Unofficial Open Game License FAQ

[Goblinoid Games]

I periodically field questions from new publishers or would-be publishers about how to use the OGL. While I am happy to do this, it can be time consuming. Also, my advice on this matter should be considered unofficial.

I am not a lawyer and I am not offering legal advice. By reading this you agree that I cannot be held liable or otherwise responsible in any way for damages or legal consequences that result from following my suggestions and acting on my opinions about how to use the OGL.

Ok, now that the disclaimer is out of the way, I'm going to add material here in a FAQ format and will update it here and there as I have time. I would recommend that before consulting this thread people should first read all that WotC has to say about the OGL (links here).

* * *

Do I really have to include all of listings in the copyright section of the OGL from the sources I borrow from? But what if some of those listings are irrelevant?

This is probably the most common question/mistake I see. Yes, you absolutely have to reproduce the copyright section of the OGL from the sources you use. You can delete ones that are redundant (same listing in two books, such as the SRD, it only needs to be listed once). You have to do this because it documents the chain of derived content. So even if you don't use a particular monster from the Advanced Edition Companion (AEC) for example, you still have to put the full copyright listing in your OGL if you reference the AEC. If you remove listings you are technically not following the terms of the OGL and you are in breach of the license, potentially opening yourself up to legal action for copyright violation. You have no way to check with a fine-toothed comb whether some of the derived sources you think are not present actually are present in some form in the text you use.

So my advice on this matter is to just follow the license correctly, and shrink the font of the license small if you need to in order to fit it in your book.

* * *

What is "crippled open content" or "crippling" the declaration of open game content?

I would say that most of the time when this happens it's unintentional, done only because the person doesn't understand how to document open game content. Other times this is done intentionally to "cripple" the open content, in other words make it difficult for someone to use your open game content.

Why would anyone want to do that? Usually when this is done intentionally it is so that they don't have to share their work. According to the terms of the OGL, when you create material derived from open content, that derived content must also be open game content. So for example, if I am writing the spell description for Animate Dead and I use a lot of the description from the SRD but revise some of it, and add my own sentences, that spell description is derived from the SRD and it must also be open game content.

So sometimes publishers obscure this by just declaring that "no new content is open", or "only language derived from the SRD is open." According to the terms of the OGL this is an incorrect way to document open game content. The burden of documentation and identifying open game content is on the publisher, not the reader. Now, in the example above I'm not saying it isn't possible to set aside text in a paragraph that is closed or product identity, but it must be clear. Also keep in mind that none of this has ever been tested in court, so while I think this is a solid interpretation of the OGL there are those who would disagree in terms of what is considered "derived." However, in terms of proper documentation there is little question that the example above is wrong, so any book that does that is technically in breach of the OGL. Full disclosure: I made that mistake myself initially with GORE but I soon saw the light and fixed it. It's not just wrong in terms of licensing, but also IMHO it's not in the spirit of open gaming.