Talk:Open Game License

Open gaming

If any editors familiar with the OGL, and with "open gaming" in general, would like to visit the Talk:Open gaming page and participate in the current discussion, your time and expewrtise would be greatly appreciated. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 19:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

References needed for criticism section

Almost the entire Criticism section of this article is currently unreferenced. Particularly troublesome is that talks about "various" sources making specific complaints about the OGL without actually citing specifically which person or which group is making which complaint and where editors can go to verify the complaint was made. So that section badly needs cited, verifiable references to back up who is specifically making what criticism about the OGL. Dugwiki 21:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And now the "Criticism" section is completely missing. But there is a BIG one: game rules are not copyrightable at all. So all the license grants is the use of a trademark. All the rest is just bogus; granting you rights you already had (or even taking away some). Seegras (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wizards' own FAQ section on the OGL includes questions such as "Does this mean Wizards can take my work and profit from it? Isn't that unfair?" IMHO, the criticisms that were levelled in the old version, though uncited, were certainly valid and important -- would-be licensees may come into this page looking for a non-legalese explanation of the rules.

Does anyone know anything about the implications of dual-licensing under the OGL? Smoke003723 (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Criticism section is in serious need of reinstatement. There is nothing mentioning how many believe the OGL to be a move, spearheaded by Ryan Dancey, to trick other companies into unwittingly giving away their rights as defined by US copyright law. The OGL claims to give rights (and limited rights, at that) to something that everyone already has the full, unlimited right to do under US law: that is, the right to copy game mechanics ( see: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html ).

24.78.202.178 (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyleft?

How exactly is this copyleft?

Under a copyleft form of copyright license, the restrictions imposed are that the work can be copied, modified or used in any subsequent work if, and only if, the author of that subsequent work agrees to grant the same copyleft rights to the public to freely copy, use and modify the subsequent work.

While the OGL clearly states you cannot use their works in a subsequent work made using the OGL

7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity,

Doesn't that contradict it being copyleft?

So what exactly is the OGL? Sounds like nothing more than giving permission to create something so long as it doesn't infringe on copyright...which is the same as not having the OGL in the first place. So is Wizards claiming they have the right to sue for anyone creating something without including their OGL to it? It Wizards basically just trying to gain access to freely use 3rd party material without paying for it? shadzar|Talk|contribs 08:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The OGL allows other content producers to use Wizard's D20 system (explicitly rather than ambiguously) and D20 trademark on their publications. This normally wouldn't be allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.48.5.2 (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, the trademark issues have nothing to do with the OGL; those fall under the distinct (and now, defunct) d20 System Trademark license. That being said, to back up the prior poster and clarify, only a portion of a work would be specified as "Product Identity", a term invented by the license. The remainder of the material would be "Open Game Content", which can be reproduced ad infinatum without further permissions from the copyright holder, and requiring preservation of those rights. That fits the definition per the Copyleft article. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability tag removed

I removed the notability tag from this article. The edit note indicated that it was added because the article didn't have sufficient references. That's not the correct tag to use in these cases, since there is a difference between being of questionable notability and not having enough references. The correct tag to use in a case where there aren't enough references is the "refimprove" tag, which I added to the article. Rray (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The notability of OGL is still in doubt because the sources cited do not meet the reliabilty requirements of WP:RS. The sources cited at the time of writing are:

1. An interview with the vice president of the publisher of OGL;
2. A blog, which is self-published;
3. A FAQ, issued by the publisher of OGL.

Please restore the Notability cleanup template which was placed on the article to address these issues, which should be left there until evidence of noability in the form of citations from reliable sources can be found.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Context tag

I've removed the context tag, as I think the introduction provides context. If someone still thinks insufficient context is provided, feel free to re-add the tag or (better yet), rewrite the intro to provide the additional context that is needed. Rray (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

4th edition GSL/OGL/SRD?

