Integration into ScummVm project?

[Guest Guest]

I can pass you Ryan Dancey's e-mail (he was the author of the OGL, and was product manager of D&D under Wizards/Hasbro when it was implemented) and you can discuss it with him at greater length, but his opinion was clear and firm--not only can you not make OGL video games, but you can't pair OGL with GPL (or any other license) either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The WOTC website is extremely confusing when it comes to licenses. The link for the d20 system license goes to a *trademark* license, so it would appear that only the OGL applies if you don't want to use their trademarks, but if you *do*, then you have to comply with the - vastly stricter - terms of the d20 trademark license. I imagine Ryan Dancey was talking about products which advertise d20 compatibility, in which case making interactive games is forbidden.

 

The OGL allows making games (it's explicitly mentioned in the FAQ), however it doesn't allow anybody to say things like "this is d20 compatible", or presumably "this can be used with the original Baldur's Gate data files". That last part might be a little problematic . Anybody wishing to indicate compatibility with d20 or any other product or trademark has to get explicit permission from the rights holder.

 

There is however a 30 day grace period between being told "you're not in compliance with the license", and legal action being taken. If it came to it that would probably be a good time to disavow any connection or compatibility with any previously existing games...

[Waywocket]

That last post was by me. At some point the forum seems to have forgotten I was logged in.

[Avenger]

The problem is that while GemRB is not a commercial endeavour, it is GPL-ed, which means it may be commercial.

Also, I cannot deny that it is compatible with the Infinity Engine, since the whole point of GemRB is to create a compatible but more moddable engine

And finally, we cannot even say GemRB isn't for new games, as it was definitely created to allow advanced TC's (which wouldn't run with the original engine).

 

But GemRB is not an 'AD&D engine' in a sense, it could be made compatible with any of those variations and rulesets, and many more, by 'reasonable people'.

[jcompton]

The link for the d20 system license goes to a *trademark* license, so it would appear that only the OGL applies if you don't want to use their trademarks, but if you *do*, then you have to comply with the - vastly stricter - terms of the d20 trademark license. I imagine Ryan Dancey was talking about products which advertise d20 compatibility, in which case making interactive games is forbidden.

 

Your assessment is incorrect.

 

I understand the distinction between the d20 System License and the OGL. Having already eliminated the d20 System License from consideration due to its clear ruling against video games, my conversation with Dancey was about the OGL.

 

The OGL allows making games (it's explicitly mentioned in the FAQ)

 

I have read the OGL FAQ. Yes, it dances around the issue. The OGL FAQ is not a legal document. And two intellectual property attorneys I consulted with, plus Dancey, gave me an interpretation of the actual OGL content which translates to "One cannot make OGL video games." Which, again, doesn't even matter here since (most) IE games do not use the OGL-eligible 3.x ruleset.

[NiGHTMARE]

Don't the Knights of the Old Republic games use the D20 rules?

[jcompton]

Don't the Knights of the Old Republic games use the D20 rules?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lucas holds a special license to use d20/3E rules as they relate to Star Wars universe products, and the KOTOR games are produced under that license. According to my contact at Wizards licensing, it is the single exception to the Infogrames d20 System exclusivity.

 

In any event, the Lucas/Hasbro deal is not a "public" license in the sense that d20 System and OGL are.

[JPS]

I freely admit that I've never even looked at the OGL before today, and that the people I've talked to who have looked into it have only been interested in making ordinary pen-and-paper roleplaying games, but as far as I understand, you do not have to release all of your game's content under the same license, just the parts that you are actually "borrowing".

 

If you make a pen-and-paper game using OGL materlai, the deal seem to be that the parts of the rules that are used under the OGL have to be clearly marked as such, and, naturally, have to follow all of the conditions of the license. The rest of your game is yours, and you can do whatever you like with it, including releasing it for other people to reuse under a more or less restrictive license (but in this case you would presumably have to make very clear that your license only covers parts that you have written yourself, and not the OGL parts)*.

 

To me, that would seem to indicate that you can write the core game engine in whatever way you like, as long as all of the OGL material is in human-readable form. If all of the ruleset-specific material really does end up in 2da files, and you explain in the readme that these files can be opened with any text editor, it would seem to me that you could make a GemRB-like** engine and still follow the license

 

The Open Game License isn't terribly complicated, really, but if you choose to hold the opinions of copyright lawyers higher than those of some guy on the internet, I do not blame you.

