Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

I don't know if this is the best place to post this question, please move it otherwise.

I was just wondering if the Basic Fantasy rules can be used on a commercial product like a videogame? Would there be any fees for using it?

Thanks in advance.

You should talk with solo, but whatever you do it must be 100% free, thats the principle behind BFRPG

Actually, the rules can be used in a commercial setting; they are 100% Open Game Content, so as long as your product complies with the OGL, you're home free.

But... you can't call it Basic Fantasy RPG, or otherwise use the name (except that you must leave the name exactly as it is in the OGL copy attached to your product) without my express permission. Which I won't give if the product isn't distributed in a free and Open Source fashion.

Sorry for the delay in replying back.

So I understand I could sell a videogame using the Basic Fantasy rules as long as I don't explicitly mention the name or use any of its logos?

For what I read in the OGL, I could neither use descriptions or names like the ones designated for magic, for example Hold Portal or Magic Mouth... is this correct?

Then if I modify something, as said in point 6 of the OGL, should I add an electronic text to define what was changed, and should I include the Copy of the Licence as stated in point 10 of the OGL?

This is a bit obscure to me. I wouldn't like to find myself in legal trouble because I'm anaware of some stuff I didn't take into account.

Note: This is for a CRPG me and some mates are making in Unity.

Thanks in advance for clearing this out.

Not a lawyer. That said:

stalyan wrote:Sorry for the delay in replying back.

So I understand I could sell a videogame using the Basic Fantasy rules as long as I don't explicitly mention the name or use any of its logos?

In general, yes.

stalyan wrote:For what I read in the OGL, I could neither use descriptions or names like the ones designated for magic, for example Hold Portal or Magic Mouth... is this correct?

Where exactly did you read this? Which numbered clause?

stalyan wrote:Then if I modify something, as said in point 6 of the OGL, should I add an electronic text to define what was changed, and should I include the Copy of the Licence as stated in point 10 of the OGL?

To comply with the OGL, you must include the OGL in your product. In this case, referencing it on your splash screen and then including the text of the license in your documentation or online help system would, as far as I know, meet the requirement.

You don't have to say what you changed. You do have to include all copyright statements of all products you're deriving from. If you use BFRPG as the base for your game, you must include each and every single one of the copyright statements listed in clause 15 of the OGL from the end of the Core Rules, and in addition, you must add your own copyright statement to the end. If you also derive some of your game from other OGL sources, you must incorporate each and every one of their copyright statements also; you may, as I understand it, reduce exact duplicates to a single entry, but other than that they all have to be there.

While you don't have to say what you changed, if you claim any of your work as non-OGL materials, you must describe in moderate detail whatever parts of the work are not OGL.

I'm not entirely sure how the OGL interacts with source code. Not a lawyer, like I said. If you are distributing source code, I'd expect that you have to reveal at least the source to the parts of the game engine that deal with rule mechanics. If you are not distributing source code... like I said, I don't know how that works.

NOW, on the other hand. In the US, at least, you can't copyright game mechanics. If you create a game using the rules to BFRPG, but never distribute the source code and say nothing about where you got your rules from, I suspect you could actually omit the entire OGL issue. Of course, then you for sure would not be able to use any of our text... you'd have to write it all for scratch.

Hi solomoriah, first of all thanks for your help on this.

stalyan wrote:
For what I read in the OGL, I could neither use descriptions or names like the ones designated for magic, for example Hold Portal or Magic Mouth... is this correct?

solomoriah wrote:
Where exactly did you read this? Which numbered clause?

To answer this I must post several clauses actually. Let's see:

In the OGl Introduction, it says:

Designation of Product Identity: Product identity is not Open Game
Content. The following is designated as product identity pursuant to OGL
v1.0a(1)(e) and (7): (A) product and product line names, including Basic
Fantasy Role-Playing Game, Basic Fantasy RPG, and BFRPG, as well as the
phrase “make mine Basic”; (B) all artwork, logos, symbols, graphic designs,
depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic,
photographic and other visual representations, including the “eye” logo,
which is the personal mark of Chris Gonnerman for his various products, and
which is Copyright © 2002 Chris Gonnerman, and the “Scribbled Dragon,”
which is Copyright © 2005 Erik Wilson; (C) logos and trademarks, including
any trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as product identity
by the owner of the product identity, and which specifically excludes the
open game content.

On point 1. of the OGL it says:

(b)"Derivative
Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and
translations (including into other computer languages), potation,
modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement,
compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be
recast, transformed or adapted;

(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and
includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent
such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an
enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly
identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work
covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under
copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product
Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying
marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines,
plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols,
designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and
graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names
and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams,
personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments,
creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, [/b] logos,
symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered
trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product
Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;

Then, in point 7, it says:

7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity,
including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed
in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of
that Product Identity.You agree not to indicate compatibility or coadaptability
with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction
with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed
in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or
Registered Trademark.The use of any Product Identity in Open Game
Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product
Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content
shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.

So as you can see, in the introduction, it defines Product Identity in a summarized way, and then on Point 1.b it embraces more items, such as "names
and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams,
personas, likenesses and special abilities;"

solomoriah wrote:

I'm not entirely sure how the OGL interacts with source code. Not a lawyer, like I said. If you are distributing source code, I'd expect that you have to reveal at least the source to the parts of the game engine that deal with rule mechanics. If you are not distributing source code... like I said, I don't know how that works.

NOW, on the other hand. In the US, at least, you can't copyright game mechanics. If you create a game using the rules to BFRPG, but never distribute the source code and say nothing about where you got your rules from, I suspect you could actually omit the entire OGL issue. Of course, then you for sure would not be able to use any of our text... you'd have to write it all for scratch.

This is a good question. As it's a commercial product, we do not intend to reveal the source code. You made me remind something I read some time ago... it seems the original OGL does not include electronic products (videogames) on the license, so supposedly, my team couldn't use any OGL content unless as you say -and for what I understand-, we change all names and descriptions, but I guess we could use the formulas to calculate damage, etc., as this is part of the game mechanics.

I'll investigate more on the topic, but any additional information on this is welcome.

Many thanks again,

Here's what you missed:

clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product
Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;

Names, etc. are only Product Identity if the author/copyright holder declares them to be. Commonly, the Product Identity declaration is printed just ahead of the OGL text, as it is in the Core Rules for instance.

solomoria wrote:

Here's what you missed:
clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product
Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content;

Names, etc. are only Product Identity if the author/copyright holder declares them to be. Commonly, the Product Identity declaration is printed just ahead of the OGL text, as it is in the Core Rules for instance.

Thanks for clearing this out solomoriah, it was a little confusing in the beginning. I was taking for granted that point (e) where it describes what's Product Identity was actually the Product Identity items, but is only a general description that, as you say, it's only applicable if the author declares them to be.

You made my day, thanks again =)