Can someone explain the OGL?

[Koji]

So, if I'm reading it right, the OGL defines all of the SRD content as basically "open source," meaning that anyone can use, in part or in full and in any medium, any of the SRD in any way they choose, either for fun or for profit?

I'm guessing this was done so that outside companies can make splat books and modules without having to pay Wizards, but is this also what allows Rich, for example, to publish and sell OoTS, or is OoTS defined as parody?

That said, how far does the OGL cover gaming entrepreneurs? Could someone get a cartoon about mephits on Fox without dealing with Wizards, but get sued out the ass as soon as a Warlock showed up? It seems kind of odd that Wizards would just put themselves out there like that. I understand that they know that 3rd party modules and minis means more fun for D&D players which might mean more Wizards books get purchased, but why put Tojanidas in the SRD and not Illithids? Is it just a matter of "You can't really copyright goblins if you didn't invent them"?

And how far back does this go? Did this start with 3.0?

[Matthew]

The SRD is a D&D 3.0 innovation. It basically does as you indicate, makes it possible for third party publishers to make use of previously closed content. The exact limits of what may and may not be done with the material are yet to be fully tested. Its use for the development of OSRIC seems to be the most interesting development so far. There are a number of articles available on the web, just do a Google Search for them.

[Jasdoif]

The OotS question is answered in this site's FAQ. The OGL FAQ covers a lot of your other questions.

[TheOOB]

Basically, you can directly use most of the rules (crunch not fluff) present in the PHB, DMG, MM, and Unearthed Arcana to play the game or make your own game material. Anything you make using the OGL is still your own property, and you can even profit from it without needed wizards prior concent.

I highly suggest you read the official info on it (the link to the FAQ is in the above post), as the OGL is one of the greatest boons to D&D 3.x, and it's one of the reasons the d20 system is so widely used, even if it's not the best system in many circumstances.

[Koji]

I see. So in this sense, there's no reason Rich couldn't have Beholders and Illithids in his comic, because it's parody. He just used them for a legality joke.

Interesting.

[Dark]

He, in fact, did have beholders and illithid in his comic :)

[Jack Mann]

If it had really been a problem, he would have had to remove the offending comics from the archives.

[TheOOB]

Parody is a completely seperate animal from OGL. "Fair use" allows you to use most copy-righted material in the form of a parody, but theres a lot of legal grey area around there.

Suffice it to say even if WotC cared about the Giant using the mindflayer and beholder in his strip(which i highly doubt they do), they probally couldn't do anything about unless they wanted to get into a legal battle which frankly isn't worth it (and they would probally lose if the Giant got a halfway decent lawyer).

[Darrin]

I see. So in this sense, there's no reason Rich couldn't have Beholders and Illithids in his comic, because it's parody. He just used them for a legality joke.

Interesting.

You have to be careful with WotC trademarks... in particular, there's a huge difference between the OGL and the d20 license. WotC kept certain things out of the SRD that it considers part of it's "intellectual property".

And "parody" is not an automatic defense for copyright or trademark infringement. It's an active defense, which generally means you have to defend and prove your interpretation of "fair use" in court. Just because it's supposed to be funny doesn't necessarily mean it's parody or satire. Determining what exactly is allowed via fair use is one of those "gray areas" in IP law, which usually means whoever pays their lawyers the most wins.

[Zincorium]

Yeah, with all the cross-traffic between OotS and WotC, it's not as if they wouldn't find out about it, so the fact that the comic is still there is proof they're allowing that single instance without a fuss. As far as I can tell, Rich seems to take the issue seriously, and I doubt he'd leave it up if it's legality was in question.

[TheOOB]

Besides, in this circumstance worse case scenerio is that WotC asks him to remove the offending comics, it wouldn't even effect the continuity.