This is a copy of a message I have sent to the legal team to lay the
groundwork for our discussion this week about the D20 System Trademark
License.
My intention with this license is to accomplish two major goals: First, to
provide a "safe harbor" for WotC in the form of restrictions on the products
others can produce using the D20 trademarks, and second, to clearly define
what a publisher can and cannot do with the D20 System trademark license.
I anticipate a revision of this license at some point in the future to relax
some of these terms, once the effects of Open Gaming and the D20 System on
our core businesses are better understood. This license should therefore be
considered to be the start of the process, not the end point, and you should
read it with the understanding that it is probably more restrictive than it
needs to be to create a comfort zone for the company's senior management.
I welcome any and all comment and input.
==================================
Here are my expanded thoughts about the D20 trademark license:
First, my objective is to create a carrot and a stick for game publishers.
The carrot is that they get to put the D20 system logo on their products,
and make direct references to D&D core books, which means that they'll be
able to get more value by indicating a direct connection to the total D&D
network. The stick is that they'll give up the ability to create complete
roleplaying games to compete with the WotC core RPG books, and they'll agree
to a certain level of standardization in terminology to be consistent with
our core rules.
I believe that the "carrot" can consist of the rights to use the following
materials:
The D20 System logo
Indicate compatibility with the D20 System
(*)A collection of monster names and descriptions
(*)A collection of magic items and descriptions
(*)A collection of proprietary characters and descriptions
Permission to indicate the need to use the core D&D rulebooks (but not
permission to suggest that the material is authorized D&D material)
For the "stick", the key exclusions and requirements the license should
address are:
1) The product cannot include rules for creating characters; meaning rules
for determining starting ability scores, selecting a racial template,
selecting a class, allocating skill points, and/or choosing feats.
2) The product cannot include rules for advancing characters in level;
meaning incrementing an existing class by one level, or adding a new class
at 1st level, allocating new skill points, and/or choosing feats.
In addition, the license should require the publisher to use a given set of
defined game terms without modification. The publisher could opt not to use
one of those terms and substitute a new term in its place, but can't
redefine a term we reserve.
For example, if "Strength" is a defined term, a publisher shouldn't be able
to redefine what "Strength" means in the game. They could opt to not use
"Strength", and instead create a new term "Physical Power" with a new
definition if they want to.
Also, the license should require the use of Open Game Content and the use of
the Open Game License. I suggest that we impose a requirement that at a
minimum, 10% of the text in a product bearing the D20 trademarks consist of
Open Game content.
And a final issue, the license should restrict the ability of a publisher to
create computer software. I envision a time when we will want to relax this
requirement, but I think that we should tackle that problem in the future.
For the terms of the license itself, this is what I would like to
accomplish:
1) The license does not require us to approve or review any content.
2) The license is not revocable unless the terms continue to be violated
after a suitable period for cure.
3) The license should specify the physical reproduction requirements for
the D20 System logo, and describe how to use the trademarks in a format that
doesn't support graphics (like a plain text file).
4) If possible, the license could be something that the publisher can
acknowledge but not have to reproduce fully. (Example: A line in the
publication that says "This product complies with the D20 System Trademark
License, version 1.0. A copy of that license can be found at
www.wizards.com/open_gaming/. The D20 System name and logo, the Dungeons &
Dragons name and logo, and all other aspects of Product Identity covered by
the D20 System Trademark License are the sole property of Wizards of the
Coast and are used with permission.)
5) The license should set forth a penalty for noncompliance (my suggestion
is the loss of the right to distribute the offending content).
============================
(*) After reviewing the PHB, DMG and MM, I have determined that there are a
number of such items that are not necessary to support the basic mission of
using the D20 System as an Open Game.
Example: A generic +1 sword is something that should be in the D20 system
reference document. The Hand and the Eye of Vecna should not be. To get
the rights to use the Hand and the Eye, you will have to agree to the terms
of the D20 System Trademark license.
Something which is drawn from common myths and legends or is clearly a D&D
version of a public domain concept should be in the D20SRD. Things that are
unique to D&D and are original to the game should not necessarily be.
After my cursory review, I suspect that about 30% of the monsters in the
Monster Manual, and a similar number of magic items in the Dungeon Master's
Guide fall into this category.
The default pantheon in the PHB falls into the same category (although there
are gods in that pantheon that are public domain names, their holy symbols
and descriptive material is not).
Ryan
