|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 28, 2023 21:55:41 GMT -6
The best solution of all would be for WotC to release the SRD 3.0 or 3.5 (or both) to CC too. Then we wouldn't need to have this discussion at all  I can't believe they got away with not releasing the 3x SRDs when everyone was putting enormous pressure on them, which are far more important documents. They just quietly didn't even address it, and only put the far less useful 5.0 SRD in CC. Then we all stopped hounding them about it as if the problem was solved. The fact that they knowingly reserved the 3x SRDs gives me some hesitation about using them. It is hard though because I'm balls deep in several projects and don't know how to complete the work without them. They did promise never to revoke the OGL, so there is that. But as soon as another regime takes over, as happens with these corporations, all bets are off. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 28, 2023 22:16:55 GMT -6
The fact that they knowingly reserved the 3x SRDs gives me some hesitation about using them. It is hard though because I'm balls deep in several projects and don't know how to complete the work without them. I hear you. After all the shenanigans, I still don't actually know exactly how DD5 can be published. I have been ruminating over a Fair Use approach for a while now... I should post my thoughts on that to gauge community reaction... They did promise never to revoke the OGL, so there is that. But as soon as another regime takes over, as happens with these corporations, all bets are off. Nah. As you say, all bets are off. Unfortunately, the OGL is done  |
|
eldrad
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 78
|
Post by eldrad on Oct 23, 2023 19:49:45 GMT -6
See the Black Flag SRD!
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 23, 2023 23:49:04 GMT -6
Mmm, yeah. Unfortunately (for me) the BFSRD is miles from anything like OD&D. It prolly doesn't help me much |
|
rayotus
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 123
|
Post by rayotus on Oct 25, 2023 9:02:31 GMT -6
If you want to have a laugh at WotC, play the new Lorcana card game from Disney. They use all the basic mechanics from Magic the Gathering but with different names. And it's actually a little cleaner because they haven't screwed it up with interrupts and mass combat.
Untap, Upkeep Draw = Ready, Set, Go
Mana = ink
Summoning Sickness = wet ink
Attack = challenge
Tap = expend
etc.
Hilarious.
BTW, I'm seeing this as on-topic because I'm relating it in my mind to the discussion of OGLs and such. When you get down to the 3 LBBs, there isn't much there that is even copyrightable. And a lot of what is, is covered by the 5th ed CC version (like the names of the stats and spells in sequence order). Disney (another "evil empire") is kind of showing us the way and how far you can push the "mechanics can't be copyrighted" mantra.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Oct 25, 2023 13:55:51 GMT -6
BTW, I'm seeing this as on-topic because I'm relating it in my mind to the discussion of OGLs and such. When you get down to the 3 LBBs, there isn't much there that is even copyrightable. And a lot of what is, is covered by the 5th ed CC version (like the names of the stats and spells in sequence order). Disney (another "evil empire") is kind of showing us the way and how far you can push the "mechanics can't be copyrighted" mantra. Having done a deep dive during the OGL fiasco, and listening to many copyright lawyers who expressed their opinions on the topic, I'm no longer that worried about WotC and the OGL with my own games. As long as you don't tread on their Trademarks, they don't have a leg to stand on. The 5e CC gives away all the most important stuff, and whatever is left is non-copyrightable. If anyone is worried just do what Lorcana did and change the names a bit. I think DD V5 is safe.* *don't take this as legal advice, I'm not a lawyer, this is just my opinion |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Oct 25, 2023 20:06:17 GMT -6
When you get down to the 3 LBBs, there isn't much there that is even copyrightable. And a lot of what is, is covered by the 5th ed CC version (like the names of the stats and spells in sequence order). Disney (another "evil empire") is kind of showing us the way and how far you can push the "mechanics can't be copyrighted" mantra. The whole text of the 3LBBs is copyright, as claimed on the title page of each booklet. But all that means is: I can't literally copy the text verbatim as it appears in the 3LBBs. Whether the full, formal process of registering the copyright was followed in 1974 has been raised by members here, but it probably wouldn't practically mean much either way. FWIW, there was a detailed discussion on what is/is not copyrightable recently on these boards here. The relevant concern for DD V5 is RC's point toward the end that " a section by section, line by line rewrite is not a realistic goal under any scenario." (see here and my reply here). The upshot of all that for DD v5 is: I don't subscribe to the inductive reasoning that says: one copyright case was previously ruled X, therefore we can assume all future copyright cases will also be ruled X. It may turn out that way, but in my mind we're not there yet. In terms of what terminology is included in the 5e SRD, see my comparison of what is and isn't covered here. The crucial part of that comparison I still need to complete is a list of the more general game terms from OD&D. This is harder because there isn't a nice neat list of terms already