does something need to be placed here or anywhere regarding these things? the special conference i think that was in a podcast and the article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a) on wizards website stated a few things, but nothing has been heard since about this. should it be noted that the OGL may be changing with 4th edition. or at least a new OGL specifically for 4th edition will exist seperately form the 3.x OGL and SRD? shadzar-talk 02:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

so no one has any idea on what if anything should be included about the several month old information about the new OGl that requires a fee to use? wouldn't that be a closed gaming license since only businesses with the $5000 USD are allowed to have acess to "OGL" amterial with the new editon? shadzar-talk 22:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

ok so now new information has come about the D&D 4E GSL. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080417a shadzar-talk 21:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Be bold. If you see something that needs doing, go ahead and do it. I'll add something using your source. =Axlq 13:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am adding if/when information becomes available, but I do not understand legal stuf enough to add too much about a license. Currently there is a new version of the license being created and I also have little to no ability to cite things and ever get them to work in wikipedia as references. Thanks for looking into adding something for this. shadzar-talk 17:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Mutual Exclusivity and "Compatibility" of OGL and GSL

The article reads the "The GSL is incompatible with the previous OGL. The GSL directly prohibits material to be published both under the GSL (compatible with 4th Edition) as well as the OGL (compatible with 3rd Edition and Edition 3.5)."

According to the 4E GSL FAQ "There is no provision in the GSL preventing the of use [sic] the OGL but publishers must take care to not assume content in the OGL SRD is the same as like-named content in the GSL SRD."

I read this to be a warning against confusing like terms between the two licenses, not a prohibition against releasing material that utilizes both licenses. If, for example, a publisher were to release a product which includes GSL references then they could still release the non-GSL portions of that product under the OGL.

I think this is merely a matter of precision: Wikipedia's prominence as a reference tool necessitates rigorous attention to such precise details. In the absence of further discussion (or objections) I will edit the article to more accurately reflect the relationship between the OGL and the GSL. highmind89 (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, dude. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Notes on large edit of Aug 8 - 9, 2010

Just cleaning it up a bit. But as I worked I realized it needed a lot of work.

The introduction gave to much background and didn't explain the significance of the document. The change I made was to rephrase the introduction to a brief explanation of the of the significance of the OGL and to take all the other things that were previously included in the intro and create a new section titled "background"

Next, I have removed he section about the GSL as related to wizards. even though the same sort of document it has no direct relevance to this topic, outside of a tangent off its background. I have noted and linked it to the background section.

I added to the "terms" section missing info and clarification. Then split "terms" in two renamed it and expanded the new section for completeness and removed some inaccuracy from both sections

Now I moved the Background section beneath the use section and finished for the night.

I realize these are a lot of things all at once, but please refrain from reverting just based on that. If you don't understand what was changed, please let me know first and I'll better explain it to you.Ken Zug (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a frequently edited article, so I'm sure no one will mind the changes, but good work! :) 24.148.0.83 (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Explanation by Ryan Dancey of the business logic used by Wizards of the Coast to decide to implement the OGL.

I found a post by Ryan Dancey in a forum thread where he explains very clearly why WotC decided to publish AD&D 3E with the OGL. The following link should take you straight to the post but if not it is #90 in the thread and was posted on 04-05-2014 at 04:50 PM according to the timestamp.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?29328-Have-Hasbro-WotC-ever-sued-or-threatened-a-retro-clone-publisher-or-author&s=e2b1916c0f39dec6d8029b22e7791239&p=741115&viewfull=1#post741115

While the entire post is well worth reading, the most informative part is where Dancy states:

We also knew that the market was structurally unsound. For many reasons there were millions of people playing tabletop RPGs but we estimated the number of people buying tabletop RPGs in the low tens of thousands. That much overhang was an indication that the market was fundamentally failing to deliver products that the consumers were willing to buy. The industry had gone down various rabbit holes and was printing itself into oblivion.

So the OGL/d20 project was a part of a multi-pronged Hail Mary. Absolutely horrific conditions are the only time a business will try insanely ridiculous strategies.

I think it is inarguable that the strategy paid off. If you had told retailers in 1999 that in 2001 they would be stocking their shelves with new RPG products from dozens of new publishers and that RPGs would triple or quadruple their sales, they'd have laughed you out of the room. But that's exactly what happened.

I'm not exactly sure how to work this into the article but I think it is worth trying to do. There is of course two problems: Needing to verify this source (forum postings are not normally reliable) for WP standards and possibly some sort of correspondence with Dancey to confirm the information in the post and that he is in fact the author of that post. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 23:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a good read. There's some nice details in there, but as you say using it's very tricky. Has Dancey been published? He's a significant primary source, but it would be helpful if we could document that somehow. Correspondence with him would still need to meet WP:V, which can be very difficult. Hmm... Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Footnote Q - how can reference be retrieved BEFORE it's archived.

