RuneQuest SRD & Logo Licence

[atgxtg]

I still think that the details and permission might not be that hard to get though. More of a going through the motions. A lot tougher than a computer game.

I mean a character cenerator program would help the RPG, so it is somethinb that would probably get a green light. Issaries might want to see it though.

 

[mthomason]

I still think that the details and permission might not be that hard to get though. More of a going through the motions. A lot tougher than a computer game.

I mean a character cenerator program would help the RPG, so it is somethinb that would probably get a green light. Issaries might want to see it though.

Oh, yeah, it's going to come down to whether it is felt it enhances existing products or competes. Profit also comes into it - if someone said they wanted to write a free character generator I'm pretty certain they could get permission. If someone wanted to charge for it, then they're obviously going to want a %age for you to use their trademark. If someone wanted to do RuneQuest: The MMORPG, then they better go see their bank manager about a loan

I don't think it'll be difficult to get permission, it's just a case of finding out who has the right to give it to you, whether it's Mongoose or Issaries (I'm pretty certain any computer product would require Issaries permission rather than MGP as Mongoose probably didn't have it included in their own licence)

 

[iamtim]

Although that doesn't stop someone from contacting them with a good idea.

Not at all. I'm just clarifying the way that I read the RuneQuest Logo License.

Although I don't know if Mongoose would be the licensing agency for RuneQuest beyond the scope of the RuneQuest Logo License. It might be Issaries.

*shrug*

It's beyond my scope, I only wanna do RQ books.

 

[mthomason]

It's just that electronic publishing blurs the line a bit about what constitutes a "book." For instance, if I make a fairly standard "book" about a campaign setting as a PDF or HTML document, but then allow some Javascripting in it to, say, allow sorting the armor tables alphabetically or by armor value or by hit location, is it still a "book?"

From what I remember of similar talk about the d20 SRD and logo licence, the blurry line between electronic book and software starts to get clearer once you add interactivity beyond searching/flicking pages.

There's some really fuzzy ground here. For example, someone can make the point that a computer game is something that is entertaining on its own to a single player, and thus is not covered. I can then go make a book that is a solo gamebook using RQ rules, and produce it as a PDF - is this a book or a computer game?

Your best bet - email Mongoose, and they'll tell you whether it's something they will or can allow, or whether you need to speak to Issaries.

 

[Nephilim]

Under the terms of the OGL, the name "RuneQuest" is protected as Product Identity.

Argh.

So you're saying that even though the RuneQuest SRD itself is not product identity, being OGL, its title ("RuneQuest System Reference Document") is, because it contains the word "RuneQuest"?

And therefore, referring to the SRD by name is breaking the license agreement, even though you're referring specifically to the OGL content and not the product identity? I can't use the words "RuneQuest System Reference Document" in any OGL derivative work?

That doesn't seem right, since the OGL license itself refers to "RuneQuest System Reference Document." In fact, the license must refer to the documents which provide context for the derivative work in order for it to be legal.

Lawyers must have headaches all the time.

 

[iamtim]

So you're saying that even though the RuneQuest SRD itself is not product identity, being OGL, its title ("RuneQuest System Reference Document") is, because it contains the word "RuneQuest"?

Exactly. There was a big debate over on RPG.net on this very same topic but about True20.

It breaks down like this: "RuneQuest" exists as a Trademark outside of the OGL. The OGL specifically states that you cannot indicate compatibility with any Trademark unless you have a specific license to do so (the RuneQuest Logo License, in this case). Thus, you can't use "RuneQuest" without the RuneQuest Logo License.

*Theoretically* one could say something like "Compatible with RQ" as "RQ" is not a Trademark. But "RuneQuest" is right out without the Logo License. I wouldn't do that without talking to a lawyer, however, as I am decidedly not one.

 

[mthomason]

Under the terms of the OGL, the name "RuneQuest" is protected as Product Identity.

Argh.

So you're saying that even though the RuneQuest SRD itself is not product identity, being OGL, its title ("RuneQuest System Reference Document") is, because it contains the word "RuneQuest"?

They've been *very* careful on that one.

The entirety of the SRD is not OGL. Only those sections that state it (second line down on most of the documents).

None of the documents that declare themselves as being designated Open Content contain the word "RuneQuest".

 

[atgxtg]

But you could say, "Compatible with Mongoose Publishing's role-playing game that rhymes with MoonCrest."

 

[mthomason]

But you could say, "Compatible with Mongoose Publishing's role-playing game that rhymes with MoonCrest."

I was about to say

"Sorry, Mongoose Publishing is a Trademark of Mongoose Publishing"

But it doesn't *say* that on the website or in the RQ rulebook (first Mongoose book I had to hand, obviously)

It doesn't appear to be protected as Product Identity, either

 

[atgxtg]

But you could say, "Compatible with Mongoose Publishing's role-playing game that rhymes with MoonCrest."