pre-prepared as an SRD document. I'd have to go find all the terms, which is itself a bit of a mission. But even without formally assembling a complete list, we already know from passing observation that a material portion of the terminology in (what I'll call) CM-era OD&D doesn't appear in either the 3e/3.5e or the 5e SRDs. Terms like M2M, FCT, ACS, fighting capability, normal combat, fantastic combat, normal-heroic-fantastic, simultaneous movement system, turn segment, melee range, first blow, counter blow, weapon class, etc. etc. are all missing. Not to mention other key terminology related to dungeon and wilderness content generation. That stuff just isn't in the 5e SRD. Nor, for that matter, was it in the 3.5e SRD, and this is important. It means that the OGL-based retro clones which did include these CM-related game words were already incorporating materials outside the coverage of the 3.5e SRD anyways. So, either we "got away with something" largely because WotC didn't know about it, or WotC knew about it all along and simply didn't care. I think the latter is reasonably likely. Hobby publishing is just too small to bother them, is more or less impossible to police and would be a public relations nightmare, and falls outside the digital/micro-transactions business model WotC appears to be pursuing anyway. So, moving on. It seems that a DDv5 published under the CC/5e SRD would have approximately the same protection/coverage as DDv4 had under the OGL/3.5e SRD. That both include CM/OD&D material outside these SRDs has only become a concern for V5 NOW (as opposed to not being a concern for V4 previously) because WotC has demonstrated how willing they are to throw the fans and hobbyists to the lions the moment they imagine they see a dollar sign. Given DD is more a hobby than a commercial interest I think it's unlikely to ever attract any real notice. The more plausible risk is being swept up in some broader effort to clear out a collection of similar publications. |
|
rhialto
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 128
|
Post by rhialto on Oct 26, 2023 3:06:16 GMT -6
The crucial part of that comparison I still need to complete is a list of the more general game terms from OD&D. This is harder because there isn't a nice neat list of terms already pre-prepared as an SRD document. I'd have to go find all the terms, which is itself a bit of a mission. But even without formally assembling a complete list, we already know from passing observation that a material portion of the terminology in (what I'll call) CM-era OD&D doesn't appear in either the 3e/3.5e or the 5e SRDs. Terms like M2M, FCT, ACS, fighting capability, normal combat, fantastic combat, normal-heroic-fantastic, simultaneous movement system, turn segment, melee range, first blow, counter blow, weapon class, etc. etc. are all missing. Not to mention other key terminology related to dungeon and wilderness content generation. That stuff just isn't in the 5e SRD. Nor, for that matter, was it in the 3.5e SRD, and this is important. It means that the OGL-based retro clones which did include these CM-related game words were already incorporating materials outside the coverage of the 3.5e SRD anyways. So, either we "got away with something" largely because WotC didn't know about it, or WotC knew about it all along and simply didn't care. I think the latter is reasonably likely. Hobby publishing is just too small to bother them, is more or less impossible to police and would be a public relations nightmare, and falls outside the digital/micro-transactions business model WotC appears to be pursuing anyway. Is it a fact that these more general CM-era OD&D terms are "well-established and defined", i.e. in the reference-referent pair they're always and ever used in a consistent way? For example, is "fighting capability" always used to refer to "number of men equivalent", and never more loosely? And if the answer is "they're used more loosely", is that grounds for stating that they're not covered by the copyright, since they're not consistently defined and used? |
|
rayotus
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 123
|
Post by rayotus on Oct 26, 2023 8:37:31 GMT -6
"The whole text of the 3LBBs is copyright..."
Correct. The _text_ is copyrighted. I hope I didn't imply otherwise. I just don't see the text as the game. The mechanisms, separate from their expression, is what I was referring to as not copyrightable (despite any labels to the contrary).
|
|
|
|
Post by talassa on Oct 26, 2023 9:38:42 GMT -6
I agree with rayotus. Mechanics can’t be copyrighted, only the literary expression thereof. Also, we know that a lot of terms from Chainmail were not original. For instance, “First blow” appears in the Ancient War Game Rules by Phil Barker, at least since published in Wargamer’s Newsletter, 51, June 1966, if not earlier. Also, we can find more concepts like “Charging” in Medieval Wargame Rules, published by the same author in Wargamer’s Newsletter, 55, October 1966. We can see expressions like “man to man”, “melee”, “shake”, “arrow fire”, “turn”, mentioned there, the wargame hobby was very open with terminology cross-pollination, we can find many more more examples that predate the publication of Chainmail, and I believe to be very difficult to claim a copyright to the usage of words or combination of words which have a general and understandable meaning by all, like those and many others like “fighting capability” (which I believe can’t be object of copyright but which in any case can easily be renamed as “fighting skill”, etc). . |
|