The second footnote states:

Cook, Monte. "The Open Game License as I See It". Archived from the original on 2007-05-01. Retrieved 2007-03-15.

How could it be retrieved on 3/15/07 when it wasn't archived until 5/1/07? Ileanadu (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably an error? The retrieved date is largely irrelevant anyway, and can probably be removed. 2601:241:4280:161:1997:5915:5006:9454 (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Exported to RPG Museum

On 8 August 2020, the Open Game License page and its complete edit history has been exported from here and imported at RPG Museum (page link), a growing wiki on Fandom that intends to be a resource for all tabletop RPGs. RPG Museum is using this content under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Thanks, all! -- Supermorff (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Added Section Breaks

Challenging to say if anybody reads this much, yet added section breaks to main article. There's a lot of info in here, may try to propagate it over to GSL and main article. Talk is longer than article. Course, not helped by WotC deleting their website every year. Araesmojo (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Game System License here, given the overlap since the GSL is essentially the 4th Edition OGL and the differences can be addressed in the history section. The OGL article would be stronger when combined with the GSL article as it shows the direct develop of the open game system (from the 3E OGL to the 4E GSL and then back to OGL with 5E D&D). Additionally, the GSL article is entirely sourced by primary sources and is vulnerable to AfD. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. They are not the same thing. Indeed, the fact is the GSL is quite opposite from the OGL in both licensing terms and underlying mentality. The OGL is also used by numerous RPGs outside D&D, and this is an article on the OGL specifically, not the licensing of D&D so adding the GSL would be undue here in so many ways. Not a good idea. oknazevad (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Deauthorization of OGL1.0a

Responding to this comment: Again removed non-sequitur regarding "de-authorization" as subject is not covered in this article. Under Open Game License#One D&D, I highlighted that Codega's initial article calls out deauthorization (Linda Codega, for Io9 in January 2023, reported on the details from a leaked full copy of the OGL 1.1 including updated terms such as no longer authorizing use of the OGL1.0) followed by Dancey's statement on the issue. Which is why I then quoted another reporter's take on deauthorization in the impact section as questions around it keep being raised by those reporting on the issue. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Combine redundancies and disjointed narrative

let's be honest, much of the blow-by-blow needs to be trimmed down per WP:NOTNEWS anyway, but the entire OGL 1.1 and 1.2 sections belong solely in the history section. The purpose of the lower OGL section was to talk about the long-term effects of the use of the license in industry. The scrapped revisions which never went live at all have no such effect. They don't need separate sections.

And the Game System License section does not belong on this page at all. Because, as I said above, this article is about the OGL. It is not about the licensing history of D&D. Yes, the two are related, but they are not synonymous. In fact, one of the reasons the scrapped OGL changes were so controversial is because the OGL is used by many non-D&D games and the makers of those would be adversely affected as they would not be able to continue using it even without using anything D&D specific.oknazevad (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I changed the heading from Impact to Reception and added more clarity in subheadings. I think the scrapped revisions need separate sections because the reaction to each led to the next (as outlined in this NPR article). I also don't think the unfolding of events falls under WP:ROUTINE. I'm not the best at trimming quotes but I'm totally okay if you'd like to take the lead on that. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It's still far too much of a blow-by-blow news passage, and entirely too bloated with unimportant editorial opinions of random columnists. It needs far more than a surgical trimming. It needs a hacksaw taken to it. And it should all be in the history, as it was part of the ongoing events. They scrapped 1.1 and 1.2 had zero impact other than them being soundly rejected by the fans and the industry, resulting in their being dropped like a rock. Excessive analysis that's added and never reworked is a sign of someone using an article as a news aggregator for the topic.

