Complete SRD Ruleset Feat creator created.

[Zane_Marlowe]

Hey Matt,

I'm interested to hear you're working on Law School! I'm thinking about that myself (the LSAT is coming up!). I'm not practicing law either, but it would seem that if some work requires another work in order to function, then doesn't that constitute a derivative work? I haven't the legal chops to answer that, and we're not entering a legal discussion, but if there were a copyright problem (which, let's be careful and clear, no one has alleged as yet, only the possibility of such), then that would probably be where it rests.

On a more prosaic note, go back and read the thread about the Adventure! ruleset I created. Kevin was quick to defend possible breaches in IP that wasn't his, so I sensed a good will in the discussion (I think you'll see that if you read the exchange). Written text famously carries no tone of voice, and I've heard it said that 80% of what we communicate is body language; but we've apparently invented smilies as a proxy instead.



Cheers!

[kalmarjan]

Look, I did not mean to stir up any hornets nest. I appologize for this.

In summary, you answered your own question Matt,

5) Create a derivative work

Since the format of this Feat creator essentially utilized the framework (code) of the Complete SRD ruleset, it created a chance to create a derivitive work. I understand the frustration that Thore is facing, as I myself am trying to plow through what can and cannot be done with the SRD and OGL. Eventually, I would like my company to offer quality PDF downloads coupled with FG modules for a campaign path. It is frustrating, but hey, rules are rules.

I did not mean to open a can of worms, I just felt that if it were not possible to come to an amidicable solution to this matter, maybe it would be possible to have the Feat creator in question made with the standard FG format.

BTW Matt, I congratulate you on your work with Law and IP. It is a very sticky subject, riddled across many forum boards other than this one. (Dundjinni is one example.)
I just thank the gods that Smiteworks is okay with the ruleset creation and distribution, and has a less restrictive EULA than most programs.

I also love your forum boards.

I have a few questions for you Matt, and when I get a chance, I would love to PM you.

Again, sorry for opening that messy, nasty can of worms.

Cheers,

[msd]

Sorry for my delayed response to this post (real life, as always, got in the way).

First off, I really want to make a few things clear...

I really consider the people who regularly post here to be my friends. I am not interested in offending anyone here and I sincerely hope that I have not done so. Having said that, I think this is a fascinating topic and I am just as concerned (as a consumer) with protecting publishers' copyright rights as the publishers themselves. Why? Because every publisher that can't make ends meet because of rampant piracy means less gaming material for my table and I think we can all agree that is a no-win situation for anyone.

So why do I continue to dispute whether this is under copyright? A couple of reasons. Again, academically I find this to be a fascinating topic and because I sense that we are all educated and mature adults, there is no reason we can't express different points of view while being civil and courteous. The second reason is probably better explained through a bit of history.

Before going to law school, I worked at a largish consulting firm in New York City (where I wore my Red Sox hat every day thank you very little ). On every project, there was always one person whose role it was to develop the worst case scenario - essentially to play the devil's advocate. In presenting the worst case scenario to the group, we were essentially performing a sort of due diligence on our project plans, reforming them and changing them as went along. Similarly, it's not necessarily that I *believe* the tool at issue is *definitely* not entitled to copyright protection, but I am making the argument that defendant's counsel would (in my estimation) make.

So, again, with the knowledge that I AM NOT A LAWYER, let me respond to some of the points raised above.

Let's agree on a standard set of facts in our hypothetical:

• Consumer X creates the tool at issue (he is a software developer)
• Consumer X distributes, in some fashion, the tool to other users, generally making the tool publicly available
• Consumer Y downloads the tool
• Consumer Y uses the tool to create a separate, independent, new file that maintains data internally structured in the same format as the files created by and used by the product
• Consumer Y copies the contents of the new file into the old file used by the product
• Consumer Y hosts a game so that his "new" version of the product's file is distributed to other users, his players

Again, there are five discrete rights protected by copyright (see https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci). As the question of whether a "derivative work" has been created seems to be the focus, I will only really address that.

A derivative work "incorporates" the previously copyrighted work. If you download a picture from the internet, make a few changes, and then repost it, you have created a derivative work (in addition to having made a copy of the copyrighted work, distributed the copyrighted work, and publicly displayed the copyrighted work). Similarly, if I take a copyrighted novel and add a few paragraphs at the end, I have created a derivative work.

Is there incorporation of the original copyrighted work in this instance? Well, the gut reaction is no - to the extent that the file produced by the tool is a completely new file, there is in fact no incorporation of the copyrighted work whatsoever.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the tool does modify the original files included by the product. Now there is clearly incorporation. But to have a derivative work which infringes on the original copyright, you must identify the part that is originally copyrighted. I doubt it can be the actual information from the SRD as that is Open Gaming Content released through the OGL (see https://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/Legal.rtf).

On the assumption that the only actual text (or other content) included in the product is Open Gaming content and given that the product can't claim copyright to the Open Gaming Content, where can it claim copyright protection? Perhaps to the specific manner in which the Open Gaming Content is stored (i.e. the XML structures)? But again, that is more in the realm of an idea - if you have copied anything, you have copied the manner in which the data is stored, a process, or a structure. Ideas are not the subject of copyright, but rather patent law.

