# 4e D&D GSL Live



## Scott_Rouse

We have posted the 4e D&D GSL here and it is now live.


----------



## lurkinglidda

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> We have posted the 4e D&D GSL here and it is now live.



Thank you everyone for your patience during this undertaking!


----------



## Vigilance

Awesome. Thanks guys!


----------



## Klaus

Thanks to Scott, Linae and the team. Now I must read and digest all of this.

First question: when the GSL says "no referencing artwork", what do you mean by referencing? I can paint a dragonborn, but I can't paint a new picture of, say, the specific dragonborn in the Fighter entry?


----------



## Michael Morris

Well, I guess I'm sticking with 3.5e and the OGL.



> 5.5 Licensed Products. This License applies solely to Licensed Products as defined in Section 3 and to the specified uses set forth in Section 4. For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example only, no Licensed Product will (a) include *web sites*, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators; (b) describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character; (c) use the terms “Core Rules” or “Core Rulebook” or variations thereof on its cover or title, in self-reference or in advertising or marketing thereof; (d) refer to any artwork, imagery or other depiction contained in a Core Rulebook; (e) reprint any material contained in a Core Rulebook except as explicitly provided in Section 4; or (f) be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way of example only, a magazine or book compilation).




When does ENWorld get a cease & desist notice? <-- Ok, that's a bit too sarcastic, but still - the way I read this no one can sell PDF's because you sorta have to have a website in order to sell a PDF don't ya think?

Other limitations aside, this is a dangerously and uncomfortably broad brushstroke.

It's also personally disheartening.  I am a programmer - it's what I do. While I understand WotC not wanting video games or full reference libraries online on the other hand banning out character generators and campaign management software is a bit much.  Many of the plans I had for 4e are now officially dead and I will most likely be selling the books I got to a used book store at considerable loss because I don't want to own something I cannot use.  Telling me I can't program is like telling Claudio he can't draw any illustrations for D&D - it robs me of something I enjoy doing in connection to the game.

Long live the OGL.


----------



## SandS_James

Hi Scott & Linae,

Hope you're ready for a million (or several) questions... and I hope this is a good spot to get them to you (since Klaus started it already... and he was reading my mind... really).

Regarding Section 6.1 OGL Conversion.

Here's my example situation: I've licensed Sword & Sorcery and products released for 3.X edition under the Sword & Sorcery banner by White Wolf.  I'm going to release 4E versions of Creature Collection, Relics & Rituals and the Scarred Lands Campaign Setting through my company, Fiery Dragon Productions.

So... does White Wolf have to kill all of their 3.X Sword & Sorcery releases... or do they not fall under section 6.1 because they are not the licensee for the GSL in this case?

Thanks for your ongoing efforts, and I hope to impress you with some kick-butt 4E releases.

- James


----------



## Urizen

Logo Placement Question:

Am I to understand that the compatability logo may not be placed on the front cover of any printed or electronic ( PDF) product?

As a publisher of PDf products ( for the time being), that makes it harder for me to indicate compatability with 4th edition.

Am I missing something?


----------



## see

Urizen -- you get a license to use the logo in promotional materials.  So you can (by my reading) have the compatibility logo sitting next to your "Buy Now" button, just not on the cover of the PDF.


----------



## DanMcS

The FAQ needs some revision.

It refers to:
www.wizards.com/d20/GSLLogo.pdf 
and
www.wizards.com/d20/GSLLogoBW.pdf

The files are actually at:
www.wizards.com/d20/files/GSLLogo.pdf
and
www.wizards.com/d20/files/GSLLogoBW.pdf

Same for the SOA.  So the embedded links in the FAQ don't work.  If that's the biggest problem, nice job


----------



## BarakO

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> libraries online on the other hand banning out character generators and campaign management software is a bit much.




Apparently, they don't believe that they can build a better mousetrap, so they're going to make sure that they have the only mousetrap. 

*sigh*


----------



## IanB

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> When does ENWorld get a cease & desist notice? <-- Ok, that's a bit too sarcastic, but still - the way I read this no one can sell PDF's because you sorta have to have a website in order to sell a PDF don't ya think?




Websites will be covered under the not-yet-released fansite policy, per the FAQ.


----------



## Lizard

I am very disappointed that there is no viral content. 

I can find nothing in the GSL which specifically limits GSL products to "fantasy". Would I be in violation if I created a "Gunslinger" class and added gunpowder weapons? 

Section three says:
"Licensed Products. The license granted in Section 4 is for use solely in connection with Licensee’s publication, distribution, and sale of roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that contain the Licensed Materials and are published in a hardcover or soft-cover printed book format or in a single-download electronic book format (such as .pdf), and accessory products to the foregoing roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that are not otherwise listed as excluded in Section 5.5 (“Licensed Products”)."

Section 5.5 says:
"5.5 Licensed Products. This License applies solely to Licensed Products as defined in Section 3 and to the specified uses set forth in Section 4. For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example only, no Licensed Product will (a) include web sites, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators; (b) describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character; (c) use the terms “Core Rules” or “Core Rulebook” or variations thereof on its cover or title, in self-reference or in advertising or marketing thereof; (d) refer to any artwork, imagery or other depiction contained in a Core Rulebook; (e) reprint any material contained in a Core Rulebook except as explicitly provided in Section 4; or (f) be incorporated into another product that is"

Nothing here seems to rule out modern, superhero, horror, or science fiction games, provided one is willing to make all new classes and races, create new feats, etc.

Can you ignore aspects of the templates -- for example, create a race which gains a bonus to no, or to 3, ability scores?

No specific demons or devils are listed; is this intentional? So no one can include a pit fiend or a succubus in an adventure?


----------



## DanMcS

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> When does ENWorld get a cease & desist notice? <-- Ok, that's a bit too sarcastic, but still - the way I read this no one can sell PDF's because you sorta have to have a website in order to sell a PDF don't ya think?




ENWorld is not a licensee of Wizards (that I'm aware of).  You don't NEED to license the game to discuss it.

That clause says that you CAN'T produce a GSL-licensed website.  Not that you can't mention the game online without being a licensee.

People had this same misconception about the OGL- that online discussion of it needed to obey the license.  How do you think people discuss games that aren't available for license at all?

You can sell PDFs, which are themselves licensed products, but your website which sells them isn't one.


----------



## Lizard

DanMcS said:
			
		

> ENWorld is not a licensee of Wizards (that I'm aware of).  You don't NEED to license the game to discuss it.
> .




However, how are things like the Druid class (currently on the front page) treated?


----------



## Michael Morris

IanB said:
			
		

> Websites will be covered under the not-yet-released fansite policy, per the FAQ.



 Little to no consolation there. I'm dead certain the fansite policy will prohibit any site that has any commercial component. Once sites hit a certain size though they must either charge a fee or die under the weight of their own bandwidth.


----------



## Alzrius

Lizard said:
			
		

> I am very disappointed that there is no viral content.




This worries me too. Looking through the GSL, I don't see any mechanism by which original content, created by a Licensee, can be reused by someone else writing a GSL product.


----------



## DiasExMachina

My concern deals with this passage:




> To remain in compliance with the GSL, you may not
> reproduce any running text, statistics block, or table from
> the Core Rulebooks, nor may you define, redefine, or alter
> the definition of any 4E Reference. Nothing in these
> guidelines should be taken as contrary to these GSL
> requirements.




I am not one for legalese but does this mean they are prohibiting you from modifying any named class in the SRD (like Cleric) or race (like elf).  Meaning you have to use their elf and could not make your own.  Later there is this passage:



> While you may not reproduce running text and tables from
> the Core Rulebooks, you may create original material that
> reflects the influence of rules and guidelines in the Core
> Rulebooks.
> For instance, you may create powers that resemble
> those in D&D 4E Player’s Handbook.




This seems to indicate you could.  If the first passage is to be taken as gospel, I must follow it with another questions:  Can you simply delete?  Can you create a setting where you say, "No Clerics" or must the entire SRD apply?  I hope someone can help us with this.


----------



## Shroomy

Alzrius said:
			
		

> This worries me too. Looking through the GSL, I don't see any mechanism by which original content, created by a Licensee, can be reused by someone else writing a GSL product.




Its in section 10.2.  You have to make separate arrangements with the 3rd Party IP holders.


----------



## DaveMage

DiasExMachina said:
			
		

> I hope someone can help us with this.




I have a hunch that the only way you are going to get help is via an official FAQ (that's vetted by WotC legal) or through use of your own legal counsel.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Actually, the no viral content has a benefit now.  It encourages publishers to create stuff and not worry about people ripping their products for free.  I know a lot of people would defend that by saying "they knew about that when they agreed to the OGL license", but that was the only license available.  

Then again, those that miss the "viral nature" might be able to encourage people to use their products by allowing others to reference their game products--I assume the other third party would have to agree to the GSL terms, but sharing the created content among companies seems possible with this license.

Now, let the publishers choose, don't force one way on them.

ETA--Yes, Section 10.2.  Missed that.  Good for WoTC.


----------



## DiasExMachina

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I have a hunch that the only way you are going to get help is via an official FAQ (that's vetted by WotC legal) or through use of your own legal counsel.




My own?  

I have faith ENWorld will have answers soon enough...


----------



## JohnRTroy

They got a FAQ up now, but I'm sure by Friday they'll have updates based on message board feedback.


----------



## jmucchiello

Lizard said:
			
		

> No specific demons or devils are listed; is this intentional? So no one can include a pit fiend or a succubus in an adventure?



More annoying is that the paragon paths and epic destinies are missing. So you can't include an NPC over 10th level without giving it a PP/ED of your own devising.


----------



## jmucchiello

Lizard said:
			
		

> I can find nothing in the GSL which specifically limits GSL products to "fantasy". Would I be in violation if I created a "Gunslinger" class and added gunpowder weapons?



Yeah, I fail to see what stops you from creating alien races and futuristic weapons either.


----------



## jgbrowning

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Yeah, I fail to see what stops you from creating alien races and futuristic weapons either.




Clause 11.1: Immediate termination of the license would be my guess.

joe b.


----------



## DanMcS

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> More annoying is that the paragon paths and epic destinies are missing. So you can't include an NPC over 10th level without giving it a PP/ED of your own devising.




That seems like an oversight, because the thing seems intended to allow you to create NPCs.


----------



## Nellisir

SandS_James said:
			
		

> Regarding Section 6.1 OGL Conversion.
> 
> Here's my example situation: I've licensed Sword & Sorcery and products released for 3.X edition under the Sword & Sorcery banner by White Wolf.  I'm going to release 4E versions of Creature Collection, Relics & Rituals and the Scarred Lands Campaign Setting through my company, Fiery Dragon Productions.
> 
> So... does White Wolf have to kill all of their 3.X Sword & Sorcery releases... or do they not fall under section 6.1 because they are not the licensee for the GSL in this case?




I'm not WotC, and I only skimmed the license, but I believe it says if you enter into an agreement to update OGL content to 4e, you are considered the licensee for said content - which is a long way of saying, yes, WW would have to kill their pdf sales.  That (white wolf's pdf) content would be considered your content, and you can't have the same content be both OGL and GSL simultaneously.


----------



## DanMcS

DiasExMachina said:
			
		

> I am not one for legalese but does this mean they are prohibiting you from modifying any named class in the SRD (like Cleric) or race (like elf).  Meaning you have to use their elf and could not make your own.



You apparently could not call your new elf race an "elf", since that would mean you were redefining an elf.  You probably shouldn't, even if you could, you'd just confuse people trying to use your product, who'd see "race: elf" and wonder where these weird racial abilities came from.  You could call it a "myworld elf" and go hog-wild.



> This seems to indicate you could.  If the first passage is to be taken as gospel, I must follow it with another questions:  Can you simply delete?  Can you create a setting where you say, "No Clerics" or must the entire SRD apply?  I hope someone can help us with this.




Saying there are no clerics in your setting, or anything with a divine power source, for that matter, isn't "redefining" anything.  Doesn't seem like that would be a problem.


----------



## Henry

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Actually, the no viral content has a benefit now.  It encourages publishers to create stuff and not worry about people ripping their products for free.




I have to ask -- were there a lot of publishers who really worried about that? I'm not a publisher, so I guess worrying about my new snazzy game mechanic getting parroted across the entire gaming community I would consider a plus, not a minus. I don't see why I'd be worried about product identity, because the publisher controls how much of his material is open content through the PI description, anyway. In fact, I consider it one of the two big keystones of the OGL archway.

But the real question -- was this something a lot of publishers spoke about negatively?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Henry said:
			
		

> I have to ask -- were there a lot of publishers who really worried about that?




Only in John's imagination.


----------



## jmucchiello

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Clause 11.1: Immediate termination of the license would be my guess.



But they could also do that if you book includes words like "the" so I somehow expected the "fantasy"-ness of this license to be spelled out.


----------



## DanMcS

Henry said:
			
		

> I have to ask -- were there a lot of publishers who really worried about that? I'm not a publisher, so I guess worrying about my new snazzy game mechanic getting parroted across the entire gaming community I would consider a plus, not a minus. I don't see why I'd be worried about product identity, because the publisher controls how much of his material is open content through the PI description, anyway. In fact, I consider it one of the two big keystones of the OGL archway.
> 
> But the real question -- was this something a lot of publishers spoke about negatively?




Phil Reed posted on this board about this, that since he was an electronic publisher, this worried him a good bit, that people ripping and republishing his open content for free would totally replace his products and drive him straight out of business.

And Wulf, I seem to remember you once posting against people creating a "SRD" of your products, because you considered yourself a rules guy, and so basically your whole products were open content rules.


----------



## see

Anybody see any PHB II content in the SRD?  Remember, that was the reason given us last week as to why they missed the "early next week" deadline.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

DanMcS said:
			
		

> And Wulf, I seem to remember you once posting against people creating a "SRD" of your products, because you considered yourself a rules guy, and so basically your whole products were open content rules.




I've never agitated for a more restrictive license, but I have certainly advocated responsible use of the permissions it grants.


----------



## DiasExMachina

DanMcS said:
			
		

> You apparently could not call your new elf race an "elf", since that would mean you were redefining an elf.  You probably shouldn't, even if you could, you'd just confuse people trying to use your product, who'd see "race: elf" and wonder where these weird racial abilities came from.  You could call it a "myworld elf" and go hog-wild.
> Saying there are no clerics in your setting, or anything with a divine power source, for that matter, isn't "redefining" anything.  Doesn't seem like that would be a problem.




Yes, but could you create a new Cleric based on your settings fluff?


----------



## Shroomy

DiasExMachina said:
			
		

> Yes, but could you create a new Cleric based on your settings fluff?




Sure, but don't call it a cleric, or favored soul, or anything you think will be remotely used by WoTC in a future product.  In fact, try to link as much of you can to proper nouns out of your own IP.


----------



## webrunner

My concern is that:
1) the is SRD not usable as a reference
AND
2) it forbids creating a reference using the SRD (since you can only put in references to the books)
AND
3) Apparenty the compendium will also not include actual content but references to content

that a searchable, web-formatted reference tool for, say, powers, is never going to legally happen.


----------



## Shroomy

webrunner said:
			
		

> My concern is that:
> 1) the is SRD not usable as a reference
> AND
> 2) it forbids creating a reference using the SRD (since you can only put in references to the books)
> AND
> 3) Apparenty the compendium will also not include actual content but references to content
> 
> that a searchable, web-formatted reference tool for, say, powers, is never going to legally happen.




Nope, not outside the DDI.  At least, not legally.


----------



## Admiral Caine

I am curious as to what Mr. Clark Peterson's comment will be.


----------



## DanMcS

DiasExMachina said:
			
		

> Yes, but could you create a new Cleric based on your settings fluff?




The parallel between "elf" and "cleric" in these examples should be pretty clear.  No, you can't create a new cleric class, you'd be redefining a term from the SRD.


----------



## robertsconley

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I'm not WotC, and I only skimmed the license, but I believe it says if you enter into an agreement to update OGL content to 4e, you are considered the licensee for said content - which is a long way of saying, yes, WW would have to kill their pdf sales.  That (white wolf's pdf) content would be considered your content, and you can't have the same content be both OGL and GSL simultaneously.




The interesting thing that for a product that is completely OGL (and there are only a few) that the original company couldn't publish the product after conversion but a third party could. 

Because license grants the right to copy the OGL portions. So all new art will be needed but certain books could be preserved independently of what the Publisher decides.


----------



## FormerlyDickensC

*The difference between copyright and patent.*

I have a friend in law school...yea yea I know, my first mistake...but we were talking and there is one issue that I can't understand. 

The 4E rules are governed by copyright.  They are not patentable, and even if the rules were patentable there is no patent on/governing them (that I know of).  Therefore the only legal mechanic governing them prevents nothing but their word-for-word reproduction.  I/we can not publish a document re-describing the rules, but creating a software application that inherently uses those rules without re-publishing them is not prevented by a copyright. Copyrights do not do that. Only patents provide such action. 

Therefore, unless the 4E rules are actually patented, then I see no legal action that can be taken against anyone for creating a software app that inherently uses those rules without re-publishing them. 

