|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Sept 11, 2019 0:19:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Sept 11, 2019 20:01:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Sept 11, 2019 20:33:28 GMT -5
I will say this, the blog posts and the two Enworld threads make me really glad I am not a lawyer. That is all painful to read, but it is interesting, though I am skipping parts of it.
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Sept 11, 2019 21:05:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Sept 11, 2019 21:06:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Sept 11, 2019 21:50:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2019 6:50:54 GMT -5
I am really torn on stuff like this. On the one hand gaming is really a lot of do it yourself, vital to the popularity and depth of many folks creativity. On the other is the need to protect intellectual property. I am firmly on WOTC's side
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Sept 12, 2019 13:27:46 GMT -5
Yeah, I do not think anything good will come of this. And now to learn that this all dates back to 2015, but WotC just contacted him in 2019. He deletes the all encompassing file (at least that is what is says) that he posted back in 2015, but now he says he was asked to do that but refuses to, when from the blog posts it looks like he already did just that previously. I know if I were on a jury I would be pretty skeptical. As much as I think current copyright law is a severe overreach, at least in terms of how long it runs, I do not think this is going to be helpful.
|
|
|
Post by jeremy on Sept 14, 2019 6:23:13 GMT -5
Frylock's analysis involves what appear to me to be some errors and conflations, some hasty generalizations, and some shaky inferences stated as if they're the only legally correct conclusion. The idea that the OGL isn't a license because its subject matter isn't copyrightable is belied by his own admission that at least some of the SRD's Open Game Content contains original expression of game rules. Game rules aren't copyrightable, but specific expressions of them are (allowing for some limits), and I expect any court having to determine the enforceability of the OGL would conclude that its subject matter is the expression of game rules embodied in the SRD.
Assessment Technologies is interesting, because it does speak to the real issue at hand, namely stat blocks. I think he's wrong to say the SRD contains no copyrightable material and the OGL is not a license because it confers no rights. But, the issue between Frylock and WotC is whether certain specific parts of the SRD are copyrightable. Assessment Technologies is about noncopyrightable tabular data embedded in otherwise copyrightable material. So that's on point, and I think his argument so far as it pertains to numerical data in stat blocks is plausible. Even there, though, I think he hasn't been careful enough about adverting to the limits of his argument. Does it really extend to the prose statements of monster abilities and spell effects? I'm not sure the answer is as obvious as he pretends.
I find that, in these posts, Frylock expresses himself as if copyright was all or nothing. Either WotC has all the rights they claim, or no rights at all. Either the SRD is copyrightable in its entirety or else no part of it is. The law doesn't work that way. I'm also suspicious of his excuses for misstating the law that he's just trying to simplify for laymen. How does it help anyone understand the law when you misstate it? I think he's just not as clever as he thinks he is.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 14, 2019 9:16:57 GMT -5
Frylock's analysis involves what appear to me to be some errors and conflations, some hasty generalizations, and some shaky inferences stated as if they're the only legally correct conclusion. The idea that the OGL isn't a license because its subject matter isn't copyrightable is belied by his own admission that at least some of the SRD's Open Game Content contains original expression of game rules. Game rules aren't copyrightable, but specific expressions of them are (allowing for some limits), and I expect any court having to determine the enforceability of the OGL would conclude that its subject matter is the expression of game rules embodied in the SRD. Assessment Technologies is interesting, because it does speak to the real issue at hand, namely stat blocks. I think he's wrong to say the SRD contains no copyrightable material and the OGL is not a license because it confers no rights. But, the issue between Frylock and WotC is whether certain specific parts of the SRD are copyrightable. Assessment Technologies is about noncopyrightable tabular data embedded in otherwise copyrightable material. So that's on point, and I think his argument so far as it pertains to numerical data in stat blocks is plausible. Even there, though, I think he hasn't been careful enough about adverting to the limits of his argument. Does it really extend to the prose statements of monster abilities and spell effects? I'm not sure the answer is as obvious as he pretends. I find that, in these posts, Frylock expresses himself as if copyright was all or nothing. Either WotC has all the rights they claim, or no rights at all. Either the SRD is copyrightable in its entirety or else no part of it is. The law doesn't work that way. I'm also suspicious of his excuses for misstating the law that he's just trying to simplify for laymen. How does it help anyone understand the law when you misstate it? I think he's just not as clever as he thinks he is. you make some good points, I think it comes down to the fact that we don't really want the OGL in court due to it possibly being withdrawn if WOTC needs to. That is a very possible outcome we don't want
|
|
|
Post by jeremy on Sept 14, 2019 9:44:09 GMT -5
you make some good points, I think it comes down to the fact that we don't really want the OGL in court due to it possibly being withdrawn if WOTC needs to. That is a very possible outcome we don't want I'm not sure what kind of scenario you're envisioning, but as far as I can tell, if WotC were to withdraw the license it would have negligible effect. Suppose they decided no longer to offer the SRD under OGL. Well, any future publisher can still use any of the many, many sources from existing licensees that replicate it. Nothing in the license permits them to terminate it for existing licensees. For example, d20srd.org would still be around and still under OGL, just as before. The cows are out, as was fully contemplated when WotC opened this barn door in 2000.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Sept 14, 2019 20:10:47 GMT -5
you make some good points, I think it comes down to the fact that we don't really want the OGL in court due to it possibly being withdrawn if WOTC needs to. That is a very possible outcome we don't want I'm not sure what kind of scenario you're envisioning, but as far as I can tell, if WotC were to withdraw the license it would have negligible effect. Suppose they decided no longer to offer the SRD under OGL. Well, any future publisher can still use any of the many, many sources from existing licensees that replicate it. Nothing in the license permits them to terminate it for existing licensees. For example, d20srd.org would still be around and still under OGL, just as before. The cows are out, as was fully contemplated when WotC opened this barn door in 2000. I would agree. IIRC the OGL cannot be rescinded and I cannot believe that any court would buy the argument that it is not a valid document. Especially when so many people have been happily using it and we are all still free to try to write and sell/give away games without using the OGL. This has mostly flown under the old school radar as it is primarily concerning 5E. Outside of his blog and Enworld, I have not found much discussion elsewhere. IMO he is wasting his time and money to pick a fight for no reason with ultimately Hasbro.
|
|
|
Post by xizallian on Jun 30, 2021 17:58:40 GMT -5
As near as I can tell nothing ever came of this. I am wondering if it was all a publicity stunt?
|
|