Homebrew and the Open Gaming License

[Grinner]

So, I've recently started writing up a homebrew base class. I've also been thinking about making an attempt at writing third party material, and I would love to make use of some of the work made here.

This got me thinking about the legal aspects of d20 authorship. Since most of the homebrew here is derived from the d20 system, that material is arguably under the purview of the OGL. But honestly? I personally would feel awful about exploiting others' work like that, given that they're often works of the community.

What your thoughts on the matter?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

So, I've recently started writing up a homebrew base class. I've also been thinking about making an attempt at writing third party material, and I would love to make use of some of the work made here.

This got me thinking about the legal aspects of d20 authorship. Since most of the homebrew here is derived from the d20 system, that material is arguably under the purview of the OGL. But honestly? I personally would feel awful about exploiting others' work like that, given that they're often works of the community.

What your thoughts on the matter?

On the first part (since giving legal advice is against forum rules), I'd recommend reading the OGL yourself. I don't think that anything not specifically included in the OGL (which would include homebrew material) is by default OGL, but I wouldn't presume to be sure. Definitely check it out for yourself.

On the subject of social niceties, I'd definitely ask a homebrewer before using any part of their material, and would probably ask before making derivative work (i.e. making material for a new spell-casting system they have by making extra spells to fit into that system). In the latter case (an addition rather than actually incorporating their work into my own), I might just give them credit for the original idea and link to the work in question, but if I actually have to lift anything of their own work, I'll definitely ask in advance. It's only polite.

[Grinner]

On the first part (since giving legal advice is against forum rules), I'd recommend reading the OGL yourself. I don't think that anything not specifically included in the OGL (which would include homebrew material) is by default OGL, but I wouldn't presume to be sure. Definitely check it out for yourself.

Thing is, I never took Speak Language(Legalese). I got it totally wrong the last time I tried it.

I do know that it excludes everything but mechanics, unless otherwise stated.

On the subject of social niceties, I'd definitely ask a homebrewer before using any part of their material, and would probably ask before making derivative work (i.e. making material for a new spell-casting system they have by making extra spells to fit into that system). In the latter case (an addition rather than actually incorporating their work into my own), I might just give them credit for the original idea and link to the work in question, but if I actually have to lift anything of their own work, I'll definitely ask in advance. It's only polite.

Agreed on both points.

Except maybe the latter one....I've seen a ton of skinwalker PrCs here, but the concept is by no means an original idea. I suppose it would depend upon the originality of the idea, for me at least.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Except maybe the latter one....I've seen a ton of skinwalker PrCs here, but the concept is by no means an original idea. I suppose it would depend upon the originality of the idea, for me at least.

There's a difference between lifting a rather generic idea, and lifting exact mechanics and/or a non-specific idea. For example: a fey-themed Binder PrC isn't something I have a monopoly on. But if someone made something close in concept/execution to the Seiðkona of the Iron Bands, I'd probably ask them nicely in a PM if they had made their creation completely independently, and request some sort of credit if the answer was no. In short, general flavor/concept isn't unique, unless it's something really unusual or really specific, in which case it might be worth looking into.

[erikun]

Thing is, I never took Speak Language(Legalese). I got it totally wrong the last time I tried it.

I do know that it excludes everything but mechanics, unless otherwise stated.

Honestly, what I've heard about printing books is that it involves money, regardless of if you are printing it yourself or someone else is printing it for you. You'd be best spending a bit on someone who can read it over and tell you in plain english what you can and cannot include.

I think it only covers specific material in specific books, but haven't read it myself. I would not assume, for example, that the mechanics for Binders or Warblades was automatically OGL-available.

[Grinner]

Honestly, what I've heard about printing books is that it involves money, regardless of if you are printing it yourself or someone else is printing it for you. You'd be best spending a bit on someone who can read it over and tell you in plain english what you can and cannot include.

I think it only covers specific material in specific books, but haven't read it myself. I would not assume, for example, that the mechanics for Binders or Warblades was automatically OGL-available.

Here's the trick. Each D&D 3.5 book typically has a paragraph on the copyright page which indicates the presence of OGL content.

All third party sourcebooks, being derived from the d20 SRD and/or other sourcebooks, have some OGL content. However, all official D&D sourcebooks I've seen state "This book contains no Open Game Content." So I imagine D&D is separate from the SRD, despite being utterly compatible with it.

For those interested, the designation of Open Game Content is sometimes integrated into the mandatory OGL notice at the back of each sourcebook.

[erikun]

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, but I wouldn't start thinking that you can get away with legal loopholes in the same way that you can with optimization rules-lawyering.

[Grinner]

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, but I wouldn't start thinking that you can get away with legal loopholes in the same way that you can with optimization rules-lawyering.

Actually, I'm saying quite the opposite. I *cannot* make use of any of the official stuff not already listed in the SRD, at least in a commercial capacity.

[Yitzi]

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, but I wouldn't start thinking that you can get away with legal loopholes in the same way that you can with optimization rules-lawyering.

Actually, with a good DM, you can't get away with the latter either. (Well, except in the cases where you can in the former.)

[Straybow]

I can give a counter-example to the idea that OGL excludes mechanics. OSRIC is built on SRD, is OGL except for a few terms and features, and contains mechanics that are OGL. They aren't part of WotC OGL material, but each publisher can designate any original materials as OGL.

It is the d20 license that specifically prohibits inclusion of leveling/advancing mechanics. OSRIC does not have a d20 license and includes leveling mechanics that are mostly OGL.

WotC has a FAQ section. At one time (a quick search didn't turn it up) it included a mention of an unnamed publisher using the d20 license who included a completely unlabeled table of numbers that the reader might deduce to be a level-xp table. Because no text referred to it as such it did not violate the d20 license.