I was about to say

"Sorry, Mongoose Publishing is a Trademark of Mongoose Publishing"

But it doesn't *say* that on the website or in the RQ rulebook (first Mongoose book I had to hand, obviously)

It doesn't appear to be protected as Product Identity, either

And I think I came up with a good name for a NovaQuest supplement.

"MoonCrest-the definative sourcebook of the lunar aristocracy during mankind's age of the stellar exploration."

 

[mthomason]

And I think I came up with a good name for a NovaQuest supplement.

"MoonCrest-the definative sourcebook of the lunar aristocracy during mankind's age of the stellar exploration."

Oh, very good, but shouldn't that be the loony aristocracy?

 

[atgxtg]

And I think I came up with a good name for a NovaQuest supplement.

"MoonCrest-the definative sourcebook of the lunar aristocracy during mankind's age of the stellar exploration."

Oh, very good, but shouldn't that be the loony aristocracy?

No that's supplement 2: "LuneCrest- Sanity is is merely a crutch for those who can't handle reality!"

Ya know, the MoonCrest idea might have some merit in it. Somewhere.

 

[Nephilim]

Well, that just plain seems dumb to me, then. You need some OGL-safe way to refer to the SRD documents that a derivative work is based on in order for rules tweaks, addendums, and optional rules to be sensibly contributed as open content. I mean, go ahead and make a rule about claiming compatibility or whatever, but you should still let people refer to other SRD's in open game content for clarity. As more SRD's are released, and as we start seeing revisions of SRD's, it seems like this is going to turn into a complicated issue.

For instance, suppose you write a martial arts system and release it as open game content, but a new version of the SRD it is based on breaks it. How would you then update your document if you can't refer to versions of the other product? You don't want your system to contain any product identity, so that others can release open game content martial arts schools for your system. But without referring to the different versions of the SRD, you can't deal with the problem of the broken rule.

I don't know. Maybe RuneQuest under OGL isn't for me after all.

 

[mthomason]

Well, that just plain seems dumb to me, then. You need some OGL-safe way to refer to the SRD documents that a derivative work is based on in order for rules tweaks, addendums, and optional rules to be sensibly contributed as open content.

It's no different to d20. You can't say your rules work with Dungeons & Dragons or use a d20 logo without a licence - it's the same with RQ. The logo licence is there for those that want to write products that work with it, as it allows you to put the RuneQuest logo on your product.

The only time you can't indicate it is if you need to go beyond the terms of the logo licence, exactly as with d20. It isn't any more restrictive than the d20 logo licence - in fact it's a little less as the requirement to make x% of your own product Open Content isn't in there.

The RuneQuest Logo Licence is there for the very reasons you're talking about, to write a book that works alongside the RuneQuest rulebook and to let customers know that.

If you follow the terms of the RuneQuest logo licence, you are allowed to use both the logo and required to put the phrase "Requires the use of the RuneQuest (TM) Main Rulebook, available from Mongoose Publishing" on the cover, and may refer to The "RuneQuest Main Rulebook" within your own text.

As for versioning, there shouldn't be any. The SRD wouldnt be updated unless Mongoose do another version of RuneQuest (it could be expanded with material from other books though), and if they do the new RuneQuest will need a version number or some other indication in it's title, and would also need a new SRD and new Logo Licence (if they wanted to keep doing them).

 

[iamtim]

You need some OGL-safe way to refer to the SRD documents that a derivative work is based on in order for rules tweaks, addendums, and optional rules to be sensibly contributed as open content.

That's why you see things like, "Compatible with the third edition of the world's most popular fantasy role-playing game."

 

[mthomason]

Yeah, what Tim said

You have to bear in mind the licence is designed specifically to encourage people making products that carry the logo, as they will enhance rather than compete with RuneQuest.

It's likely Mongoose don't really want you making an "OGL" rulebook (like Conan is for d20) from theirs - they want you making something that's RuneQuest logoed and requires people to buy their rulebook.

 

[atgxtg]

THat is also why most of the d20 products are not stand alone. Otherwise people wouldn't buy the core books.

The parent company wants to make money too.

 

[AKAramis]

If nothing else, the OGL-d100 label is clear enough.

Also, in using the OGL, one will have a reference to the SRD in the license... put it on the back cover, and people can clearly find it...

 

[atgxtg]

If nothing else, the OGL-d100 label is clear enough.

Also, in using the OGL, one will have a reference to the SRD in the license... put it on the back cover, and people can clearly find it...

Inside back cover.

 

[Vile]

Just thought I'd cross-post this question from the Traveller forum:

What's the story on mixing-and-matching SRDs? Such as, for example, taking some bits of character generation, combat and task resolution out of the RuneQuest SRD and splicing it into the Traveller SRD? Is that a product "compatible with Traveller and RuneQuest"? Or only one or the other? Or neither? What kind of cyborg creature have I spawned?

Some official insight from the Mongoose would be appreciated. Smile