What you did didn't do what you think it did. That OGL isn't covering you at all. You need to list your OGL sources properly in Section 15 (see instructions in Section 6), and you need to properly identify your Open content and Product Identity.
Ha! That's what I thought, Guy. I couldn't parse what might be ogl and what isn't very easily done without tearing everything I've edited in the last 5 years. If this is the case, then I don't want to include it at all. All my work is a hack of the original anyway, except for the adventure, which could be considered original (mostly) writing.
And another way to think of it is this: Legal or not, the stuff on your blog is quite like the stuff in thousands of other (non-OGL) blog posts & products that reference various flavors of D&D. What makes you think WotC would take issue with yours, when they haven't taken issue with any of those other thousands of things? (That doesn't mean those thousands of other things are in the right; but pragmatically, you have nothing to worry about.)
For what it's worth, I'd ignore the licensing hogwash. The OGL seems to be what Wizards came up with to dupe people who don't realize that mechanics and folklore and myth can't be copyrighted into playing their game. The few instances where they really "own" something, like maybe the Beholder or whatnot, you can easily write around if you are worried. Personally I wouldn't even worry about that.
I never planned on marketing anything at the mo. If I did, I'd have to pay a lot more attention to the ogl and copyright laws.
As a hobbyist with a full time job not in the gaming industry, I'm not up on all the legal stuff, cuz I'd rather be playing & writing than only just writing.
Always best to cover yourself. And the inclusion of the license does nothing to diminish the product.
ReplyDeleteWhat you did didn't do what you think it did. That OGL isn't covering you at all. You need to list your OGL sources properly in Section 15 (see instructions in Section 6), and you need to properly identify your Open content and Product Identity.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what do you think you need the OGL for?
ReplyDeleteHa! That's what I thought, Guy. I couldn't parse what might be ogl and what isn't very easily done without tearing everything I've edited in the last 5 years. If this is the case, then I don't want to include it at all. All my work is a hack of the original anyway, except for the adventure, which could be considered original (mostly) writing.
ReplyDeleteAnd another way to think of it is this: Legal or not, the stuff on your blog is quite like the stuff in thousands of other (non-OGL) blog posts & products that reference various flavors of D&D. What makes you think WotC would take issue with yours, when they haven't taken issue with any of those other thousands of things? (That doesn't mean those thousands of other things are in the right; but pragmatically, you have nothing to worry about.)
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I'd ignore the licensing hogwash. The OGL seems to be what Wizards came up with to dupe people who don't realize that mechanics and folklore and myth can't be copyrighted into playing their game. The few instances where they really "own" something, like maybe the Beholder or whatnot, you can easily write around if you are worried. Personally I wouldn't even worry about that.
ReplyDeleteDisclaimer: Always assuming you're not trying to make money from whatever you're writing up. If you are, you may have to be a bit more conservative.
ReplyDeleteI never planned on marketing anything at the mo. If I did, I'd have to pay a lot more attention to the ogl and copyright laws.
ReplyDeleteAs a hobbyist with a full time job not in the gaming industry, I'm not up on all the legal stuff, cuz I'd rather be playing & writing than only just writing.