A similar example are automated financial trading strategies (i.e., stock market trading bots).  If I publish my trading algorithm in a book, I have no recourse against anyone who implements that strategy in their own software and then resells that software.  I may be able to take action against someone who publishes the algorithm using words similar to my published description.  But the algorithm is no more my property than the moon.  I think the same applies to the 4E rules system (just as the trading algorithm). 

Of course, a real IP attorney would need to address this.  But perhaps there are those on this board who may have input.  Am I completely missing something here, or what???


----------



## DiasExMachina

DanMcS said:
			
		

> The parallel between "elf" and "cleric" in these examples should be pretty clear.  No, you can't create a new cleric class, you'd be redefining a term from the SRD.




Ah, but the magic here is that nowhere in the SRD (at least so far) does it say you can't outright remove entries.  If you had a low or non-magic setting, you could remove wizard and cleric (and any others you wish for that matter) and create variations totally original, naming them what you like.  The same goes for races.  They may have defined the name elf or dwarf but not, say, original elvish (fey) creatures that may populate your setting and go by different names, allowing a publisher to say, "No races printed in the 4ED Players Handbook are present."

I am really hoping I am right on this....


----------



## FormerlyDickensC

FormerlyDickensC said:
			
		

> Therefore, unless the 4E rules are actually patented, then I see no legal action that can be taken against anyone for creating a software app that inherently uses those rules without re-publishing them.



After thinking about it, I would guess that you could not use trademarked names/proper-nouns in the software application (names of monsters, races, powers, etc).  But I'm pretty sure that as long as the names are not trademarked, then their use does not otherwise constitute a copyright violation if used in isolation. 

How the app handled descriptive text (names and other identifiers) would seem to be the biggest issue. 

Thoughts??


----------



## Jack99

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> More annoying is that the paragon paths and epic destinies are missing. So you can't include an NPC over 10th level without giving it a PP/ED of your own devising.




Yes you can, see page 22 of the SRD. (I think)


----------



## robertsconley

FormerlyDickensC said:
			
		

> The 4E rules are governed by copyright.  They are not patentable, and even if the rules were patentable there is no patent on/governing them (that I know of).




You forget about the derivative works portions of copyright law. Even if you avoid using the trademarks of Conan and Hyborian on your product's cover; the law restricts your ability to combine the elements of the original work into a new product that uses Conan, Hyboria, Turan, Shem, Stygia, etc.

The same with D&D computer products. Sure you could make a character generator but you have to change every power name, class name, etc to point that it is not D&D 4th anymore but some form of clone. 

Now you could argue technicalities but the spirit of the law is that the author(s) of a original work gets to control it's reproduction and any derivative works. Go up against that you will run up into lawsuit territory. 

The reason the retro-clones work is because the body of terms that make up d20 happens intersect very closely to those of previous editions. By Wizards radically altering the terms of the game that make up D&D 4th they have better control over the permissions they can license. 

With the power system any clone of D&D 4th will have come up with a complete new set of powers greatly increasing the work of a clone maker. Start throwing in the ritual elements the skill elements the closer the end result looks to be a derivative work.

I am sure you get a lawyer to tell you how you could get close but then you going to need invest some $$$ or have connections. Even then there is nothing to stop a lawsuit and the matter resolved in court. The GSL is Wizards telling how we can use their material without being sued automatically.


----------



## BSF

Section 6.1 is interesting.  Am I understanding this correctly?  

Publishers are free to convert OGL material to GSL material.

This was expected.

Once they convert a product, or a product line, from OGL to GSL, they can sell old physical stock, but must cease sales of non-physical stock (electronic I presume) and must prevent third party affiliates from selling old product.

Some of this was certainly expected.  It looks like it also prevents spin off companies from selling the old OGL products as well. 

OGL products, from the same company, that are not converted (or part of a converted product line), can still be sold.

So this isn't a whole cloth conversion clause for a given company.  Any given company can convert some products and keep selling some unconverted products.  

And this entire section will survive termination of the agreement.  

This, I think, is one of the more thought provoking clauses.  If a publisher converts a product line from OGL to GSL, and then the agreement is terminated - for whatever reason - then section 6.1 will still be in effect.  So the publisher could not then revert a GSL converted product line back to the OGL.  

This section may add fuel to the conspiracy theories.  But this section may also be one that holds some third party publishers back.  If there is a successful brand that the publisher has already built, will they want to tie that brand into 4E?  Because once they do, they can't fall back to the strength of that brand if the agreement is terminated for any reason.  

A lot has been said about the strength of tying into the D&D product line.  Publishers might want to consider new brands to do that with if they are hedging their bets.  

I also expect that some publishers will hold off for a couple of days, in the very least, before really commenting.  They will want to consider carefully how they will proceed.  

Still, the agreement looks pretty standard in a lot of ways.  Well, as standard as you can expect for something pretty singular in a niche market.    But there are a couple of points that I think should give any publisher some serious food for thought before signing on.  Yes, before agreeing to any license, you should put some serious thought into it. I know!  But just think what this would have meant if similar language had been in the OGL.  We probably wouldn't have seen companies like AEG flirt with the idea of using d20 to model Seven Seas (via Swashbuckling Adventures) if they couldn't fall back to their original game to begin with.  Now that we have successful OGL brands, maybe we will see those converted, or maybe the OGL brands will continue forward and new brands from successful companies will be created for the GSL.  

It should be interesting to see what products are announced in the next several months.


----------



## Orcus

Admiral Caine said:
			
		

> I am curious as to what Mr. Clark Peterson's comment will be.




Still digesting.

It seems far less clear than I hoped, thats for sure. It also doesnt have that "safe harbor" feel. It has that "there are lots of ways for you to screw up and then we terminate you" feel. 

My initial reaction: Not as clear or friendly as I wanted. In fact, it feels like "we want you to support 4E but we dont really want you doing anything interesting or being too successful." Which smacks more of corporate fear than it does of vision. 

More later. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus

FormerlyDickensC said:
			
		

> I have a friend in law school...yea yea I know, my first mistake...but we were talking and there is one issue that I can't understand.
> 
> The 4E rules are governed by copyright.  They are not patentable, and even if the rules were patentable there is no patent on/governing them (that I know of).  Therefore the only legal mechanic governing them prevents nothing but their word-for-word reproduction.  I/we can not publish a document re-describing the rules, but creating a software application that inherently uses those rules without re-publishing them is not prevented by a copyright. Copyrights do not do that. Only patents provide such action.
> 
> Therefore, unless the 4E rules are actually patented, then I see no legal action that can be taken against anyone for creating a software app that inherently uses those rules without re-publishing them.
> 
> A similar example are automated financial trading strategies (i.e., stock market trading bots).  If I publish my trading algorithm in a book, I have no recourse against anyone who implements that strategy in their own software and then resells that software.  I may be able to take action against someone who publishes the algorithm using words similar to my published description.  But the algorithm is no more my property than the moon.  I think the same applies to the 4E rules system (just as the trading algorithm).
> 
> Of course, a real IP attorney would need to address this.  But perhaps there are those on this board who may have input.  Am I completely missing something here, or what???




There is some merit to this position. Similarly, you could use fair use to make compatible products for D&D. Wizards has always known that, which is why Ryan was so smart to make the OGL friendly and safe. But if you do that, you better talk to an attorney first. 

The real genius of the OGL movement was getting people to play in the safe harbor and NOT simply try to make fair use/compatible products thumbing their nose at any attempt by Wizards to license the game content. IN co-opting everyone into the safe harbor with a friendly "use it our way and we will help you" approach saved alot of litigation for Wizards. 

I'm not sure simply ignorning the license and making compatible products consistent with valid, current copyright law isnt a viable approach at this point. But you better talk to a lawyer first. I tried to remind Wizards of this and they thought I was making a threat. I wasnt. I was trying to remind them to not lose sight of this issue. I wasnt very successful in conveying that message.

I'm not trying to start trouble with this. This is not a threat. I am just discussing the very valid fact (that Wizards seems to have forgotten) that copyright law on this point is interesting.


----------



## Orcus

My adoption is going to depend on the answers to a few questions I am still formulating. Which troubles me, 'cause I wanted very badly to be in with both feet on this.


----------



## pemerton

FormerlyDickensC said:
			
		

> I have a friend in law school
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The 4E rules are governed by copyright.  They are not patentable
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Therefore, unless the 4E rules are actually patented, then I see no legal action that can be taken against anyone for creating a software app that inherently uses those rules without re-publishing them.





			
				FormerlyDickensC said:
			
		

> After thinking about it, I would guess that you could not use trademarked names/proper-nouns in the software application (names of monsters, races, powers, etc).  But I'm pretty sure that as long as the names are not trademarked, then their use does not otherwise constitute a copyright violation if used in isolation.
> 
> How the app handled descriptive text (names and other identifiers) would seem to be the biggest issue.



I teach in a law school (in Australia, not the US) but not in IP. Nevertheless, I'll give you some thoughts.

In the second quoted paragraph you don't take your thought quite far enough: as Robertsconley pointed out above, the issue would as much be the extent to which that text breached copyright as opposed to simply wrongly used WoTC's trademarks.

Furthermore, I don't know that it's true that the 4e rules can't be patented although, as far as I know, they have not been.

But in any event, it seems possible that one might design an application that could run a 4e game (though even then the code might potentially be derivative of WoTC's copyrighted text - I don't know enough about either coding or the US law of derivative works) but be extremely constrained in the permissible textual output that it might give: character sheets, power descriptions, monster statblocks etc would all at least potentially be in breach of WoTC's copyright.


----------



## Orcus

BSF said:
			
		

> If a publisher converts a product line from OGL to GSL, and then the agreement is terminated - for whatever reason - then section 6.1 will still be in effect.  So the publisher could not then revert a GSL converted product line back to the OGL.
> 
> This section may add fuel to the conspiracy theories.  But this section may also be one that holds some third party publishers back.  If there is a successful brand that the publisher has already built, will they want to tie that brand into 4E?  Because once they do, they can't fall back to the strength of that brand if the agreement is terminated for any reason.
> 
> ...
> 
> But there are a couple of points that I think should give any publisher some serious food for thought before signing on.
> 
> ...
> 
> It should be interesting to see what products are announced in the next several months.




That first issue you raise of converting and not being able to convert back is one I am reviewing myself. 

That is one of the questions I want to make sure to have a CLEAR and PUBLIC answer on.

If Wizards wants us to use this license then they should (and I suspect will) provide answers to many of these questions. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus

I dont want too sound too grouchy on this. I believe we were close to having NO third party support for 4E, so the fact Scott and Linae and others got the GSL done at all is awesome. I am thrilled to have the chance to support 4E. Now I have to decide if the license provided will do the job I want it to do. 

Many, I'm sure, will misinterpret this evaluation and question process we are all going to go through as complaining and looking a gift horse in the mouth. That, of course, is not the case at all. Third party support has an awesome heritage of community discussion and dissection of licenses and changes. 

So none of my comments or thoughts about what is or isnt or should have been or shouldnt have been in the license or calls for clarification or answers to questions should be considered as criticism or negativity. This is just the process of community discussion of this public license. 

Clark


----------



## Ydars

I am a little disappointed with the language some of this is written in; it is quite defensive and, as Clark says, about as welcoming as a man wielding a big stick. Welcome to legalise I guess.

It will also annoy many people that WoTC think they have the right and need to put "d4" and "d20" into the SRD; I mean COME ON!!

Looks to me like alot of the "interesting" bits of 4E have not made it into the SRD; no Feywild, no Shadowfell, no beholders etc. This is a shame as it will actually hinder compatibility with 3PP products; very short-sighted in my view, but I guess I understand why (sigh).

I think the most problematic thing is this clause about "once its GSL you can't go back to OGL" for a particular product line coupled with the "we can pull the plug when we feel like it" bit of this license. I REALLY can't see many 3PPs who are doing well now going for this.


----------



## Ydars

I don't mean to seem annoyed either; it is a step forward that this is out-there and we can ask questions. Some of it is very positive, but I do feel sorry for the people hoping to make computer products for 4E; and yet this was SO predictable.


----------



## see

robertsconley said:
			
		

> The interesting thing that for a product that is completely OGL (and there are only a few) that the original company couldn't publish the product after conversion but a third party could.




Yes.  First thing I thought on reading this was:

"Wow.  So, if Necromancer Games makes a Tome 4e, they have to permanently withdraw the OGL version.  But, that won't make it unavailable; since it's basically all Open Game Content, anybody could publish and sell their own."


----------



## BSF

Orcus said:
			
		

> I dont want too sound too grouchy on this. I believe we were close to having NO third party support for 4E, so the fact Scott and Linae and others got the GSL done at all is awesome. I am thrilled to have the chance to support 4E. Now I have to decide if the license provided will do the job I want it to do.
> 
> Many, I'm sure, will misinterpret this evaluation and question process we are all going to go through as complaining and looking a gift horse in the mouth. That, of course, is not the case at all. Third party support has an awesome heritage of community discussion and dissection of licenses and changes.
> 
> So none of my comments or thoughts about what is or isnt or should have been or shouldnt have been in the license or calls for clarification or answers to questions should be considered as criticism or negativity. This is just the process of community discussion of this public license.
> 
> Clark




Hey Clark,
I just want to say thank you for all of your forthright postings.  I hope your statements won't be misconstrued, though I fear you may be correct.  

I don't like the GSL the way I liked the OGL.  But I am just a customer, not a publisher.  I can imagine where some of the changes and clauses might have grown from within WotC.  But it feels kind of weird.  More like they want to protect themselves from the community rather than embracing the community.  

Maybe I will feel differently after more discussion has occurred?  *shrug*  Even if I don't, it should still be interesting to see what comes of all this.  

But still, I wanted to thank you for facilitating as much discussion as you have over the years.  As a guy that has played D&D for a could of decades, I appreciate what you have done.


----------



## Orcus

Ydars said:
			
		

> I don't mean to seem annoyed either; it is a step forward that this is out-there and we can ask questions. Some of it is very positive, but I do feel sorry for the people hoping to make computer products for 4E; and yet this was SO predictable.




I'm not sure that there was actually anyone mainstream that had any reasonable belief they would be able to make computer products for 4E.

That was a no brainer in my mind.


----------



## HyrumOWC

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that there was actually anyone mainstream that had any reasonable belief they would be able to make computer products for 4E.
> 
> That was a no brainer in my mind.




Hey Clark,

What are your thoughts on section 11.4? To me it looks like WotC can sue you for any reason, and whether or not they win, or the suit is dismissed, you still pay for their costs, which are solely determined by them.

Is this a correct reading?

Hyrum.


----------



## Angellis_ater

I was sceptical to begin with, but the 6.1 clause (no GSL->OGL reversion even if the license is revoked or terminated) is the big break for me. At this point, I am NOT feeling confident that Dreamscarred Press will be able to release ANY material for 4E, since we never know when WotC will pull the plug on us and we have a shitload of useless PDFs/Books.

Unless my partner comes up with an awesome scheme, all I can say is that I am, personally, disappointed.


----------



## Orcus

Hyrum, I'm just not going to indulge in what some might interpret as a legal interpretation of the license. I cant do that. It would be misleading to people. 

There is lots to get worked up about in the GSL, but this is pretty standard lawyer boilerplate crap.

Its even in the d20STL that you have been using for years, which provided:

"If You fail to comply with the Effects of Termination, Wizards of the Coast may, at its option, pursue litigation, for which You shall be responsible for all legal costs, against You to the full extent of the law for breach of contract, copyright and trademark infringement, damages and any other remedy available."

So dont freak too much. 

This one, though, is a little worse.


----------



## Orcus

Angellis_ater said:
			
		

> I was sceptical to begin with, but the 6.1 clause (no GSL->OGL reversion even if the license is revoked or terminated) is the big break for me. At this point, I am NOT feeling confident that Dreamscarred Press will be able to release ANY material for 4E, since we never know when WotC will pull the plug on us and we have a shitload of useless PDFs/Books.
> 
> Unless my partner comes up with an awesome scheme, all I can say is that I am, personally, disappointed.




This issue is clearly going to need some clarification from Wizards.

Or maybe it wont. I mean, it is pretty clear:

Update an old OGL product, you cant keep selling the old OGL version (though you can sell off stock that is already printed).

What is more troubling is coupling this with 6.2, which says "though shalt not make an OGL version of a product you make under the GSL" and that provision apparently survives the termination of the GSL as well. That mean whatever you make for 4E can never be OGL--if you update it from OGL to 4E you are out of luck, and if you make it for 4E originally you cant go back and make an OGL version of it later even after the GSL is terminated. 

I'm still not quite sure what the penalty would be for doing the latter, but it certainly seems to say you cant do it. 

Clark


----------



## HyrumOWC

Orcus said:
			
		

> Hyrum, I'm just not going to indulge in what some might interpret as a legal interpretation of the license. I cant do that. It would be misleading to people.
> 
> There is lots to get worked up about in the GSL, but this is pretty standard lawyer boilerplate crap.




I totally understand. 



