an Open License by re-releasing it under a closed license. I actually have two copies of the SRD, one with the mention in each chapter, and one without.

The absence of the explicit mention is just a mistake in the second edition of the SRD (including maybe the Companion, and surely the Monster book). I remember seeing a version of the Companion with the mention.

 

[Vile]

I guess this is the problem with online files of this sort. If there were an actual physical, signed, chopped, sealed and delivered version in a vault somewhere, then it could be referred to as authoritative.

A bit of a mess all around. I would think that removing that line from all of the SRDs must have been intentional, its difficult to see how that could have been done by accident.

Clarification from Mongoose would be nice at this point.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Clarification from Mongoose would be nice at this point.

Agreed. But Matt may not be able to say much until he has spoken to Moon Design.

I don't think anyone would seriously object to a clarification regarding what should be regarded as OGC and what should be regarded as PI at this point.

As a precedent, remember that WotC included a number of creatures in the d20 SRD that were subsequently yanked and declared PI (eg Illithids). There was a 'gentleman's agreement' in place regarding that SRD which allowed WotC some wriggle room to sort out what would be OGC and what wouldn't. With a bit of good-will from all parties, there is no good reason why that can't also be true in this case. People would only object if one party or the other tried to claim that the OGC status of everything released in the MRQ SRD was invalid - and this is unlikely.

As an aside, the OGL merely requires the person publishing the OGC to "clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content" - it doesn't specify what method should be used to do this and doesn't place any obligation on the publisher to do this more than once. So anything that reads as a declaration of OGC can effectively function as such in perpetuity. It's a bizarre oversight in the license itself.

Personally, I suspect that it is OK to continue using those portions of the SRD that are not hopelessly entangled with the Glorantha IP, but I would advise steering clear of anything directly derived from that setting.

 

[Vile]

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.