_______________________________________

 

Footnotes:

 

*Does the GPL have to cover all of a program released udner it? Or would it be possible to release the core engine under the GPL and the 2da files under, say, the OGL? And am I the only one who wishes that people would use the full name of the licences at least once in a thread where they're discussed?

 

**But not the actual GemRB as it stands today, seeing how all of this

doesn't even matter here since (most) IE games do not use the OGL-eligible 3.x ruleset.

[Borsook]

I'll ask it again since it got drowned and I'm surious: will GemRB check for the original CD in the drive?

[Guest Edheldil]

Hello,

 

first of all, IANAL, English is not my mother language and Lawyer English even less so.

 

I have just read the OGL license and there's nothing which would single out the computer games or commercial distribution (on the contrary).

 

So if somebody:

- marks OGC derived content

- does not announce compatibility with product identitiy-content and does not use such

I don't see anything in OGL which would preclude a computer game.

 

Of course, DnD is *not* OGC. Wizards released SRD (System reference document), which IIRC is OGC, and it's almost a subset (or foundation) of DnD, but is not the same. Forgotten realms orPlanescape is not OGC.

 

But OGC does not concern us anyway.

 

Then there's d20 which's license is rather stricter. But it looks to me like it's needed only if you want to use d20 trademarks (e.g. "This game is d20 compatible"). It's also a subject of WOTC's approval.

 

Older games (than IWD2) use AD&D (rather customized in case of PST) and OGL does not have anything with them at all. There's some document at Wizards site which relates to conversion of pre OGL material released at their site and is rather strict too, but IMO we do not fall into that category either.

 

Which means that we are in murky waters - as long as we do not include data files or code which would mimick ADnD rules too closely, do not distribute any copyrighted content, do not use trademarks etc , we should be *imho* safe - we are not distributing nor diluting WOTC's IP, we just use what's in the original files which the user presumably bought with the original game.

 

Since we do not use OGC in GemRB, we even do not have to refrain from *some* forms of relating to trademarks as permitted in US laws I do not know. Meaning, it would be better not to try WOTC's patience too much on this subject :-).

 

But of course, IANAL and it's hard to stand fast in face of a C&D letter :/.

 

Manager conclusion: We do not breach WOTC's IP as far as I know. Do not make WOTC angry.

 

Edheldil

(hoping I made myself clear)

[jcompton]

To me, that would seem to indicate that you can write the core game engine in

whatever way you like, as long as all of the OGL material is in human-readable form.

 

Yes, I thought of that. But you have to compile code that says things like "And here is how I will interpret what a standard action is" and "Here is code that will determine who is in range to be affected by Cleave", and Dancey's point is that that compiled code is not human-readable. Which is a nasty consequence of that wording, but again, that's probably what Wizards was going for.

 

*Does the GPL have to cover all of a program released udner it?

 

That argument has been raging ever since the GPL was conceived.

[Guest Edheldil]

I'll ask it again since it got drowned and I'm surious: will GemRB check for the original CD in the drive?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I doubt it:

- the copy protection code is windows specific and we have no way to reimplement it.

- it would not probably work under unix withour root anyway

- face it, the games are OLD.

- I am quite glad I do not have to use my rather worn pst CD everytime I develop GemRB

[Guest kettuz]

About the copy protection: There really is nothing like that in BG2, afaik. After all, it is possible to run the whole game from hard disk, without cds.

[Guest Guest]

About the copy protection: There really is nothing like that in BG2, afaik. After all, it is possible to run the whole game from hard disk, without cds.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

nope sorry, cd check at beginning no matter what.

[Borsook]

About the copy protection: There really is nothing like that in BG2, afaik. After all, it is possible to run the whole game from hard disk, without cds.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

nope sorry, cd check at beginning no matter what.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, you can run the game from hdd fully so no data will be read from CD but the game will check for it's being in the drive anyhow.

[jcompton]

Which it does by looking for a file on the CD... someone recently worked out exactly which file(s) each game searched for. Which would be a tremendous waste of a GemRB player's time, and certainly wouldn't afford the project any additional legal protection.