> Its even in the d20STL that you have been using for years, which provided:
> 
> "If You fail to comply with the Effects of Termination, Wizards of the Coast may, at its option, pursue litigation, for which You shall be responsible for all legal costs, against You to the full extent of the law for breach of contract, copyright and trademark infringement, damages and any other remedy available."
> 
> So dont freak too much.
> 
> This one, though, is a little worse.




Yeah, but it's MUCH easier to be terminated now, than it was under d20.

Still, the entire license is disappointing, and as it stands right now, it's looking like a deal breaker for me. 

Hyrum.


----------



## Orcus

This is, without doubt, the section that is getting my closest scrutiny:



> 6.1 OGL Product Conversion. If Licensee has entered into the “Open Gaming License version 1.0” with Wizards (“OGL”), and Licensee has previously published a product under the OGL (each an “OGL Product”), Licensee may publish a Licensed Product subject to this License that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents as such OGL Product (each such OGL Product, a “Converted OGL Product”, and each such Licensed Product, a “Conversion”). Upon the first publication date of a Conversion, Licensee will cease all manufacturing and publication of the corresponding Converted OGL Product and all other OGL Products which are part of the same product line as the Converted OGL Product, as reasonably determined by Wizards (“Converted OGL Product Line”). Licensee explicitly agrees that it will not thereafter manufacture or publish any portion of the Converted OGL Product Line, or any products that would be considered part of a Converted OGL Product Line (as reasonably determined by Wizards) pursuant to the OGL. Licensee may continue to distribute and sell-off all remaining physical inventory of a Converted OGL Product Line after the corresponding Conversion is published, but will, as of such date, cease all publication, distribution and sale (and ensure that third party affiliates of Licensee cease their publication, distribution and sale) of any element of a Converted OGL Product Line in any electronic downloadable format. For the avoidance of doubt, (a) any OGL Product that is not part of a Converted OGL Product Line may continue to be manufactured, published, sold and distributed pursuant to the OGL; and (b) this Section 6.1 will survive termination of this Agreement.




Coupled with:



> 6.2 No Backward Conversion. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that it will not publish any product pursuant to the OGL that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents of a Licensed Product.




They can spin that this isnt a poison pill all they want. But my dad taught me to call a spade a spade.

Clearly, as I understand that existing license, there wont be a "Tome of Horrors" for 4E. I'm not losing the right to make an OGL version. Period. In fact, I am pretty sure that I will be announcing a full color Pathfinder version of the Tome of Horrors shortly.  That said, I am still considering a monster book for 4E. 

We'll see....

Clark


----------



## Orcus

[nevermind]

Clark


----------



## HyrumOWC

Orcus said:
			
		

> [nevermind]
> 
> Clark




Heh. I agree with your OG post. 

Hyrum.


----------



## pemerton

HyrumOWC said:
			
		

> What are your thoughts on section 11.4? To me it looks like WotC can sue you for any reason, and whether or not they win, or the suit is dismissed, you still pay for their costs, which are solely determined by them.



In addition to Orcus's comments, I'd add that Australian law at least has a doctrine that prohibits certain unconscionable contractual penalties. If US law has a similar doctrine, that may have some relevance to the application of this clause (depending, of course, on the circumstances of the particular case).



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> whatever you make for 4E can never be OGL--if you update it from OGL to 4E you are out of luck, and if you make it for 4E originally you cant go back and make an OGL version of it later even after the GSL is terminated.
> 
> I'm still not quite sure what the penalty would be for doing the latter, but it certainly seems to say you cant do it.



Under clause 11.4 you seem to agree that WoTC are entitled to seek a permanent injunction against your publication in violation of that term of the licence, on the basis that such publication may cause irreperable damage to WoTC.


----------



## Orcus

pemerton said:
			
		

> Under clause 11.4 you seem to agree that WoTC are entitled to seek a permanent injunction against your publication in violation of that term of the licence, on the basis that such publication may cause irreperable damage to WoTC.




Yeah, I agree that seems to be an available remedy we agree that they can seek. I certainly dont agree they will get an injunction.  I'd love to hear them make that argument for injunctive relief with a straight face. "Uh, yeah Judge, had they made this product under our OTHER license, we wouldnt care at all, but now they are using that other license AFTER this license. Cant you see how horrible that is!?" LOL.


----------



## argash

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Yes you can, see page 22 of the SRD. (I think)



Your reference to a specific page number is in violation of the GSL....
/sarcasm


----------



## pemerton

Orcus said:
			
		

> Yeah, I agree that seems to be an available remedy we agree that they can seek. I certainly dont agree they will get an injunction.  I'd love to hear them make that argument for injunctive relief with a straight face. "Uh, yeah Judge, had they made this product under our OTHER license, we wouldnt care at all, but now they are using that other license AFTER this license. Cant you see how horrible that is!?" LOL.



What you say is what I suspected, but I don't know enough about the US law for availability of injunctive relief (in fact, I don't really know enough about the Australian law on the point to have more than a tentative opinion).

But if they can't get an injunction, can they get damages instead? Presumably they would have to prove that publishing under the OGL rather than the GSL would cause loss to WoTC due to its undermining of sales of 4e material. To me, that sounds hard to prove, and the amount of loss caused would seem hard to measure.

By referring to equitable remedies, is the licence trying to suggest that an account of profits might be available in respect of proceeds of sale in contravention of the licence? That would at least be easier to measure - but in Australian law at least, account of profits is not available as a remedy for breach of contract. And if we're assuming that you're publishing under the OGL then there is no breach of IP rights that might attract an account of profits as a remedy.

Anyway, just some thoughts.


----------



## Orcus

Exactly. I'd love to see them respond to my discovery request for them to produce all financial records in that law suit. LOL. [shakes head]

They are seriously trying to stop a problem that probably will only exist on the margin of cases at best, and in trying to address that marginal issue they are scaring off or pissing off those who would likely adopt the licsese. Poor planning. But thats what happens when the lawyers get involved. I can say that, since I am one.


----------



## pemerton

Orcus said:
			
		

> They are seriously trying to stop a problem that probably will only exist on the margin of cases at best, and in trying to address that marginal issue they are scaring off or pissing off those who would likely adopt the licsese. Poor planning. But thats what happens when the lawyers get involved. I can say that, since I am one.



I don't want to put words into your mouth, but given your sceptical tone about the availability of remedies for a breach of the backwards conversion clause, does that mean you think that it is a bit of a storm in a teacup (from the point of view of liability, as opposed to WoTC marketing)?


----------



## Keith Robinson

As soon as I heard that there would be no backward compatibilty with the OGL I decided that The Kyngdoms wouldn't be shifting to 4ed and neither would I.  That coupled with the termination clause has confirmed my worst fears.

Of course, what I do is neither here or there to anyone else, but what should be a major concern to everyone else in the industry is that by embracing the GSL they are losing control over the future of their own product lines.  Should a new edition be released at some point in the future, it is highly likely that products released under the GSL will be terminated, meaning they will have to be withdrawn - and since you can't go back to the OGL, you're left whistling in the wind in the unlikely hope that a new license will allow future compatibility.  Once you've attached yourself to this horse, it looks like you're on for the duration.

Imagine how many great products and lines we'd now be losing to the termination clause if it had been written into the OGL?

Sad days.


----------



## Darrin Drader

The Kyngdoms said:
			
		

> Of course, what I do is neither here or there to anyone else, but what should be a major concern to everyone else in the industry is that by embracing the GSL they are losing control over the future of their own product lines.  Should a new edition be released at some point in the future, it is highly likely that products released under the GSL will be terminated, meaning they will have to be withdrawn - and since you can't go back to the OGL, you're left whistling in the wind in the unlikely hope that a new license will allow future compatibility.  Once you've attached yourself to this horse, it looks like you're on for the duration.




I've been saying that since details of the GSL started coming out. If I were a publisher, the only thing I would put out for 4E would be adventures. Anything else and you risk the rug getting yanked out from under you.

edit: granted, the rug can still get yanked out with adventures, but they rarely involve lasting IP that you would want to reuse.


----------



## Lizard

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Clause 11.1: Immediate termination of the license would be my guess.
> 
> joe b.




On what grounds?

Nothing IN the license hints at "fantasy only". To claim that a licensee must be aware of comments made on web forums which did not, in fact, end up as license text strikes me as legally dubious.

There's a lot of legalese in there. Can anyone show me what in the GSL/SRD combines to form a "fantasy only" license? 'Cause I ain't seein' it, and WOTC saying "We want this for fantasy only" *outside* the license doesn't make it legally binding. Only what's in the license counts -- and for it to stand up in court, there needs to be a definition of fantasy beyond "We know it when we see it".


----------



## Lizard

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that there was actually anyone mainstream that had any reasonable belief they would be able to make computer products for 4E.
> 
> That was a no brainer in my mind.




To my mind, the question is -- would WOTC be dumb enough to try to shut down people making things liks PCGen for 4e as non-profit, not-for-sale products?

Manu shc products for 3x (not PCgen in particular, but others) either skirted the bounds of the OGL or danced merrily across them. WOTC ignored them, recognizing the cost in goodwill of shutting down non-commercial enterprises that didn't directly compete with their products was too high. But now (well, a few months from now....) there's DDI and Gleemax and suddenly Happy Bob's Cool Character Spreadsheet becomes, if not an actual threat to profits, at least something which is the teensiest tiniest bit competitive..,.and that can make companies do stupid things.


----------



## Pinotage

Orcus said:
			
		

> Update an old OGL product, you cant keep selling the old OGL version (though you can sell off stock that is already printed).
> 
> What is more troubling is coupling this with 6.2, which says "though shalt not make an OGL version of a product you make under the GSL" and that provision apparently survives the termination of the GSL as well. That mean whatever you make for 4E can never be OGL--if you update it from OGL to 4E you are out of luck, and if you make it for 4E originally you cant go back and make an OGL version of it later even after the GSL is terminated.
> 
> Clark




It doens't look like there's anything stopping one from going with the 4e GSL, and then getting another company (owned by you or even license your material to) that doesn't use the GSL to convert your GSL content to OGL. Or am I reading things wrong?

Pinotage


----------



## jmucchiello

Pinotage said:
			
		

> It doens't look like there's anything stopping one from going with the 4e GSL, and then getting another company (owned by you or even license your material to) that doesn't use the GSL to convert your GSL content to OGL. Or am I reading things wrong?
> 
> Pinotage



As Joe b said, clause 11.1 where they can terminate the GSL by mailing you a letter.


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> On what grounds?



Clause 11.1 does not require grounds, just someone with WotC letterhead and a postage stamp.


----------



## AZRogue

Reading the license, which is really a pretty insulting document, I was wondering why they even bothered making a GSL since they made sure in a lot of ways that no one far enough on the evolutionary scale to stand upright would ever use it. Why just not have a license and save the lawyer fees?


----------



## philreed

DanMcS said:
			
		

> Phil Reed posted on this board about this, that since he was an electronic publisher, this worried him a good bit, that people ripping and republishing his open content for free would totally replace his products and drive him straight out of business.




I'm still of the opinion that the GSL should have stuck with the $5,000 buy-in, only with the change that the buy-in would be a permanent requirement to accessing and using the license. 

And yes, I still think the OGL -- as it was released and as it has been used -- is potentially damaging to PDF publishers.


----------



## Starglim

edit: already answered


----------



## jaldaen

So I noticed people mentioning you can cut races, classes, or monsters but not "redefine them" according to the GSL... 

Is this going off of the assumption that the section headings are 4e References? I initially read them as just section headings with the 4e References below them being what WotC refers to as "4e References," which you cannot "define, redefine, or alter."

So my question to Scott and Linae is:

Is Human a 4e Reference in and of itself or just the section heading under which the 4e Reference of "Human Defence bonus" is defined? 

In other words, can we use "Human" in a GSL product to mean something different than in the 4e book? Such as using "cultures" to modify the "Human" racial traits... or is that forbidden by the GSL?

What about class names? They too could be either a 4e Reference or simply a section heading in the document. Which one are they? Both?

Is Demon/Devil a 4e Reference in and of itself or just the section heading implying we can use all Demons and Devils in compatible products? 

What about Monsters with "subsections" of particular monter names? Are those particular names 4e References or just subheadings for ease of finding the 4e Refrences WotC is concerned with keeping standard?

Thanks!


----------



## DanMcS

philreed said:
			
		

> I'm still of the opinion that the GSL should have stuck with the $5,000 buy-in, only with the change that the buy-in would be a permanent requirement to accessing and using the license.




Who would that benefit?  Large(ish) established publishers who don't want competition?  Would you have gotten into OGL publishing at all if the licenses for 3e had included such a provision?  Or is this your way of saying "they should have made it $5000 so no one would ever do it"?



> And yes, I still think the OGL -- as it was released and as it has been used -- is potentially damaging to PDF publishers.




Phil, you've published hundreds, if not thousands of products over the last several years.  Your claim seems contrary to your publishing schedule.


----------



## philreed

DanMcS said:
			
		

> Who would that benefit?  Large(ish) established publishers who don't want competition?  Would you have gotten into OGL publishing at all if the licenses for 3e had included such a provision?  Or is this your way of saying "they should have made it $5000 so no one would ever do it"?




Yes, I would have gotten into publishing for 3e. Probably in a different manner, and taking it more seriously than I did, but I would have found others to work with and published a few products.

My point is that publishing is both not easy and too easy. Too often, people step into the role of publisher when they're not fully prepared. I was not prepared. An entrance fee would help with this.





			
				DanMcS said:
			
		

> Phil, you've published hundreds, if not thousands of products over the last several years.  Your claim seems contrary to your publishing schedule.




Yes, but each one is vulnerable. All it takes -- for the PDFs to completely stop selling -- is for someone to start posting the full contents of each PDF online.

The OGL is what it is. It cannot be changed. The GSL was a chance for WotC to reinvent the wheel and hopefully learn from the OGL. It appears that all they learned was how to write a license that most* publishers will not touch.


* Opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe most publishers will, in fact, love this license. I don't.


----------



## webrunner

I think this contract needs to be compared with American Contract law.  I'm not a lawyer or anything, and I'm Canadian, but there's a few clauses that just don't seem to make sense from what I understand in Law:


How does "survives the termination of the license" work in the law?  It seems to me that pretty much goes against the definition of 'termination of the license', and it seems to me that it shouldn't be enforceable. 
I don't think free-revision clauses are enforceable- I know in Canada the law states that if a contract is changed you have to be told, and if you aren't you can terminate the license as if you never agreed to it in the first place, which is a common way of getting out of cellphone contracts

To those about the 'poison pill', it's exactly what we were told it was going to be: product-by-product, possibly product-line-by-product-line depending on how product line is determined, but not company-by-company as the poison pill was supposed to be.

In addition to this, there is something that really bothers me about this license: the SRD is not a list of content you can use.  It's a list of content you can _acknowledge exists_.  Your published adventure cannot include stat blocks of the monsters... which is one of the most helpful aspects of an adventure, having the stat blocks right there.  Now a sizable amount of the work to use a published adventure is back in the hands of the DM, making the adventure have less of a point.  And, this is an important thing, you can't even say "Dungeons and Dragons has a Beholder monster", you have to pretend those pages don't exist.  This is a significant drawback.


----------



## kenmarable

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Yes you can, see page 22 of the SRD. (I think)



Yep, you just need to create your own if you want any NPCs 11th level or higher.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Only in John's imagination.




No, not necessarily.

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4307889&postcount=25

This post suggests that a lot of publishers really had a problem contributing their own work with the OGL.

I think the GSL not *forcing* every publisher to "go viral" is actually a good thing.  Let it be the publishers who decide.  If you like a nice product somebody else built, ask permission and see if you can work out a deal.

Henry, Wulf, if you're correct, then there probably will be no problem since publishers will work out their own deals.  But if you see more publishers keeping their work to themselves, then I think implicitly I was correct because I doubt publishers want to facilitate their own contributions as a free commodity.


----------



## kenmarable

Lizard said:
			
		

> To my mind, the question is -- would WOTC be dumb enough to try to shut down people making things liks PCGen for 4e as non-profit, not-for-sale products?



I'm guessing "non-profit, not-for-sale products" might be better addressed by the fan site policy now.

Or not. (Don't know until we see it.)

But it is looking like the electronic support for 4e will most likely be just DDI, and unlicensed products (probably with user generated content, so it's a generic character generator but users enter the actual text of powers and such).

I can think of some ways to do it - especially as separate products that plug into each other very nicely. I'm not interested in jumping into that legal minefield myself, but I can see how it could be done relying on copyright law rather than the GSL and Web 2.0 style user-generated content.


----------



## Sunderstone

Orcus said:
			
		

> Clearly, as I understand that existing license, there wont be a "Tome of Horrors" for 4E. I'm not losing the right to make an OGL version. Period. In fact, I am pretty sure that I will be announcing a full color Pathfinder version of the Tome of Horrors shortly.  That said, I am still considering a monster book for 4E.
> 
> We'll see....
> 
> Clark




This is great news, count me in for the PF ToH (and any other Necro OGL stuff for that matter, Eamonvale would be sweet too).


----------



## Drkfathr1

How ironic is it that it seems as though the WOTC 4th Ed GSL is going to drive more support to..._Pathfinder_.