Honestly, I hate the organization of this article. The history section is about D&D's edition history, not the license, which remained widely in use even when D&D 4E was using the GSL (which again, is not the OGL). Pathfinder should not be relegated to an afterthought in the reception section. It's a massive part of why the license remained relevant throughout. The whole article needs an overhaul. oknazevad (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It might be a better idea to rename the article to a more appropriate umbrella title and re-scope it, or create a new umbrella article and move some of this content over there. I can't think of a non-clumsy article title at the moment, but something along the lines of Open licensing in tabletop role-playing games or Licensing of tabletop roleplaying games. This might help eliminate any WP:COATRACK issues. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. This article needs to be trimmed to focus on the actual subject instead of being treated as a coat rack. First and foremost, let's get rid of the edition headers. It's not Editions of Dungeons & Dragons. Secondly, let's combine the bloated subsections on the reaction to the 1.1 and 1.2 proposals to the history section, trimming them extensively to remove the excessive op-ed quotes and stick to the facts. Fact is, they had no long term-impact on the use of the license as they were abandoned before being implemented, and no material has ever been licensed under them. The news coverage of the events is in the wrong section, period.

And thirdly, let's understand that the only real impact those proposals had was strong, near-universal rejection to the point that WOTC had to outright abandon them and any plans to revoke the OGL 1.0, which would have been the actual impactful move. The main issue wasn't D&D being licensed under some other terms, though that would have probably resulted in a collapse of the third-party D&D content market as happened during the last time WOTC made a version of D&D under a different license (4E under the Game System License). It was the fact that unilaterally deauthorizing the OGL 1.0 would have made it unavailable to publishers who have been using it for non-D&D games for decades. Pathfinder may be the most prominent, but it is hardly the only one, and many others have nothing to do with the fantasy genre or D&D mechanics. The fact is that ubiquity should be the crux of the impact section. oknazevad (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @The Wordsmith's idea of renaming and expanding the scope (ie. something like Dungeons & Dragons licensing). A few years ago I proposed merging Game System License & Open Game License but there wasn't much of a discussion (see above #Merger proposal). If we went with "Dungeons & Dragons licensing", it should be the result of merging the OGL & GSL articles because it shows the iterations of licensing D&D for its various editions; we could probably also split out the D&D stuff from System Reference Document and move the single non-D&D sentence to Open gaming. I do think it would be better to a have a single, well sourced article that shows the evolution/impact of D&D licenses as a whole for the reader rather than a bunch of shorter, weaker articles. Lots of D&D articles use the D&D Editions as a way to break the history into chunks but if you want to do year ranges, I don't see the harm in that. The structure of the article (history and reception/impact) is a fairly common way to make a distinction between facts and critical analysis (where there are multiple points of view) but if you want to mock up a draft with a different structure, that would be reasonable. Also, I'm still open to another editor taking the lead on doing a copy-edit/trim.

I disagree that the most recent events are being treated as a coat rack. I think the distinction between OGL 1.1 & 1.2 is important because it shows that Wizards didn't immediately capitulate to fan backlash. Regarding "Pathfinder may be the most prominent, but it is hardly the only one, and many others have nothing to do with the fantasy genre or D&D mechanics. The fact is that ubiquity should be the crux of the impact section", feel free to showcase that if you can find the sources. I did periodically do research to improve this article before the current round of OGL stuff and it was struggle to find sources. The recent events are the most coverage the topic has ever received but some of those articles do look retrospectively so you might have luck there. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Just occurred to me but isn't the point of the d20 System article to showcase the development of all the games using that system under the OGL? I'm unclear with how much overlap @Oknazevad was aiming for or what distinctions they wanted between these articles. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

My point is this article is about the license and its use across the industry, not the licensing of one game. That's why I opposed the merger proposal then and think too much focus on recent events is a bad idea. I also think we don't need multiple sections about a single series of events; an appropriate level of coverage can be condensed into a subsection of the history section titles something along the lines of "proposed replacement". The main thrust of my comments remains that the current breakout creates a disjointed reading experience. oknazevad (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Share alike / virality - not true, delete?

Article says OGL is viral (it has share-alike property), but there is no citation to this and I've just went through the OGL twice (and consulted a lawyer friend on top of that) and I found nothing indicating virality (nor did my lawyer friend). As a matter of fact as I read it OGL allows "pure takers" who just take OGL content, attribute it properly under OGL but who then license nothing back. Unless somebody points out specific part of the OGL which indicates virality and/or source proving this part in fact causes virality, then I suggest to delete this information from the article as false/misleading. If I just missed something then I'll be happy to stay corrected - in that case clarification and citation should be added into the article. Sirien.neiris (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)