If I have misunderstood the nature of the OGL, I would very much be interested in having someone correct me (I am being serious) as I think that if I am confused, it is probably the case that there are a lot of people who are confused about this.

Again, guys, we are all on the same team and I want to see everyone who contributes content to the community succeed. I bring out these issues so that we can collectively cover our backs and take the appropriate protections before someone who is decidedly not our friend exploits our weaknesses to our detriment.

Hope that helps explain what I am thinking.

-Matt

[kalmarjan]

Right on MSD!

The question here does not pertain to the copywrite of the OGL or the SRD, as WOTC owns the former. The question here pertains to the code that was written to display this format.

Let me get a little more in deatil here.

On the D20 FAQ page, it states that anyone can sell the SRD, if they can make money off of it. The amazing thing is that Thore and company have managed to do just this. So that is not a question of copywrite.

What IS in question here is the code involved. By the Feat Editors Author's own words, he stated "in the format of the Complete SRD". What proves to be troublesome in this respect is that to get his program to format the fields to match the code in the Complete SRD ruleset, he essentially had to "decompile" the code. This is at the heart of this matter. In the EULA for the Complete SRD ruleset, I imagine there is a clause forbidding this. (I cannot say for sure, I am still on the fence as to whether or not to purchase this ruleset.) If this is the case, DA has the rights to the code that is in FG, which in itself, is a derivitive work of the code that FG uses.
Quite a mess I would say.

As for rampant piracy, I agree wholeheartedly. I myself am going to embark into the PDF/FG realm for a business, and the main concern is the lifetime of a PDF or ruleset. FG has been out for 6-7 months, and already, there are people asking for the Torrent links on the internet.
How long until this ruleset becomes available from the same means?

IMHO, this is the nature of the beast, and it seems that the more we fight it, the worse it gets. Take a look at the company preceeding WOTC. They fought long and hard against even user groups posting fan information that is derivitive of the original works. Where is that company today? Thankfully, in the dust. (Otherwise I would still be trying to adjudicate the Wemic/Blademaster/Swashbuckler kits )

What concerns me, is that when I do do what I am planning for FG, if I read the d20 license, the OGL FAQ correctly, I cannot use anything that is outside of the SRD. Including anything to do with Greyhawk, FR, or any gods, or anything else for that matter. The good part about that is that it will force me to sell things based upon my writing, and not on old standbys, like the gods, places and things.

I guess that I will have to make it Generic enough so that the DM (Or GM) can substitute the names and places for a campaign. (If they were using FR for example.)

Thore, am I on track with this????
MSD, Thoughts?

[msd]

What IS in question here is the code involved. By the Feat Editors Author's own words, he stated "in the format of the Complete SRD". What proves to be troublesome in this respect is that to get his program to format the fields to match the code in the Complete SRD ruleset, he essentially had to "decompile" the code. This is at the heart of this matter. In the EULA for the Complete SRD ruleset, I imagine there is a clause forbidding this.

That is actually a really interesting point.

A couple of things. He probably didn't have to de-compile anything. Everything in these products is stored in human-readable plain text XML files. It is just a matter of noting the structure that the data is using and making sure that your output conforms to that.

Again, a data structure is most aptly described as a method for storing data. Methods, processes, ideas are the subject of patent. If the contention is that the data structure itself (the data format) is subject to copyright, I would be interested in hearing the argument.

The really interesting point you raise is this. The EULA for the product very well might have a clause forbidding the user to make use of the data structure. I never thought about that possibility honestly. If that in fact is the case, however, that is a licensing violation which puts us in the realm of contract law. That is a very different argument as at that point, the actual fact of distribution to a web site or to a message board is legally irrelevant to the claim of breach of contract (as the distribution occurs after the event of breach, the use of th data structure).

What concerns me, is that when I do do what I am planning for FG, if I read the d20 license, the OGL FAQ correctly, I cannot use anything that is outside of the SRD.

Probably the better (and more expansive) way to look at it is that you can use anything that is Open Game Content provided that you comply with the terms and provisions of the OGL. See, for instance, paragraph 6 of the OGL

6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.

As to Greyhawk, FR, etc. - that is very clearly WoTC property and their product identity. Use of product identity without an existing, separate agreement is clearly forbidden by the OGL.

Go generic...your players will thank you for it when they are trying to adapt your stuff to their homebrew world

-Matt

[kalmarjan]

Thanks for that MSD! I think that it will showcase the writing skills better anyway, given the fact that I have no pre-existing literary cliches to "fall back on".

In the work that I do, you will see no references to a certain double scimitar weilding drow elf, for instance.

I am looking forward to pushing ahead with this in September, once RL gets settled down a bit.

Thanks for the advice.

[Thore_Ironrock]

:shock: :shock: :shock:

... legal stuff hurt brain ...

... must drink beer to survive ...

.. please stop ...

:shock: :shock: :shock:


:P

[msd]

.. please stop ...

You realize you are free not to participate in this thread, right?

[Thore_Ironrock]

You realize you are free not to participate in this thread, right?

Um ... yes. Was just trying to lighten the mood some.

On another note, I did send Dos a list of comments on his feat generator/code add-on, so things are proceeding on this. Hopefully I'll hear back from him this weekend.

[richvalle]

Um ... yes. Was just trying to lighten the mood some.

I thought Dwarfs had darkvision and liked the dark?


:P

rv