----------



## Psion

Orcus said:
			
		

> My initial reaction: Not as clear or friendly as I wanted. In fact, it feels like "we want you to support 4E but we dont really want you doing anything interesting or being too successful." Which smacks more of corporate fear than it does of vision.






			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> My adoption is going to depend on the answers to a few questions I am still formulating. Which troubles me, 'cause I wanted very badly to be in with both feet on this.




Interesting. The GSL is about what I expected, but ever Clark seems put off. I guess we had different expectations.


----------



## Waylander the Slayer

Here is my  question. If a third party was to publish a product with a Druid class and then Wizards were to come out with their own Druid, and updated the SRD to reflect this, the third party product would automatically be in violation of the GSL correct ??


----------



## jaldaen

Waylander the Slayer said:
			
		

> Here is my  question. If a third party was to publish a product with a Druid class and then Wizards were to come out with their own Druid, and updated the SRD to reflect this, the third party product would automatically be in violation of the GSL correct ??




It depends on if you read the race (Dwarf, Human, etc.), class (Fighter, Wizard, etc.), monster (Demon, Devil, etc.) section headings as "Section Headings & 4e References" or as just "Section Headings."

If you read it the first way it is very restrictive, if you read it the latter, then it is quite open and intended for ease of using the SRD in conjunction with the Core Books. 

This is a question I've asked in this thread, though maybe it deserves its own thread since so many questions hing on its interpretation.


----------



## Lizard

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> How ironic is it that it seems as though the WOTC 4th Ed GSL is going to drive more support to..._Pathfinder_.




Pathfinder probably exists only because of the long delays in getting the GSL out...

If WOTC had followed the path of the original OGL, publishers would have been working on conversions/new products for most of 2008, and there would have been a flood of support for 4e now, with promises of everyone's favorite 3e settings, etc, coming soon -- reducing the incentive to stay with the 3e, and encouraging players to buy the 4e books so they could use all the Cool New 4e stuff. If the 4e SRD was placed under the OGL, publishers could 'mix and match' the rules, to create D&D variants which could find the right niche between those tired of the flaws of 3e but leery of the radical changes of 4e. Instead, WOTCs "all or nothing" approach, as well as the way the 4e GSL is written to minimize the creation of variant systems or subsystems, means that rather than encouraging system evolution and diversification, they are focusing on "compatibility", telling, in effect, all those who like part, but not all, of 4e to "go back to 3x" -- since 3x, thanks to the OGL, *can* evolve, mutate, and diversify, but 4e cannot.

As someone said in another thread, it's a very 20th century attitude.


----------



## keterys

Orcus said:
			
		

> Clearly, as I understand that existing license, there wont be a "Tome of Horrors" for 4E. I'm not losing the right to make an OGL version. Period. In fact, I am pretty sure that I will be announcing a full color Pathfinder version of the Tome of Horrors shortly.




I don't understand what WotC gains by 'turning' one of their greatest 3rd party supporters in this fashion.

At a minimum, they might have wanted to add something to the FAQ like '3pp can seek less restrictive, but not free, licenses by approaching <this contact>' - it seems obvious, but it feels like they're not even trying to play in the same court.


----------



## Yair

What I didn't expect the most was Wizard's insistance on the precise formatting of, e.g., references (in the SRD). Allowing you to use their template formats is _great_. Deciding, for you, that page references are a no-no is condensending. Insisting you use small-caps for the initial cite an italics for the following ones is... just strangely obsessive. 

I am surprised that "will survive termination" is even possible. Can future changes to the license then be invoked? For example, if the license is later changed to disallow any backwards conversion into Creative Commons License as well as the OGL, would it be applicable to someone who terminated his contract before the change was enacted? I'm guessing no, but the whole idea of a contract binding after it's been terminated is rather new to me...

I was also surprised at the amount you need to kiss-up to WotC if you're gonna use this license. "Licensee will not attack the title of Wizards in and to any Wizards Intellectual Property" (so if Wizards claims to own the copyright to "Blue Moon", I'm supposed to not challenge that?!), "Licensee will assist Wizards to the extent necessary or as requested by Wizards to protect any of Wizards’ rights in and to Wizards Intellectual Property." (so now I'm your lackey? Now I gotta admonish people using your Yu-Gi-Ho names illegally in my country on your behalf?), "Licensee will defend and indemnify Wizards and its affiliates, and their respective employees, directors and representatives, against any claim ... brought by a third party,... any material contained therein that is alleged to be scandalous..." (so now I need to pay for your PR if my bokk caused someone to make some Chick-Tract about diabolism in D&D?)....

I am disappointed that the poison pill applied to content, not just product lines. This means that you can't have dual-statted works, no 3e and 4e stats for the same world (not even by partners - "and ensure that third party affiliates of Licensee cease their publication, distribution and sale"). Yet you MAY, if you reach an agreement with White Wolf, publish 4e and Storyteller mechanics for your content - madness! This is just designed to kill off 3e support, and of course takes True20 and so on down with it.

Otherwise, the contract is pretty much what I expected. 

As a non-publisher, I would of course never use the GSL - unlike the OGL, which felt much more accomodating and simple. This is clearly much more a "this license is for buisness" thing.


----------



## Waylander the Slayer

I thought it pretty clear that you cannot modify what's in the SRD hence my reading of it that if Wotc were to publish anything titled Xx and put it in the SRD and a third party had previously done xxx the third party product would be in violation.


----------



## Admiral Caine

Orcus said:
			
		

> Clearly, as I understand that existing license, there wont be a "Tome of Horrors" for 4E. I'm not losing the right to make an OGL version. Period. In fact, I am pretty sure that I will be announcing a full color Pathfinder version of the Tome of Horrors shortly.  That said, I am still considering a monster book for 4E.
> 
> We'll see....
> 
> Clark




I know this isn't the time or place. And that your comments shouldn't be taken as a final opinion, or decision. So on and so forth...

But I would be interested in buying a Pathfinder version of ToH. I find the prospect of it pretty exciting actually.


----------



## Yair

Waylander the Slayer said:
			
		

> Here is my  question. If a third party was to publish a product with a Druid class and then Wizards were to come out with their own Druid, and updated the SRD to reflect this, the third party product would automatically be in violation of the GSL correct ??



That is my guess. As someone mentioned upthread (I think - too many threads), you'd be wise to tie in your names to your IP. WotC may publish a "Druid", but not a "Naerthorian Priest".


----------



## philreed

Waylander the Slayer said:
			
		

> Here is my  question. If a third party was to publish a product with a Druid class and then Wizards were to come out with their own Druid, and updated the SRD to reflect this, the third party product would automatically be in violation of the GSL correct ??




Yes. And a simple letter could force you to destroy your existing stock/remove the PDF from sale. And they could wait and send this letter after your product hits your warehouse.

This license is the best tool WotC has created to combat direct competition. Anyone signing the agreement and using the license places their entire business in WotC's hands.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

keterys said:
			
		

> I don't understand what WotC gains by 'turning' one of their greatest 3rd party supporters in this fashion.



I don't know. I'd ask Scott or Linae, but I don't think they can give us the answer who's behind the "Anti-Open" agenda. We only know (or at least infer) that they worked hard to give us the GSL.

I can only hope that whatever nameless entities in WotC were working against the OGL have some reasonable facts and sales number projecting backing them, and are not just doing it on the principle of "what, we pay money for it to be developed, others don't deserve to get it for free!"...


----------



## Admiral Caine

Lizard said:
			
		

> Pathfinder probably exists only because of the long delays in getting the GSL out...




I am not refuting this point, I certainly think it played an important role in Paizo's decision.

However based on comments made by Erik Mona (and Co.), I believe the decision had many layers to it, the delay being only one of them.

I can't see taking this license, even with ample prep time before coming to market. There's very little protection for a 3rd Party to make it worthwhile.

************

Slight change of subject, I am wondering if the reaction is strong enough if WOTC will offer special licenses to select partners (as in Necro), just to keep them from walking.

I know they haven't intimated any interest in doing that previously, but obviously times can change quickly with the rapid communication of this 21st century.


----------



## Yair

robertsconley said:
			
		

> The interesting thing that for a product that is completely OGL (and there are only a few) that the original company couldn't publish the product after conversion but a third party could.
> 
> Because license grants the right to copy the OGL portions. So all new art will be needed but certain books could be preserved independently of what the Publisher decides.



While technically true, I think one could set up a new company, which is legally a different "person" so can derive material from the already published OGL. That this new person violates your copyright (by dressing your ideas in 3e cloth) is not, I think, something WotC can force you to sue over, or to disallow. At least under this iteration of the non-terminating clauses of the license.

Also, there is in principle nothing preventing the art from being OGL, though obviously this is not the case in practice.


----------



## Lizard

I want to make sure I'm not over-reacting.

Let's say I decide to take a homebrew setting, like my Shattered World campaign (game is going great, I've just been too busy to upgrade the blog), and produce a 4e version of it for commercial sale. Let us then speculate that, somehow, against all odds, it gets picked for some kind of movie/book/whatever deal.

Can WOTC basically kill it by sending me a C&D, as well as preventing me from releasing it under a different system? (OGL, my own house rules, whatever.)

I am not asking if it's likely that they WOULD; I'm asking if it's possible under the terms of the GSL.

'cause if it is, no one is going to risk releasing their 'crown jewel' IP under the GSL, or creating much original or interesting for it -- and maybe that's WOTCs plan, that what they want is very generic supplements which will not develop fan followings of their own, fan followings which will support the game world no matter what system it moves to.


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hey all! 



			
				Waylander the Slayer said:
			
		

> Here is my  question. If a third party was to publish a product with a Druid class and then Wizards were to come out with their own Druid, and updated the SRD to reflect this, the third party product would automatically be in violation of the GSL correct ??




This must be *the* single most important question the GSL raises that needs clarity.

If WotC can invalidate any Third Party Publishers 4E compatible product (and indeed potentially that whole product line) that was valid and compliant when it was released then surely the whole thing descends into madness.

We also need to know (and this point assumes a favourable result to Waylander's original point): 

_*If I release a book with a Druid Class on October 1st 2008 and then WotC releases their version of the Druid in the Players Handbook II in June 2009 or whenever, can I, at a later date, release a future book that references my own Druid Class and not WotCs?*_

I don't mind sticking to the GSL as written but do I have to predict the future of the GSL as well? I'm not Doctor Who.


----------



## MerricB

Lizard said:
			
		

> Can WOTC basically kill it by sending me a C&D, as well as preventing me from releasing it under a different system? (OGL, my own house rules, whatever.)




They can stop you from publishing the 4e GSL version.

They can't stop you from publishing it using house rules.

It's fuzzy as to whether they can stop you from publishing it under the OGL later. (I suspect not, but IANAL and Clark is, and Clark is more dubious than me!)

Cheers!


----------



## Yair

Lizard said:
			
		

> I want to make sure I'm not over-reacting.
> 
> Let's say I decide to take a homebrew setting, like my Shattered World campaign (game is going great, I've just been too busy to upgrade the blog), and produce a 4e version of it for commercial sale. Let us then speculate that, somehow, against all odds, it gets picked for some kind of movie/book/whatever deal.
> 
> Can WOTC basically kill it by sending me a C&D, as well as preventing me from releasing it under a different system? (OGL, my own house rules, whatever.)



I don't see how. They can terminate your GSL license, and the GSL license forbids you from publishing the content under the _OGL_, but not under any other license. So you can't possibly release the content under the True20 system, but you could publish it with no specific license as a book, base a movie on it, or so on following normal copyright law.

That said, for every 4e product I make I'd first make a systemless product under no copyright license whatsoever. Just do it at small circulation, perhaps a PDF only. I could then publish the content under the OGL if the GSL is terminated, basing the OGL on the systemless version.

Or use some other legal trick.


----------



## Yair

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> If WotC can invalidate any Third Party Publishers 4E compatible product (and indeed potentially that whole product line) that was valid and compliant when it was released then surely the whole thing descends into madness.



Since WotC can change the license on a whim and need not justify terminating the license, they can do that regardless of the answer.



> I don't mind sticking to the GSL as written but do I have to predict the future of the GSL as well? I'm not Doctor Who.



Just use your own PI. That way even WotC can't use the same names, since they would be derivative from you. "Gaelic Druids" is dangerous, WotC may use it. "Naerthian Priests of the Bloodied Tree" isn't.


----------



## Garnfellow

Orcus said:
			
		

> Clearly, as I understand that existing license, there wont be a "Tome of Horrors" for 4E. I'm not losing the right to make an OGL version. Period. In fact, I am pretty sure that I will be announcing a full color Pathfinder version of the Tome of Horrors shortly.



Emoticon or not, consider this your first pre-sale!


----------



## Upper_Krust

Hello Yair! 



			
				Yair said:
			
		

> Since WotC can change the license on a whim and need not justify terminating the license, they can do that regardless of the answer.
> 
> Just use your own PI. That way even WotC can't use the same names, since they would be derivative from you. "Gaelic Druids" is dangerous, WotC may use it. "Naerthian Priests of the Bloodied Tree" isn't.




Its the principle of the thing. I'm not talking about breaking the existing GSL, I'm happy to comply with whats there, I'd even comply to future updates if and when they happen. Its about WotC having the ability to retcon something thats perfectly valid one minute and invalid the next - thus potentially destroying an entire product line. 

This must be the first amendment (or clarification) to the GSL:

*1a) Any product GSL compliant at time of release is not beholden to future updates to the GSL. Sales of these products can continue unchallenged.
1b) Any product can reference, though not reprint, material from a previously GSL compliant product, that has subsequently become invalid due to an update to the GSL.*


----------



## BryonD

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> Emoticon or not, consider this your first pre-sale!



Hey buddy!!!  The line starts over THERE.  

[points to long line already waiting]


----------



## xechnao

Yair said:
			
		

> Yet you MAY, if you reach an agreement with White Wolf, publish 4e and Storyteller mechanics for your content - madness! This is just designed to kill off 3e support, and of course takes True20 and so on down with it.




Going on from this...
Someone explain this to me please. Can I publish under GSL say a book on new and not defined rules, say for example "romance rules" for 4e and another game system and include some reference to the other game system's product line in the book? Is such a reference (or even call it advertisement) prohibited by GSL?


----------



## Psion

Orcus said:
			
		

> In fact, I am pretty sure that I will be announcing a full color Pathfinder version of the Tome of Horrors shortly.




Best news all day.

Where do I preorder?


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES

Psion said:
			
		

> Best news all day.
> 
> Where do I preorder?




Ditto.


----------



## Sunderstone

FATDRAGONGAMES said:
			
		

> Ditto.




ahem... the line starts behind post #89


----------



## tensen

argash said:
			
		

> Your reference to a specific page number is in violation of the GSL....
> /sarcasm




I'm annoyed the actually put that in specifically.  I know one of the first things I wanted to do was create an index.  The one they have in the PHB now is a bit too minimal for my tastes.


----------



## DaveMage

Sunderstone said:
			
		

> ahem... the line starts behind post #89




There may have been a request or two for this on the Paizo boards...


----------



## jmucchiello

tensen said:
			
		

> I'm annoyed the actually put that in specifically.  I know one of the first things I wanted to do was create an index.  The one they have in the PHB now is a bit too minimal for my tastes.



It has been in the d20 license for a long time now. Why does it bother you now?


----------



## jmucchiello

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> This must be the first amendment (or clarification) to the GSL:



And then a month afterwards they once again remove this amendment. And then you're back to square one.


----------



## Alzrius

Psion said:
			
		

> Best news all day.
> 
> Where do I preorder?




QFT. Consider me to be a guaranteed sale of a full-color Pathfinder ToH.   

Back on topic, though, sections 6.1 and 6.2 of the GSL are seriously dangerous minefields. What frightens me most about them is this (emphasis mine):



> 6.1 OGL Product Conversion. If Licensee has entered into the “Open Gaming License version 1.0” with Wizards (“OGL”), and Licensee has previously published a product under the OGL (each an “OGL Product”), Licensee may publish a Licensed Product subject to this License that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents as such OGL Product (each such OGL Product, a “Converted OGL Product”, and each such Licensed Product, a “Conversion”).




The underlined sections destroy virtually any ability to have even the slightest amount of overlap, since they account for nebulously-"similar" things, and worse, reference "contents" as being applicable as conversions.

This means that if Necromancer games ever publishes a 4E version of even a single monster from ANY of the ToH books, then the entire line of products now falls under the purview of section 6.1, disallowing them from selling the existing OGL versions forever.

Talk about restrictive. :\


----------



## alanpossible

Just a thought....

But is there anything to stop someone from developing 4e material under the GSL and then releasing *their* IP to the public domain?

Seems like an obvious loophole is for someone/some group of people to develop a perfectly legitimate and compatible Wizarde, Kleric, Fightar, Elhf, Harfling, ...  and make them freely available for anyone to use and copy.

It would be like developing an OGL under the GSL 

Just curious


----------



## Papa-DRB

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that there was actually anyone mainstream that had any reasonable belief they would be able to make computer products for 4E.
> 
> That was a no brainer in my mind.




While I agree that no one in the mainstream (read "big" companies) would probably try, there are a lot of "little" companies / open source groups that would have wanted to make a Character Generator for DnD 4.

PCGen, HeroLab, DMGenie, CMPs- RPG Foundry, TOS, etc.* as well as Joe's excel sheet. Now all these folks can't make it via GSL, and I don't think they will take the chance on just going ahead and doing it anyway.

Being a PCGen user/contributor, I know that there has been much discussion on adding the features needed to be able to provide the 4E datasets, which will probably still happen (adding features, not datasets), but then it will be up do Mary user to input her own data.

-- david
Papa.DRB

* Sorry if I missed anyone, it is my lunch time and I am also having a Senior Moment....


----------



## Knightfall

Alzrius said:
			
		

> QFT. Consider me to be a guaranteed sale of a full-color Pathfinder ToH.



Me too. I want it!

_Does Snoopy happy dance!_


----------



## Jraynack

alanpossible said:
			
		

> Just a thought....
> 
> But is there anything to stop someone from developing 4e material under the GSL and then releasing *their* IP to the public domain?
> 
> Seems like an obvious loophole is for someone/some group of people to develop a perfectly legitimate and compatible Wizarde, Kleric, Fightar, Elhf, Harfling, ...  and make them freely available for anyone to use and copy.
> 
> It would be like developing an OGL under the GSL
> 
> Just curious




You can only enter into Public Domain something that is entirely yours (as you mentioned, IP).  However, any (I mean any reference) to 4th Edition is used only by WotC's permission.  For example, you could not use the name kobold and reference or redefine it using 4th Edition rules and make it public domain.

A publisher cannot even reproduce rules in 4th Edition.  The only thing you could put up as Public Domain is flavor text, original names (names of powers, rituals, characters, and so forth, that you created, but not the acutally mechanics.)

So the short answer is no, but a good thought.  There is one exeption -70 years after the authors death (unless an extention is filed by relatives or a corporation) their work is automatically submitted into the public domain. 

I don't know about anybody else, but I am counting the days .


----------



## useridunavailable

Alzrius said:
			
		

> The underlined sections destroy virtually any ability to have even the slightest amount of overlap, since they account for nebulously-"similar" things, and worse, reference "contents" as being applicable as conversions.
> 
> This means that if Necromancer games ever publishes a 4E version of even a single monster from ANY of the ToH books, then the entire line of products now falls under the purview of section 6.1, disallowing them from selling the existing OGL versions forever.
> 
> Talk about restrictive. :/



What it doesn't do is prevent someone from publishing a product through one company under the OGL, forming a second company, reprinting a 4e version of the same material through the second company under the GSL, then simply choosing not to invoke the first company's right to sue the second company for copyright infringement.

Wouldn't this be possible?  The GSL only seems to apply to multiple products published by the same licensee...


----------



## joela

*ToH for PfRPG*



			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> Clearly, as I understand that existing license, there wont be a "Tome of Horrors" for 4E. I'm not losing the right to make an OGL version. Period. In fact, I am pretty sure that I will be announcing a full color Pathfinder version of the Tome of Horrors shortly.  That said, I am still considering a monster book for 4E.
> 
> We'll see....
> 
> Clark




Even though I have all the Necro ToH books (3?), I'll definitely be interested in one for Pathfinder.


----------



## Lizard

Alzrius said:
			
		

> QFT. Consider me to be a guaranteed sale of a full-color Pathfinder ToH.




Where's the "Can't talk, drooling" icon?


----------



## Zaukrie

This thread makes me sad.

And, the more I read about the GSL, the more I think i will buy less WotC product.

We've made the switch to 4E at my house, but I think this is enough for me to play with for a long time. Unless some things are cleared up, and I see Necromancer games products, I'll assume WotC is not really interested in open gaming anymore (which is their right, certainly), and I'll buy less WotC product. yes, this is a change from a post earlier in a different thread.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES

My group I DM for will be staying with C&C, and the 3.5 group I play in has decided to now go Pathfinder (until the GSL came out the group was on the fence.) That's about fourteen people's gaming funds that will be going to Troll Lord Games and Paizo.


----------



## Drkfathr1

I fear this will just further fracture the RPG market again. Welcome back to the days of 2nd Ed.


----------



## Fathead

I'm not a lawyer, so this comment may smack of ignorance, but...

Is there anything keeping a gaming company from creating a new company (incorporating under a slightly different name and keeping the accounting books seperate) to publish 4E material (while still being able to publish 3E under the old company)?


----------



## Friadoc

Nah, we've a lot more safe habors now than we did when 2e was out; Paizo, Green Ronin, and others will grow into stronger companies thanks to this move by WotC.

In my opinion, as has been reflected on here a lot, is that the OGL is a superior thing to the GSL and it'll play out that way.

I've enjoyed playing 4e, but not to the point that I'll ditch everyone else for it.

I think, for the foreseeable future, WotC has my sci-fi dollars, with Star Wars Saga Edition stuff, but my fantasy dollar is going to go elsewhere.

Paizo is my master now.


----------



## Friadoc

Fathead said:
			
		

> I'm not a lawyer, so this comment may smack of ignorance, but...
> 
> Is there anything keeping a gaming company from creating a new company (incorporating under a slightly different name and keeping the accounting books seperate) to publish 4E material (while still being able to publish 3E under the old company)?




Not really, heck fiction authors, for years, have been using simple aliases to work for various publishers, and it hasn't caused them too much trouble.

I mean, if you can create a company to insulate yourself, as an individual, from the failing of said company, I don't see why you couldn't do it to insult yourself from a restrictive license.

Of course, as with many of us, I am not a lawyer. but the concept seems simple enough; of course, I could have just hung myself with that statement. *chuckles*


----------



## Brown Jenkin

I have a question. Can a company protect its inventory from being destroyed after termination by creating another separate "distribution company" for warehousing/distribution. The GSL states that all product in the licensee's possession needs to be destroyed. So to protect oneselves wouldn't it be smart to sell all product after printing to a separate "distribution company." The deal between publisher and new distribution "company" could then be set up legally so that the distribution company only has to pay for product after it resells it to someone else and the publishing company is responsible to cover warehouse fees, or the "distribution company" in turn rents space from the publisher to store unsold product.


----------



## Cassandra

Fathead said:
			
		

> Is there anything keeping a gaming company from creating a new company (incorporating under a slightly different name and keeping the accounting books seperate) to publish 4E material (while still being able to publish 3E under the old company)?



It depends on whether the company is trying to publish the same material under both systems. If not, there would be no problem - but no real reason to do it, either.

On the other hand, the GSL seems to specifically prohibit a company from making that kind of end run to be able to publish the same material as 3E and 4E: 







> In the event that any portion of a Converted OGL Product Line is manufactured or published by Licensee, or _a third party affiliated with Licensee_, after the first publication date of a Conversion, Wizards may immediately terminate this License upon written notice.



(Emphasis mine.) Once a product line has been switched to 4E, neither the original publisher nor anyone affiliated with them can publish the material as 3E anymore. To me, that sounds broad enough to disqualify the "different company, same owners" ploy.


----------



## Yair

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> This must be the first amendment (or clarification) to the GSL:
> 
> *1a) Any product GSL compliant at time of release is not beholden to future updates to the GSL. Sales of these products can continue unchallenged.
> 1b) Any product can reference, though not reprint, material from a previously GSL compliant product, that has subsequently become invalid due to an update to the GSL.*



I agree that this would go a long way towards making the license more agreeable. This is definitely not, however, the current license.


----------



## RSKennan

alanpossible said:
			
		

> Just a thought....
> 
> But is there anything to stop someone from developing 4e material under the GSL and then releasing *their* IP to the public domain?
> 
> Seems like an obvious loophole is for someone/some group of people to develop a perfectly legitimate and compatible Wizarde, Kleric, Fightar, Elhf, Harfling, ...  and make them freely available for anyone to use and copy.
> 
> It would be like developing an OGL under the GSL
> 
> Just curious



I hope so, if only because I want to play a Harfling Rouge or a Dorf Fightar.


----------



## Yair

xechnao said:
			
		

> Going on from this...
> Someone explain this to me please. Can I publish under GSL say a book on new and not defined rules, say for example "romance rules" for 4e and another game system and include some reference to the other game system's product line in the book? Is such a reference (or even call it advertisement) prohibited by GSL?



I.... think you can. Can't see where it says you can't. I know Atlas Games did similar things with some of its books (the Penumbra series, I think) under the old STL, I think you can do so under the GSL too.



			
				Fathead said:
			
		

> I'm not a lawyer, so this comment may smack of ignorance, but...
> 
> Is there anything keeping a gaming company from creating a new company (incorporating under a slightly different name and keeping the accounting books seperate) to publish 4E material (while still being able to publish 3E under the old company)?



It's not like I'm a lawyer, but as I understand the issue: the license does attempt to limit this, but I don't think it can since one legal person isn't really bound by the actions of another in general. So the license may say that your affiliates should not publish Converted material, but your affiliates aren't really under any obligation to cease and desist. As long as you use the GSL I think Wizards can then sue you for what your affiliates are doing, and you'd have to pay their trial costs too; but if the license is terminated, I don't think that would fly.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I have a question. Can a company protect its inventory from being destroyed after termination by creating another separate "distribution company" for warehousing/distribution. The GSL states that all product in the licensee's possession needs to be destroyed. So to protect oneselves wouldn't it be smart to sell all product after printing to a separate "distribution company." The deal between publisher and new distribution "company" could then be set up legally so that the distribution company only has to pay for product after it resells it to someone else and the publishing company is responsible to cover warehouse fees, or the "distribution company" in turn rents space from the publisher to store unsold product.



Yeah, this looks like a good idea - store all your published books in a "seperate" company, isolated legally from your publishing arm.


----------



## DiasExMachina

RSKennan said:
			
		

> I hope so, if only because I want to play a Harfling Rouge or a Dorf Fightar.




That is the funniest sh$%^ I have read all day.  I needed that from the depressing posts I have been reading.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Friadoc said:
			
		

> Paizo is my master now.




*Couldn't have put it better.

Long Live Paizo.  Long Live the OGL*​


----------



## Sunderstone

Meh, Ive seen this before....

As soon as Darth Hasbro realizes that Luke Paizowalker, Pramas Leia, Han Necro and the rest of the Third Party Rebellion is stronger than they thought, the better. 

Cant we just skip right to D&D Wars Epsiode VI : Return of the OGL?

Meh. Spike tv reruns all over again.


----------



## alanpossible

Jraynack said:
			
		

> AlanPossible said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a thought....
> 
> But is there anything to stop someone from developing 4e material under the GSL and then releasing *their* IP to the public domain?
> 
> Seems like an obvious loophole is for someone/some group of people to develop a perfectly legitimate and compatible Wizarde, Kleric, Fightar, Elhf, Harfling, ... and make them freely available for anyone to use and copy.
> 
> It would be like developing an OGL under the GSL
> 
> Just curious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can only enter into Public Domain something that is entirely yours (as you mentioned, IP).  However, any (I mean any reference) to 4th Edition is used only by WotC's permission.  For example, you could not use the name kobold and reference or redefine it using 4th Edition rules and make it public domain.
> 
> A publisher cannot even reproduce rules in 4th Edition.  The only thing you could put up as Public Domain is flavor text, original names (names of powers, rituals, characters, and so forth, that you created, but not the acutally mechanics.)
> 
> So the short answer is no, but a good thought.  There is one exeption -70 years after the authors death (unless an extention is filed by relatives or a corporation) their work is automatically submitted into the public domain.
> 
> I don't know about anybody else, but I am counting the days .
Click to expand...



heh 
But surely you could produce a product that conforms to the GSL and release your contributions in that document as public domain? If I create a Fightar then it's a class not defined by Wizards (allowing me to define it) and if the flavour text, powers, etc. are all original, then it's entirely my property. I haven't actually used anything of Wizards', I've just ensured my material is compatible with 4e. There aren't any mechanics specified - you still need the PHB for those. But there'd be much more material to use, people could reproduce your public domain monster stat blocks in adventures, for example.

I am by no means a lawyer, and am only vaguely familiar with UK IP laws, so I could be talking rubbish, of course. 

My understanding was that some of the 3e publishers did something similar - they'd release a product, and reference the SRD where necessary. In the legalese at the front they had words to the effect of "Some of the text in this book is part of the SRD, owned by Wizards of the coast and freely available. The remainder is owned, copyrighted, trademarked, whatever to us. We will break your legs if you reproduce it."



			
				RSKennan said:
			
		

> I hope so, if only because I want to play a Harfling Rouge or a Dorf Fightar.




Agh! I completely forgot about the commonly referenced fantasy class, Rouge.

I will await your release of this class in to the public domain so that it may be used ;D


----------



## CapnZapp

Friadoc said:
			
		

> Not really, heck fiction authors, for years, have been using simple aliases to work for various publishers, and it hasn't caused them too much trouble.
> 
> I mean, if you can create a company to insult yourself, as an individual, from the failing of said company, I don't see why you couldn't do it to insult yourself from a restrictive license.
> 
> Of course, as with many of us, I am not a lawyer. but the concept seems simple enough; of course, I could have just hung myself with that statement. *chuckles*



Insult or insulate?


----------



## occam

BSF said:
			
		

> And this entire section will survive termination of the agreement.
> 
> This, I think, is one of the more thought provoking clauses.  If a publisher converts a product line from OGL to GSL, and then the agreement is terminated - for whatever reason - then section 6.1 will still be in effect.  So the publisher could not then revert a GSL converted product line back to the OGL.
> 
> This section may add fuel to the conspiracy theories.  But this section may also be one that holds some third party publishers back.  If there is a successful brand that the publisher has already built, will they want to tie that brand into 4E?  Because once they do, they can't fall back to the strength of that brand if the agreement is terminated for any reason.




I'm taken aback at how many are surprised by these terms in the GSL. Didn't we know all this already?

Of course WotC wouldn't allow conversion of a product/product line to the GSL, then back to the OGL for any reason. That would permit a licensee to produce 4e-compatible products, then when the initial surge of purchases was done, republish them as 3e-compatible OGC, completely negating the intent of the GSL. You may argue with that intent, but we had already heard about this one-time conversion idea months ago, I thought.

Also, as far as the terms of conversion surviving termination of the license, that should also have been expected. Given what we know or could surmise about WotC's goals with the new license, they wouldn't set it up so that 3PPs could pull all their goodies out of WotC's sandbox and into post-3e OGC-land when, say, a new edition comes out with (potentially) a new license. Permanent conversion is necessary to keep 3PPs in the market supporting WotC's products going forward, which is the entire point of the license, after all.

Displeasure with aspects of the GSL is inevitable, but surprise? Were people really not expecting this?


----------



## Friadoc

CapnZapp said:
			
		

> Insult or insulate?




I swear, I gotta love my ignorant, crippled fingers and their desire to punish me for the years of abuse.

Insulate, obviously. *laughs*


----------



## Voadam

occam said:
			
		

> I'm taken aback at how many are surprised by these terms in the GSL. Didn't we know all this already?
> 
> Of course WotC wouldn't allow conversion of a product/product line to the GSL, then back to the OGL for any reason. That would permit a licensee to produce 4e-compatible products, then when the initial surge of purchases was done, republish them as 3e-compatible OGC, completely negating the intent of the GSL. You may argue with that intent, but we had already heard about this one-time conversion idea months ago, I thought.
> 
> Also, as far as the terms of conversion surviving termination of the license, that should also have been expected. Given what we know or could surmise about WotC's goals with the new license, they wouldn't set it up so that 3PPs could pull all their goodies out of WotC's sandbox and into post-3e OGC-land when, say, a new edition comes out with (potentially) a new license. Permanent conversion is necessary to keep 3PPs in the market supporting WotC's products going forward, which is the entire point of the license, after all.
> 
> Displeasure with aspects of the GSL is inevitable, but surprise? Were people really not expecting this?




No, I was not expecting a (possibly not legally enforceable) clause attempting to impose permanent post license termination restrictions on nonGSL stuff.

There were discussions about the "poison pill" provision and people expecting it to apply so long as you were under the license.

This is like a permanent noncompete clause attached to an at will emplyment contract.


----------



## Orcus

Lizard said:
			
		

> To my mind, the question is -- would WOTC be dumb enough to try to shut down people making things liks PCGen for 4e as non-profit, not-for-sale products?
> 
> Manu shc products for 3x (not PCgen in particular, but others) either skirted the bounds of the OGL or danced merrily across them. WOTC ignored them, recognizing the cost in goodwill of shutting down non-commercial enterprises that didn't directly compete with their products was too high. But now (well, a few months from now....) there's DDI and Gleemax and suddenly Happy Bob's Cool Character Spreadsheet becomes, if not an actual threat to profits, at least something which is the teensiest tiniest bit competitive..,.and that can make companies do stupid things.




My guess is that they would. I would if I was them. I hate to say it. Given that they are driving people to Gleemax. Under 3E there really wasnt any relevant product the generators were fighting. Thats not the case for 4E and they spent a TON on money on the digital initiative. Plus, look at how the did the SRD. THEY want to be the purveyors of the content and the dreamers of dreams.


----------



## Orcus

pemerton said:
			
		

> I don't want to put words into your mouth, but given your sceptical tone about the availability of remedies for a breach of the backwards conversion clause, does that mean you think that it is a bit of a storm in a teacup (from the point of view of liability, as opposed to WoTC marketing)?




Well, I guess you could always argue third party stuff is a teapot (I dont happen to feel that way but some do). 

No, I think this is a huge issue. Basically, the only real way to release thrid party content now is either the OGL which is timeless or the GSL which is revocable. I wouldnt be so enthusiastic in believing that 5E will have a GSL since there seems to be a corporate trend away from openness and frankly I think that Wizards would have killed the GSL had they been willing to take the PR hit and had their not been true heroes of third party support like Scott and Linae. So given that you have those two choices for distributing your content, if 4E native products also cannot ever be OGL products (like converted products) then essentially you are choosing by making a product in 4E to never be able to publish it again. I guess it is possible, but my guess is that the OGL is going to be the only way for you to ever publish D&D compatible game content in the future once the GSL is revoked and one day it will be revoked. So, no, this isnt a tempest in a tea pot. If 6.2 really means that I cant ever make an OGL version of a native 4E product (not a converted product), then that is a big problem in my mind.


----------



## Orcus

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Reading the license, which is really a pretty insulting document, I was wondering why they even bothered making a GSL since they made sure in a lot of ways that no one far enough on the evolutionary scale to stand upright would ever use it. Why just not have a license and save the lawyer fees?




Insulting to who? I plan on using the license. Maybe not for everything. But I sure intend to use it. I must not be that far on the evolutionary scale  My wife might agree...

Clark


----------



## RSKennan

alanpossible said:
			
		

> heh
> 
> Agh! I completely forgot about the commonly referenced fantasy class, Rouge.
> 
> I will await your release of this class in to the public domain so that it may be used ;D




Well, I'm thinking about asking my "illiterate cousin Jimmy"  if he wants to dictate a new RPG. His mom has been reading him RPGs and he's got some ideas for one. Would it be ok to use your class and race names?


----------



## DiasExMachina

This assumes, to paraphrase myself earlier, that WOTC is basically a James Bond villain.  Might as well call them "Spectre" and have them dealing nukes.  This would leave Linae to be that awesome femme fatale with a coy double entendre name.  

No, I don't believe WOTC is doing this to systematically destroy all competition.  They are simply closing up certain holes they feel people took advantage of with the previous edition.  I think many of the major legitimate companies out there could still use 4ED.  I am not one of those big names...but its looking like it’s our choice, regardless of its popularity on these posts in the past few days.

"We here at WOTC have made modifications with the GSL to correct an issue where third party companies could actually make money with it."



Like I said...its doubtful that was their intent.


----------



## Orcus

webrunner said:
			
		

> To those about the 'poison pill', it's exactly what we were told it was going to be: product-by-product, possibly product-line-by-product-line depending on how product line is determined, but not company-by-company as the poison pill was supposed to be.




I disagree. I dont think we were ever told that --after the termination of the license and the end of 4E-- that you could never go back and do an OGL version of your product. That, to me, is new and is significant. 

I dont mind this restriction so long as 4E is in play and I can make 4E products. But once the license is terminated, why would they want to control what I did with my content? 

There are two options: 1. the GSL expires on or after the date that 4E itself ends, or 2. the GSL will be revoked before 4E ends.

If (1), who cares if I go back to the OGL, since 5E will be so different from 3E that losing my content to 3E hardly seems relevant and any 3E market at the end of 4E would likely be minimal? If (2) then maybe I should be more worried than I am. Problem is, the only real reason to inlcude 6.2 is because of (2), not (1). That worries me. 

Clark


----------



## JohnRTroy

Clark's right.

The OGL might get an A, the GSL a B-.  

But it's not like a contract with Satan where you get a D-.    

Keep in mind, most IP licenses are pretty restrictive.  If this was a license with a major property like Disney Characters, Star Wars, GI-Joe, etc., you could get a lot more restrictions.  That's pretty much part for the course.  

OGL was a very very liberal license.  It's not considered an industry norm.  

It does suck to go down from that freedom, but if your goal is simply to publish D&D 4e compatible products (and take the logical risk you'd get with any typical product you don't own yourself), it's not so bad.


----------



## Orcus

Waylander the Slayer said:
			
		

> Here is my  question. If a third party was to publish a product with a Druid class and then Wizards were to come out with their own Druid, and updated the SRD to reflect this, the third party product would automatically be in violation of the GSL correct ??




That's one way to read it, and as you can imagine I want some clarification on this.


----------



## Orcus

Lizard said:
			
		

> Pathfinder probably exists only because of the long delays in getting the GSL out...
> 
> If WOTC had followed the path of the original OGL, publishers would have been working on conversions/new products for most of 2008, and there would have been a flood of support for 4e now, with promises of everyone's favorite 3e settings, etc, coming soon -- reducing the incentive to stay with the 3e, and encouraging players to buy the 4e books so they could use all the Cool New 4e stuff. If the 4e SRD was placed under the OGL, publishers could 'mix and match' the rules, to create D&D variants which could find the right niche between those tired of the flaws of 3e but leery of the radical changes of 4e. Instead, WOTCs "all or nothing" approach, as well as the way the 4e GSL is written to minimize the creation of variant systems or subsystems, means that rather than encouraging system evolution and diversification, they are focusing on "compatibility", telling, in effect, all those who like part, but not all, of 4e to "go back to 3x" -- since 3x, thanks to the OGL, *can* evolve, mutate, and diversify, but 4e cannot.
> 
> As someone said in another thread, it's a very 20th century attitude.




That, without a doubt, would have been the ideal situation for both Wizards and third party publishers. Why we are on the other side of that spectrum is mind bogglingly crazy, IMHO. Corporate fear and lack of overall vision is the only answer. (note: I said "overall," since I know for a fact that some or maybe many over there get it).


----------



## Admiral Caine

Orcus said:
			
		

> Insulting to who? I plan on using the license. Maybe not for everything. But I sure intend to use it. I must not be that far on the evolutionary scale  My wife might agree...
> 
> Clark





But getting back on topic, here is something of a fluff question. Something to muse over.

How willing are you to really invest in a 4E product now, in comparison to before you saw the GSL. Example: after looking at the GSL, you no longer felt willing to write the 4E Tome of Horrors. Presumably because you knew that it's lifespan would always be measured by how long you had access to the license.

Okay, that's the Tome of Horrors.

Today on a whim, I went to RPGNow, and I looked at the PDF version of _City of Brass_. A product I never knew existed before, and gosh it looks swell.

How willing are you to do anything like that for 4E?

If you can't answer today, I'll respect that, but I'd like to hear your thoughts if you can.

You see, even if you are low evolutionary enough to use the license (to play on the previous post), what sort of products would you risk publishing under it?


----------



## BryonD

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Clark's right.
> 
> The OGL might get an A, the GSL a B-.
> 
> But it's not like a contract with Satan where you get a D-.



If you have no OGL products and zero interest in them now or ever in the future, then this is a fair assessment.

If you do have interest in the OGL, then it fails miserably.



> Keep in mind, most IP licenses are pretty restrictive.  If this was a license with a major property like Disney Characters, Star Wars, GI-Joe, etc., you could get a lot more restrictions.  That's pretty much part for the course.
> 
> OGL was a very very liberal license.  It's not considered an industry norm.
> 
> It does suck to go down from that freedom, but if your goal is simply to publish D&D 4e compatible products (and take the logical risk you'd get with any typical product you don't own yourself), it's not so bad.



Moving 4E freedom down from the level of freedom that 3E had sucks as you have described.  But you are completely missing the point on the attack on the existence and continuation of the OGL community as a whole.

Everything you have said ONLY applies if one looks at 4E publishing in a vacuum and completely neglects all other considerations.  From that POV, the GSL is fairly decent. But only if you stick to that myopic view.


----------



## DaveMage

Sunderstone said:
			
		

> Cant we just skip right to D&D Wars Epsiode VI : Return of the OGL?




I believe "It's a trap!" is the motto that has been established for the GSL.


----------



## Orcus

Alzrius said:
			
		

> This means that if Necromancer games ever publishes a 4E version of even a single monster from ANY of the ToH books, then the entire line of products now falls under the purview of section 6.1, disallowing them from selling the existing OGL versions forever.
> 
> Talk about restrictive. :\




I dont agree with your "one monster means a conversion" reading from a practical standpoint BUT this is clearly something I want some clarity on.


----------



## Orcus

Sunderstone said:
			
		

> Meh, Ive seen this before....
> 
> As soon as Darth Hasbro realizes that Luke Paizowalker, Pramas Leia, Han Necro and the rest of the Third Party Rebellion is stronger than they thought, the better.
> 
> Cant we just skip right to D&D Wars Epsiode VI : Return of the OGL?
> 
> Meh. Spike tv reruns all over again.




I'm just glad I get to be Harrison Ford. Han Solo has always been my favorite. 

Lidda: "I love Necromancer Games products!"
Han Necro: "I know."


----------



## Friadoc

Orcus said:
			
		

> I dont agree with your "one monster means a conversion" reading from a practical standpoint BUT this is clearly something I want some clarity on.




I think a lot of us would like some clarity, that's for sure. WotC is definitely going to need a FAQ for their GSL, since it is not as clear for the layman; heck, some folks needed help with the OGL, which was fairly clear and simply, in my opinion.

On a kneejerk level; the GSL is fairly lead fisted, they took the silk glove that was the OGL off and then "Hulk Smash"ed it.


----------



## Orcus

Admiral Caine said:
			
		

> But getting back on topic, here is something of a fluff question. Something to muse over.
> 
> How willing are you to really invest in a 4E product now, in comparison to before you saw the GSL. Example: after looking at the GSL, you no longer felt willing to write the 4E Tome of Horrors. Presumably because you knew that it's lifespan would always be measured by how long you had access to the license.
> 
> Okay, that's the Tome of Horrors.
> 
> Today on a whim, I went to RPGNow, and I looked at the PDF version of _City of Brass_. A product I never knew existed before, and gosh it looks swell.
> 
> How willing are you to do anything like that for 4E?
> 
> If you can't answer today, I'll respect that, but I'd like to hear your thoughts if you can.
> 
> You see, even if you are low evolutionary enough to use the license (to play on the previous post), what sort of products would you risk publishing under it?




I'm not willing.

I am probably going to draw a bright line: anything for 4E will be brand new and wont refer to the core IP that I want to make sure I will be able to use forever and all time. That means no Rappan Athuk 4E, no Bards' Gate, no Tomb of Abysthor, etc. I just dont want to lose the control over that stuff. AND until I get clarification, no referencing that stuff in 4E products either. I dont know how much "content" from an old product in a new 4E products means that new product is a conversion. That, to me, is one of the biggest unresolved issues out there.

So bright line rule for me: 4E stuff not connected to 3E stuff. 

Clark


----------



## carmachu

First, thanks scott and lisa for finally getting it out here.


But unfortunately, I have to say: It sucks. I think you(wotc) just shoved more folks backwards into the arms of 3.5 with this then folwards to 4e.


----------



## occam

Orcus said:
			
		

> No, I think this is a huge issue. Basically, the only real way to release thrid party content now is either the OGL which is timeless or the GSL which is revocable. I wouldnt be so enthusiastic in believing that 5E will have a GSL since there seems to be a corporate trend away from openness and frankly I think that Wizards would have killed the GSL had they been willing to take the PR hit and had their not been true heroes of third party support like Scott and Linae. So given that you have those two choices for distributing your content, if 4E native products also cannot ever be OGL products (like converted products) then essentially you are choosing by making a product in 4E to never be able to publish it again. I guess it is possible, but my guess is that the OGL is going to be the only way for you to ever publish D&D compatible game content in the future once the GSL is revoked and one day it will be revoked. So, no, this isnt a tempest in a tea pot. If 6.2 really means that I cant ever make an OGL version of a native 4E product (not a converted product), then that is a big problem in my mind.




But isn't this the case with pretty much any non-open license? And didn't we know the GSL wouldn't really be open? I mean, let's say the license to Thieves' World or A Song of Ice and Fire were revoked, or the Conan or Babylon 5 licenses pulled. I very much doubt the license terms would allow Green Ronin or Mongoose to continue publishing products based on those licenses, whether as OGC or not. I don't see that these terms make the GSL worse than any other intellectual property license, the whole point of which is to enable others to make IP-supporting products that the originator might not, while still retaining sufficient control over the IP.

Sure, the GSL is more restrictive than the OGL, probably even the d20 STL, but didn't we know that would be the case?


----------



## Mouseferatu

occam said:
			
		

> But isn't this the case with pretty much any non-open license? And didn't we know the GSL wouldn't really be open? I mean, let's say the license to Thieves' World or A Song of Ice and Fire were revoked, or the Conan or Babylon 5 licenses pulled. I very much doubt the license terms would allow Green Ronin or Mongoose to continue publishing products based on those licenses, whether as OGC or not. I don't see that these terms make the GSL worse than any other intellectual property license, the whole point of which is to enable others to make IP-supporting products that the originator might not, while still retaining sufficient control over the IP.
> 
> Sure, the GSL is more restrictive than the OGL, probably even the d20 STL, but didn't we know that would be the case?




I think Clark's objection...

Well, no, I shouldn't speak for him. _My_ objection is the notion that I can create a D&D-based book, but set in a campaign world that I created myself, and then lose the rights to do _anything_ with that setting--even if I wanted to publish it outside of D&D, for a different system, as part of the OGL--if and when the GSL is pulled.

I have zero objection to WotC taking back their IP when they choose. But the fact that I published my IP in conjunction with theirs shouldn't prevent me from later doing something else with the portions that were always mine.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm just glad I get to be Harrison Ford. Han Solo has always been my favorite.
> 
> Lidda: "I love Necromancer Games products!"
> Han Necro: "I know."




Now for the important question. Are you willing to shoot first?


----------



## joela

*pulled*



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> --even if I wanted to publish it outside of D&D, for a different system, as part of the OGL--if and when the GSL is pulled.




And not even pulled. If they like your stuff enough to put it in the SRD...!


----------



## jaldaen

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, no, I shouldn't speak for him. _My_ objection is the notion that I can create a D&D-based book, but set in a campaign world that I created myself, and then lose the rights to do _anything_ with that setting--even if I wanted to publish it outside of D&D, for a different system, as part of the OGL--if and when the GSL is pulled.




This is the one thing that makes me hesitate to release any campaign setting... I'd be fine with a lose the GSL and never come back to it, but lose the GSL and never go back to OGL is a tough pill to swallow... 

Not to mention how does my IP interact with 4e References, ect...



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I have zero objection to WotC taking back their IP when they choose. But the fact that I published my IP in conjunction with theirs shouldn't prevent me from later doing something else with the portions that were always mine.




I agree... I just wish WotC did too...


----------



## Friadoc

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I think Clark's objection...
> 
> Well, no, I shouldn't speak for him. _My_ objection is the notion that I can create a D&D-based book, but set in a campaign world that I created myself, and then lose the rights to do _anything_ with that setting--even if I wanted to publish it outside of D&D, for a different system, as part of the OGL--if and when the GSL is pulled.
> 
> I have zero objection to WotC taking back their IP when they choose. But the fact that I published my IP in conjunction with theirs shouldn't prevent me from later doing something else with the portions that were always mine.




Exactly, it is an ad hoc clause with respect toward what someone can do with their individual intellectual property without compensation; it's just insane.

I mean, it'd be like creating something for a fansite and signing away all rights to it, be it derivative, movie, electronic, or what not. It's just not right, nor would I recommend anyone do it, unless it is just a "throw away" idea.


----------



## Wolv0rine

philreed said:
			
		

> Yes, I would have gotten into publishing for 3e. Probably in a different manner, and taking it more seriously than I did, but I would have found others to work with and published a few products.
> 
> My point is that publishing is both not easy and too easy. Too often, people step into the role of publisher when they're not fully prepared. I was not prepared. An entrance fee would help with this.



While I agree with you that pdf publishing is both not easy and too easy, and that what IS much too easy is to get into it without being prepared, I don't follow how an entrance fee (which reduces the all-too-often limited start-up budget of a beginner to begin with) would be helpful.  It would be off-putting (and in some peoples' cases, permanently undoable.  I know I myself couldn't raise $5,000 in my lifetime that my wife would let me spend in that manner without removing something very dear to me in collateral).

Now what would be helpful would be somewhere were established publishers hung around, and could answer the myriad idiotic beginners questions that all beginning publishers should be asking before they start.  I've seen a few places now and again that claim to be that, but I'm not aware of any that actually Are that.  Experienced advice trumps "Can you come up with the Ante?" any day, IMO.


----------



## Mouseferatu

joela said:
			
		

> And not even pulled. If they like your stuff enough to put it in the SRD...!




This doesn't worry me. While I don't know the folks in management or at the corporate level, I personally know, and have worked with, most of the folks in the design and development departments at WotC. I like them, I trust them, and I do not believe they would ever deliberately steal someone else's work.

Now, if WotC were to come up with a similar concept _on their own_--one that, when going into the SRD, invalidated mine, due to the name or something similar--that's an entirely different story, and one that I do worry about.

But whatever else has, is, or will be said about this, I have nothing but trust for the creative staff at WotC.


----------



## LordKruge

Papa-DRB said:
			
		

> While I agree that no one in the mainstream (read "big" companies) would probably try, there are a lot of "little" companies / open source groups that would have wanted to make a Character Generator for DnD 4.
> 
> PCGen, HeroLab, DMGenie, CMPs- RPG Foundry, TOS, etc.* as well as Joe's excel sheet. Now all these folks can't make it via GSL, and I don't think they will take the chance on just going ahead and doing it anyway.
> 
> Being a PCGen user/contributor, I know that there has been much discussion on adding the features needed to be able to provide the 4E datasets, which will probably still happen (adding features, not datasets), but then it will be up do Mary user to input her own data.
> 
> -- david
> Papa.DRB
> 
> * Sorry if I missed anyone, it is my lunch time and I am also having a Senior Moment....




To be honest, it's way past time that the chargen or even VTT programmers did that anyway.  A chargen program using exactly the rules of a book, any book, really has never been of use to me or any GM I know.  Everyone I've ever played with makes at least a couple major rules changes and some of the chargen programs are fairly easy to convert, others are a nightmare unless you program for a living.

A good chargen program that I can change is worth it to me even if I have to fill in the data myself.  One that is exhaustive yet allows no change at all is totally worthless, at least to me.


----------



## LordKruge

RSKennan said:
			
		

> I hope so, if only because I want to play a Harfling Rouge or a Dorf Fightar.




Heh, sounds like Hackmaster : GSL Edition.

That's not a bad idea.  WotC has surely proven itself worthy of that level of satire with the new GSL.

Someone call Jolly and get the KoDT finally trying to write their own game and trying to negotiate Hard Eight's new licensing system.  Then release the game they made.

I'd buy the whole product line just for the humor alone.


----------



## DaveMage

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But whatever else has, is, or will be said about this, I have nothing but trust for the creative staff at WotC.




...who are there today.  Right?

That's the danger with this license: no one knows what (or who) tomorrow will bring.


----------



## phloog

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> This doesn't worry me. While I don't know the folks in management or at the corporate level, I personally know, and have worked with, most of the folks in the design and development departments at WotC. I like them, I trust them, and I do not believe they would ever deliberately steal someone else's work.
> .




I think you SHOULD be worried, precisely because of the way that the GSL story has unfolded.

I will absolutely accept that the creative folks have no interest in stealing your ideas, and in fact I'd give them credit for trying not to even ACCIDENTALLY create something similar to your idea.

But as was evident with the customer-focused Rouse and Lidda being trumped by the larger business/legal teams, I think that it is absolutely conceivable...possibly even LIKELY, that should you come up with an idea under the umbrella of the GSL that looks like it might benefit WOTC, WOTC/Hasbro would not hesitate for a second to take it as their own, and bar you from using it.

The creative folks would be disgusted, and feel that they have no power, while the business groups took this unethical step.

Your trust in the creative group is likely merited, and is definitely admirable - you're just incorrectly acting under the assumption that they would have any say in such a decision.

Bizman: "Hey, that Rumpledrugger's Castle is a million seller - - it's ours now!"

CreativeDood: "But that's horrible, and I have all these great new ideas of my own!"

Bizman: "Not worth risking the capital on the untested - we'll take the proven product."


----------



## 2WS-Steve

occam said:
			
		

> ...I mean, let's say the license to Thieves' World or A Song of Ice and Fire were revoked, or the Conan or Babylon 5 licenses pulled. I very much doubt the license terms would allow Green Ronin or Mongoose to continue publishing products based on those licenses, whether as OGC or not. I don't see that these terms make the GSL worse than any other intellectual property license, the whole point of which is to enable others to make IP-supporting products that the originator might not, while still retaining sufficient control over the IP...




For that sort of license based on a setting, you're right.  But licenses based on using a rules system or engine in order to express your original fictional content do not ordinarily have going-forward restrictions.

For instance, you can get a Savage Worlds game system license by dealing with the company, then publish "Occam's Razor -- The Simplest Fantasy World Possible" under it, and if that license expires go on to publish the same setting under your own rules or using some other licensed system, including the OGL.

Computer game publishers do this a lot too -- use the Quake 2 engine for, say, Deus Ex -- and the game engine remains the property of the Quake people, but the fictional world of Deus Ex belongs to the people who made that game.

By saying that if you use the GSL to publish your Occam's Razor fantasy world, you will no longer be able to use your original IP to produce anything using the OGL, which is unusually (and overbearingly) restrictive for a game system license.


----------



## occam

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> _My_ objection is the notion that I can create a D&D-based book, but set in a campaign world that I created myself, and then lose the rights to do _anything_ with that setting--even if I wanted to publish it outside of D&D, for a different system, as part of the OGL--if and when the GSL is pulled.
> 
> I have zero objection to WotC taking back their IP when they choose. But the fact that I published my IP in conjunction with theirs shouldn't prevent me from later doing something else with the portions that were always mine.




Excellent point, and I think this makes clear the key _potential_ problem with the GSL. Here is where we need strong clarification. Let's say you did create an original setting, published as a GSL-licensed 4e product. Could you then extract your own original IP, devoid of all references to SRD-referenced mechanics, races, classes, monsters, powers, rituals, etc. -- leaving only things like country names and descriptions, NPC names and appearances and personality descriptions, original monsters, and the like -- and publish it in some other form, even as an RPG product using some other rules? Even if the GSL seems to forbid it, would WotC actually try to enforce it that way? Even if WotC tried, would they have a leg to stand on?


----------



## LordKruge

When it comes to new Classes, Feats etc... I think it's a little bit of an over-reaction.  I mean, why would you be itching to make a "Druid" class anyway?  If it were a crucial class to the setting you are making, you could probably come up with a suitable IP-name for the class.

We know WotC is eventually coming out with Druid, Bard, Barbarian, possibly Sorcerer.    Just don't name your class what you know WotC is going to come out with.  Every generic name that has ever been a D&D class is fair game.  IP brand your stuff, not only will it be GSL-proof but it will be more interesting, too.

If you're just trying to cash in by beating WotC to the punch and get the first Druid, Bard and Barbarian out there, well they're obviously writing the GSL with you in mind.

We do need to know whether "Myworld Druid" is different from "Druid" in the eyes of WotC though.  Same with "Myworld Elf", and "Mymage's Missile of Magic".

There's a lot not to like about the GSL, but the class naming problem I think is one of the last things to worry about, unless you think WotC is going to steal "Blood Knight of the Twisted Tower" from you, publish it, and leave you well and screwed.


----------



## jmucchiello

occam said:
			
		

> Excellent point, and I think this makes clear the key _potential_ problem with the GSL. Here is where we need strong clarification.



Clarifications are meaningless. Since WotC can unilaterally change the GSL without notice, any "potential problem" that the "fix" today, then can break again tomorrow. That fact that you are instantly in violation when the web page is updated doesn't help.


----------



## Henry

LordKruge said:
			
		

> If you're just trying to cash in by beating WotC to the punch and get the first Druid, Bard and Barbarian out there, well they're obviously writing the GSL with you in mind.




There's one other reason 3rd parties might want to do that -- because fans want it. If WotC legal thinks they honestly have something to fear from publishers with a hundredth or a thousandth of their sales potential, just because they came out with a "cleric" or a "druid", then someone has jumped the sanity train, and it's not the 3rd parties, nor the D&D fans.

Let's just hope the fan site policy isn't written with this mindset. If I can't play the game my way, the way I've been playing it for 20+ years, with the collective vision of other D&D players, then they've lost a current customer, for damned sure.


----------



## phloog

LordKruge said:
			
		

> We know WotC is eventually coming out with Druid, Bard, Barbarian, possibly Sorcerer.    Just don't name your class what you know WotC is going to come out with. ....
> .




Actually, make that "Just don't name your class anything that WOTC MIGHT come out with, and don't name your class anything that might appeal to WOTC" - - so predict what WOTC might do, and also don't use any name that WOTC might choose to take from you if it's really cool - - I believe that is absolutely possible for them to do this under the GSL...and of course even if it ISN'T possible in the GSL, it IS possible because they can change it or revoke it.

So to be safe be sure to use really lousy names that they won't want...all hail the Echinodermaster!


----------



## BSF

occam said:
			
		

> I'm taken aback at how many are surprised by these terms in the GSL. Didn't we know all this already?
> 
> Of course WotC wouldn't allow conversion of a product/product line to the GSL, then back to the OGL for any reason. That would permit a licensee to produce 4e-compatible products, then when the initial surge of purchases was done, republish them as 3e-compatible OGC, completely negating the intent of the GSL. You may argue with that intent, but we had already heard about this one-time conversion idea months ago, I thought.
> 
> Also, as far as the terms of conversion surviving termination of the license, that should also have been expected. Given what we know or could surmise about WotC's goals with the new license, they wouldn't set it up so that 3PPs could pull all their goodies out of WotC's sandbox and into post-3e OGC-land when, say, a new edition comes out with (potentially) a new license. Permanent conversion is necessary to keep 3PPs in the market supporting WotC's products going forward, which is the entire point of the license, after all.
> 
> Displeasure with aspects of the GSL is inevitable, but surprise? Were people really not expecting this?




In my case, the surprise is that these clauses are in effect even after termination of the license.  In my niavete, I guess I had thought that WotC would have a problem with a company testing the waters with a conversion product and then deciding that it makes business sense to drop back to their original audience.  Of course, such a move wouldn't be able to take 4E mechanics with it, but I had hoped that WotC would prevent the fallback.  

I can argue different sides of the argument, so I can see where WotC might be coming from.  But if I were a publisher, these clauses would certainly impact what products I might offer in a big, big way.


----------



## BarakO

phloog said:
			
		

> idea under the umbrella of the GSL that looks like it might benefit WOTC, WOTC/Hasbro would not hesitate for a second to take it as their own, and bar you from using it.




How?  Which part did I miss that says they don't have to follow IP laws if you sign this agreement?  

If you've created somthing new, I don't see anything in the license that says they can take it and use it themselves.  I guess they could add it later...


----------



## LordKruge

phloog said:
			
		

> Actually, make that "Just don't name your class anything that WOTC MIGHT come out with, and don't name your class anything that might appeal to WOTC" - - so predict what WOTC might do, and also don't use any name that WOTC might choose to take from you if it's really cool - - I believe that is absolutely possible for them to do this under the GSL...and of course even if it ISN'T possible in the GSL, it IS possible because they can change it or revoke it.
> 
> So to be safe be sure to use really lousy names that they won't want...all hail the Echinodermaster!




I hear you, but I still think the reservations on this point may be overblown.  My friend has a novel and I'm helping him decide what system would be best to express his setting in.  As far as some form of D&D goes, we have a list of at least 40 classes right now we could use and none of them are one likely to be used by WotC as they all include IP in them (and none of them are Echinodermaster   )

If "XXXX Barbarian" or "Barbarian of the XXXX" does conflict with WotC's inevitable "Barbarian" then yes, I agree it becomes a gigantic issue at that point.


----------



## phloog

BarakO said:
			
		

> How?  Which part did I miss that says they don't have to follow IP laws if you sign this agreement?
> 
> If you've created somthing new, I don't see anything in the license that says they can take it and use it themselves.  I guess they could add it later...




That last part of your was my (perhaps mistaken) interpretation of the SRD and the GSL and the ability to change it.  It seems like ANYTHING you do that they like they can adjust the agreement to own - at which point you can either agree and let them have it, or they can send you a letter kicking you off GSL, and by the way you can't use that (now GSL) bit of the goodness with any other system.

You come up with the Grand Tarquinator...they like it...can't they either A) add it to the SRD, or B) adjust the GSL to say that any IP created within the GSL is theirs - - again, I think you could disagree, but then you're likely out of the GSL.

I'm not a lawyer, and few here are...the problem is that now it's far more important that you have/are a lawyer if you want to support 4e and be safe.


----------



## phloog

As an aside, I would like to publicly announce that anyone may freely use Echinodermaster in their own works, and this agreement may not be changed or revoked.

I do, however, retain all rights to Echinodermagister and Coelenterapist (don't ask)


----------



## BSF

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I think Clark's objection...
> 
> Well, no, I shouldn't speak for him. _My_ objection is the notion that I can create a D&D-based book, but set in a campaign world that I created myself, and then lose the rights to do _anything_ with that setting--even if I wanted to publish it outside of D&D, for a different system, as part of the OGL--if and when the GSL is pulled.
> 
> I have zero objection to WotC taking back their IP when they choose. But the fact that I published my IP in conjunction with theirs shouldn't prevent me from later doing something else with the portions that were always mine.




Well, here is a question - what if that is mostly their intent?  Does WotC want third parties publishing anything that doesn't directly support their vision?  Support products might be OK, but maybe they don't want third party IP muddying up the D&D waters.


----------



## Jraynack

alanpossible said:
			
		

> heh
> But surely you could produce a product that conforms to the GSL and release your contributions in that document as public domain? If I create a Fightar then it's a class not defined by Wizards (allowing me to define it) and if the flavour text, powers, etc. are all original, then it's entirely my property.




Actually, the only thing that is your property are the names, flavor text, etc. but not the rule mechanics - that is owned by WotC and they are letting you use those with the GSL/SRD royalty free.

For example, you make up the power "My Power Not Theirs."  Here's how it looks:

My Power Not Theirs
_Your Flavor Text_
4th Edition Rules Mechanics  
*Target: * 4th Edition Rules Mechanics  
*Attack: * 4th Edition Rules Mechanics  
*Hit:* 4th Edition Rules Mechanics  
*Special:* 4th Edition Rules Mechanics  

Now, you want to place your power into the Public Domain.  This is what it looks like - even if you made up your own 4th Edition Rules Mechanics for the power (and I mean 100% original 4th Edition rules) and did not reference anything from the SRD:

My Power Not Theirs
_Your Flavor Text_
*Target: * 
*Attack: * 
*Hit:* 
*Special:* 

And their you have it - because the GSL only gives you the right to make additional 4th rules for their game and not the right to make up new rules for the game and then claim them as your own (_even if you are the sole creator_).



			
				alanpossible said:
			
		

> My understanding was that some of the 3e publishers did something similar - they'd release a product, and reference the SRD where necessary.
> 
> In the legalese at the front they had words to the effect of "Some of the text in this book is part of the SRD, owned by Wizards of the coast and freely available. The remainder is owned, copyrighted, trademarked, whatever to us. We will break your legs if you reproduce it."




They were referring to their product identity.  It was no different in 3rd Edition.  In 3rd Edition, we could have - and some publishers did keep a strong hold on their IP:

Spell Name
_Flavor Text_
3rd Edition Rules Mechanics (even if they are your own creation, 100% original content).
Spell Description and effects

Now, the product identity is as follows:

Spell Name
_Flavor Text_

Everything else is OGL and others must follow the rules to reproduce it (except WotC).

Now the big difference between 3rd and 4th for 3rd party publishers is now other 3rd party publishers cannot reproduce anything from your 4th Edition products (rule mechanics included) without express permission from you (oh, and if they also agree to the GSL and sent in their own conformation card to WotC).  Except, again, for WotC - who can reproduce your 4th Edition rules without permission, but still needs your permission to reproduce IP (names, flavor text, artwork, etc.)

So, again - the short answer is no.  I wish it was just that easy.  It would make my job as a publisher in a 4th Edition world a little more promising.

Oh - here is a little more trivia - 3.x edition posted on websites (except WotC owned websites because they have a disclaimer saying anything posted about their products: new rules, classes, etc. is theirs - this goes for Gleemax too) was also up for grabs.  But with 4th Edition (though the fan site GSL is not available yet), they are no longer up for grabs without express permission from the author of that post, blog, etc.

I know it might look like I am ranting, but I truly do not mind the new restrictions since it has no bearing on our company - but do sympathize for those in which it does.


----------



## Olaf the Stout

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I think Clark's objection...
> 
> Well, no, I shouldn't speak for him. _My_ objection is the notion that I can create a D&D-based book, but set in a campaign world that I created myself, and then lose the rights to do _anything_ with that setting--even if I wanted to publish it outside of D&D, for a different system, as part of the OGL--if and when the GSL is pulled.
> 
> I have zero objection to WotC taking back their IP when they choose. But the fact that I published my IP in conjunction with theirs shouldn't prevent me from later doing something else with the portions that were always mine.




This here is one of my biggest problems with the GSL.

The other biggie for me is the fact that WotC can add to the SRD at a later date and make you stop selling a product you released just days earlier.

Sure, they may not do this (and probably won't due to consumer backlash) but the fact that they have the ability to do so would scare me from a publisher perspective.

If you agree to and sign up to this GSL you are putting a *lot* of power in WotC's hands.  If you sign up to the GSL then WotC can basically kill off your business if they choose to do so.

Olaf the Stout


----------



## Knightfall

Cassandra said:
			
		

> It depends on whether the company is trying to publish the same material under both systems. If not, there would be no problem - but no real reason to do it, either.



I wouldn't say that. Green Ronin has designed the new Freeport line to be compatible with multiple game systems. They've done  Freeport companion sourcebooks for True20, d20/3.5, and Savage Words, and they've wanted the ability to do one for 4e as well.

However, if they do so then they'd have to stop making the True20 and d20/3.5 versions. (Is Savage Worlds based on the OGL or something else? I don't know very much about it.) They wouldn't be able to sell those products any more.


----------



## razorwise

Hello!

Savage Worlds is a closed system that requires licensing. I've been a licensee of SW since '04.  My company is also licensed with True20 and M&M Superlink and we've released like products for multiple systems as part of our business model. I have been following news of 4e for some time and got 4e upon its release, with a possible eye towards development (as well as general gamer curiousity.)  I side with the consensus that the GSL is a bit too nebulous presently and have yet to decide how best to proceed into the 4e marketplace. I find certain clauses disconcerting as well. Maybe I'll be further illuminated at Origins next week, but I seriously doubt it. I am looking forward to seeing firsthand how this fallout will impact sales for alternate systems in the wake of both the recent 4e release and the GSL.

Take care,

Sean


----------



## BryonD

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> This doesn't worry me. While I don't know the folks in management or at the corporate level, I personally know, and have worked with, most of the folks in the design and development departments at WotC. I like them, I trust them, and I do not believe they would ever deliberately steal someone else's work.
> 
> Now, if WotC were to come up with a similar concept _on their own_--one that, when going into the SRD, invalidated mine, due to the name or something similar--that's an entirely different story, and one that I do worry about.
> 
> But whatever else has, is, or will be said about this, I have nothing but trust for the creative staff at WotC.



I don't think the creative staff are the ones that would screw you.  If everyone at WotC were in the same mindset you are describing, then this conversation would not be happening in the first place.

Did the creative staff develop the GSL?


----------



## Klaus

Orcus said:
			
		

> Well, I guess you could always argue third party stuff is a teapot (I dont happen to feel that way but some do).
> 
> No, I think this is a huge issue. Basically, the only real way to release thrid party content now is either the OGL which is timeless or the GSL which is revocable. I wouldnt be so enthusiastic in believing that 5E will have a GSL since there seems to be a corporate trend away from openness and frankly I think that Wizards would have killed the GSL had they been willing to take the PR hit and had their not been true heroes of third party support like Scott and Linae. So given that you have those two choices for distributing your content, if 4E native products also cannot ever be OGL products (like converted products) then essentially you are choosing by making a product in 4E to never be able to publish it again. I guess it is possible, but my guess is that the OGL is going to be the only way for you to ever publish D&D compatible game content in the future once the GSL is revoked and one day it will be revoked. So, no, this isnt a tempest in a tea pot. If 6.2 really means that I cant ever make an OGL version of a native 4E product (not a converted product), then that is a big problem in my mind.



 But here's the million-dollar question: If the license is revoked/terminated/fancylawyerspeech, how can a clause remain in effect (I'm specifically talking about the "poison pill" clause)?

If a publisher releases a 4e version of a 3e product and then decides 4e isn't for him (or 4e moves on to 5e), how can he be stopped from going back to 3e? Granted, he'll never get permission to move to 4e (or 5e) ever again, but how can he be stopped from using the OGL?


----------



## BryonD

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Clarifications are meaningless. Since WotC can unilaterally change the GSL without notice, any "potential problem" that the "fix" today, then can break again tomorrow. That fact that you are instantly in violation when the web page is updated doesn't help.



Yeah, that is certainly really scary.
The hook is set for life, but they can change any and all of the benefits at their whim, tomorrow, the next day, or both.

I'd like to offer anyone a similar deal.  You give me $10,000 today and I'll give you $10 a day for the rest of your life.  Your $10,000 is completely non-refundable.  I can change the terms of this agreement at my sole discretion at any time with the new terms going into effect immediately.  Takers?


----------



## BryonD

Klaus said:
			
		

> But here's the million-dollar question: If the license is revoked/terminated/fancylawyerspeech, how can a clause remain in effect (I'm specifically talking about the "poison pill" clause)?
> 
> If a publisher releases a 4e version of a 3e product and then decides 4e isn't for him (or 4e moves on to 5e), how can he be stopped from going back to 3e? Granted, he'll never get permission to move to 4e (or 5e) ever again, but how can he be stopped from using the OGL?



http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=231754&page=2&pp=15

See post 25.


----------



## Orcus

Friadoc said:
			
		

> Exactly, it is an ad hoc clause with respect toward what someone can do with their individual intellectual property without compensation; it's just insane.
> 
> I mean, it'd be like creating something for a fansite and signing away all rights to it, be it derivative, movie, electronic, or what not. It's just not right, nor would I recommend anyone do it, unless it is just a "throw away" idea.




Its not insane. Its a license. This is hardly the worlds most restrictive license, for goodness sake. The discussion is about what it does, what it doesnt do, what it allows and what it doesnt allow. And whether those meet our respective needs. But its not "insane" or all these other things. YOu might like it or not, but its hardly that crazy or restrictive of a license. I dont like the "survive termination" clauses and the no OGL even after termination stuff, but that doesnt make the license insane. A lot of people are chiming in here who have no clue, apparently, as to what you normally see in licenses. I do. This one doesnt do what I want it to, but it isnt like it is totally crazy.

Clark


----------



## Orcus

phloog said:
			
		

> I think you SHOULD be worried, precisely because of the way that the GSL story has unfolded.
> 
> I will absolutely accept that the creative folks have no interest in stealing your ideas, and in fact I'd give them credit for trying not to even ACCIDENTALLY create something similar to your idea.
> 
> But as was evident with the customer-focused Rouse and Lidda being trumped by the larger business/legal teams, I think that it is absolutely conceivable...possibly even LIKELY, that should you come up with an idea under the umbrella of the GSL that looks like it might benefit WOTC, WOTC/Hasbro would not hesitate for a second to take it as their own, and bar you from using it.
> 
> The creative folks would be disgusted, and feel that they have no power, while the business groups took this unethical step.
> 
> Your trust in the creative group is likely merited, and is definitely admirable - you're just incorrectly acting under the assumption that they would have any say in such a decision.
> 
> Bizman: "Hey, that Rumpledrugger's Castle is a million seller - - it's ours now!"
> 
> CreativeDood: "But that's horrible, and I have all these great new ideas of my own!"
> 
> Bizman: "Not worth risking the capital on the untested - we'll take the proven product."




We had these same worries with the OGL when it first came out.

I just dont see this as an issue.

Clark


----------



## BryonD

Orcus said:
			
		

> A lot of people are chiming in here who have no clue, apparently, as to what you normally see in licenses. I do. This one doesnt do what I want it to, but it isnt like it is totally crazy.
> 
> Clark



Raises hand:  I have no clue.

Is it normal for one party to be able to change all the terms at will in a contract and the other party to be stuck with eternal commitment to their end regardless of what or when other changes are made?


----------



## Orcus

Klaus said:
			
		

> But here's the million-dollar question: If the license is revoked/terminated/fancylawyerspeech, how can a clause remain in effect (I'm specifically talking about the "poison pill" clause)?
> 
> If a publisher releases a 4e version of a 3e product and then decides 4e isn't for him (or 4e moves on to 5e), how can he be stopped from going back to 3e? Granted, he'll never get permission to move to 4e (or 5e) ever again, but how can he be stopped from using the OGL?




Because he agreed.


----------



## Lizard

Orcus said:
			
		

> We had these same worries with the OGL when it first came out.
> 
> I just dont see this as an issue.
> 
> Clark




If anything, I think WOTC missed the boat by NOT using good 3rd party content.

IAE, "Oh noes! They be steelin' my ideas!" is pretty much a non-issue, for more reasons than I care to articulate right now. The two real problems I see are:
a)New "unredefinable terms" being added to the GSL, with no grandfather clause. To be safe, publishers will need to use obscure terms -- for example, I wouldn't take a chance on a "Soldier", "Swashbuckler" or "Samurai" class. 

b)The "full commitment" clause, which basically ties any product released under the GSL to the GSL, forever.


----------



## Orcus

BryonD said:
			
		

> Raises hand:  I have no clue.
> 
> Is it normal for one party to be able to change all the terms at will in a contract and the other party to be stuck with eternal commitment to their end regardless of what or when other changes are made?




Only when one side has all the bargaining power 

No, its not that normal in the way they did it, leaving it as open as they did (but that is actually a good thing, in a wierd way). But updates and revisions are, and a continuing use signifying an agreement to those changes isnt that wierd.


----------



## Friadoc

Orcus said:
			
		

> Its not insane. Its a license. This is hardly the worlds most restrictive license, for goodness sake. The discussion is about what it does, what it doesn't do, what it allows and what it doesn't allow. And whether those meet our respective needs. But its not "insane" or all these other things. You might like it or not, but its hardly that crazy or restrictive of a license. I don't like the "survive termination" clauses and the no OGL even after termination stuff, but that doesn't make the license insane. A lot of people are chiming in here who have no clue, apparently, as to what you normally see in licenses. I do. This one doesn't do what I want it to, but it isn't like it is totally crazy.
> 
> Clark




Well, I'll default to your experience, but I will add the caveat that it is one of the more insane ones that I have seen, although it is not as bad as the contract from my last job.

Now that one sucked, big time.

As for the GSL; I just don't like it, maybe it's because I don't feel comfortable with granting another party that much control over something like that.

My only comparison is with the previous OGL, as well as a few freer open source licenses, which obviously is lacking when compared to some real and in-depth contracts.


----------



## BryonD

Orcus said:
			
		

> We had these same worries with the OGL when it first came out.
> 
> I just dont see this as an issue.
> 
> Clark



I agree with you here.  Mostly.

But last time there was no threat that if you named your "druid" Healing Tree-hugger-man, they could expressly replicate the name and toss your product out the window.

And, no, I don't think at all they would do that.  "Druid" yeah, I think at this point they will cheerfully kick you in the teeth for even thinking about stealing their thunder.  But if you come up with an off the wall name they will leave you alone.

But just because you know they won't throw the switch doesn't mean it is comfortable to be told to put your head in a guillotine.  Because at the end of the day, any name you choose could still become verbotten simply based on WotC's good-will or lack thereof.  You are surrendering all control and trusting them to at least wait a few years before they screw you.


----------



## BryonD

Orcus said:
			
		

> Only when one side has all the bargaining power
> 
> No, its not that normal in the way they did it, leaving it as open as they did (but that is actually a good thing, in a wierd way). But updates and revisions are, and a continuing use signifying an agreement to those changes isnt that wierd.



I guess that says to me that the GSL is not remotely insane.  But anyone who agrees to it probably is.


----------



## 2WS-Steve

Lizard said:
			
		

> If anything, I think WOTC missed the boat by NOT using good 3rd party content.




There's a simple reason for this -- because if they did use open content then they would have to release under the hated OGL.


----------



## Urza

Most of the GSL isn't a surprise to me. 

It should have been obvious to everyone from the start that WOTC didn't want anyone coming up with alternative rule sets and republishing the rules as their own (I'm talking about you; Conan, Arcana Unearth, Battlestar Galactica, Pathfinder, and Pocket PHB!)

The no software deal was obvious the moment they started DDI.  They don't want use using better virtual tables tops and character generators that we make that perform better, get updated sooner, and/or have more features (like being compatible with 3rd party product!)

It shouldn't have been a surprise to find out that you can't do 3e and 4e versions of product. Although the wording for post-GSL is a little awkward and leaves a lot of questions what happens to the IP when the GSL ends.

What is surprising is how unfriendly it is to making products they want publishers to make. Like say someone wants a Tarrasque in an adventure, that's cool. But you can't tell players what page number it's on. The index in the back is almost useless because you can't tell players the level of the tarrasque... so they can't find it if they don't know what level it is, because the index is in level order, not alphabetical order. AND not to be over the top about this, the Tarrasque isn't even in the "T" section of the book... so you won't find it when you flip to the "Ts."


----------



## Mouseferatu

phloog said:
			
		

> I think you SHOULD be worried, precisely because of the way that the GSL story has unfolded.
> 
> I will absolutely accept that the creative folks have no interest in stealing your ideas, and in fact I'd give them credit for trying not to even ACCIDENTALLY create something similar to your idea.
> 
> But as was evident with the customer-focused Rouse and Lidda being trumped by the larger business/legal teams, I think that it is absolutely conceivable...possibly even LIKELY, that should you come up with an idea under the umbrella of the GSL that looks like it might benefit WOTC, WOTC/Hasbro would not hesitate for a second to take it as their own, and bar you from using it.




I don't believe that the folks at the management/corporate level who created this license pay attention to the rules of the game--certainly not mechanics other companies produce. They might notice that a book sells well (though honestly, I doubt any 3rd party book would sell well enough to be a blip on their radar), but even if they did, I doubt they have the market-savvy to say "I bet that book is selling because of Game Rule X. Let's steal it."

So when I say I'm not worried about WotC deliberately stealing my idea, it's because I trust the creative folks--and I don't believe the management folks would ever be exposed to said idea.

As I said, there's plenty about the license that _does_ worry me. I just don't count "deliberate theft on WotC's part" on the list.


----------



## Yair

occam said:
			
		

> Displeasure with aspects of the GSL is inevitable, but surprise? Were people really not expecting this?



I was. I think I'm not the only one. 
I didn't even know it was _possible_ to have clauses in a contract that apply after the contract is terminated...


----------



## Yair

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> By saying that if you use the GSL to publish your Occam's Razor fantasy world, you will no longer be able to use your original IP to produce anything using the OGL, which is unusually (and overbearingly) restrictive for a game system license.



Isn't the restriction only on books released under the GSL? So you can release a system-neutral version of Occam's Razor fantasy world, followed by a GSL one (perhaps the precise same one, only now with stats/mechanics). When the GSL is terminated, you revert to using material from your system-neutral product, which the GSL doesn't forbid. 

Unless it is "reasonably determined by Wizards" that the OGL product is part of the same product line... hmmm.... [Edit: or even that the SYSTEMLESS product is part of the same product line... wow!]


----------



## Yair

Orcus said:
			
		

> I'm not willing.
> 
> I am probably going to draw a bright line: anything for 4E will be brand new and wont refer to the core IP that I want to make sure I will be able to use forever and all time. That means no Rappan Athuk 4E, no Bards' Gate, no Tomb of Abysthor, etc. I just dont want to lose the control over that stuff. AND until I get clarification, no referencing that stuff in 4E products either. I dont know how much "content" from an old product in a new 4E products means that new product is a conversion. That, to me, is one of the biggest unresolved issues out there.
> 
> So bright line rule for me: 4E stuff not connected to 3E stuff.
> 
> Clark



But what about the NEXT Rappan Athuk? If you've got a great idea for a D&D setting/locale, isn't putting it through the GSL just as risky as putting your already-great idea into it? In other words, the only thing you can safely publish under the GSL is substandard dribble you wouldn't mind never using again.


----------



## Orcus

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> There's a simple reason for this -- because if they did use open content then they would have to release under the hated OGL.




They actually did use OGC in MM2--my OGC in fact. In a hillarious twist of fate, they totally screwed up their section 15 designation and were in violation of their own license


----------



## Orcus

Yair said:
			
		

> But what about the NEXT Rappan Athuk? If you've got a great idea for a D&D setting/locale, isn't putting it through the GSL just as risky as putting your already-great idea into it? In other words, the only thing you can safely publish under the GSL is substandard dribble you wouldn't mind never using again.




I dont agree with that. 

But what you have to think about as a publisher is--once the GSL is gone, if I did this as a 4E product I may never be able to produce it as a game book again. Unless something other than the OGL becomes viable. But then again it is hard for me to believe that in 8 or so years when 5E hits that there will still be a lively OGL crowd. I dont know. All this requires a crystal ball, and as you all know there are no crystal balls in 4E


----------



## Orcus

Yair said:
			
		

> But what about the NEXT Rappan Athuk? If you've got a great idea for a D&D setting/locale, isn't putting it through the GSL just as risky as putting your already-great idea into it? In other words, the only thing you can safely publish under the GSL is substandard dribble you wouldn't mind never using again.




Though I dont agree with your last sentence, I do agree with the concern that you began the post with--what about the next RA? I believe we are full of great ideas and the next thing may well be as good or better than what we have done before. So sure I protect RA by not making it 4E, but what about my next great idea, as we say?


----------



## Orcus

Bottom line: the guy laughing all the way to the bank is Joe Goodman.

Individual, stand alone, non-setting specific adventures without a ton of individually valuable IP (such as a setting book would have) are CLEARLY the best type of product under the GSL.


----------



## Ydars

Except that NOW everyone will produce and support OGL compliant games and not 4E!

Well done Joe; you may just have sunk D&D!


----------



## Mouseferatu

Orcus said:
			
		

> Bottom line: the guy laughing all the way to the bank is Joe Goodman.
> 
> Individual, stand alone, non-setting specific adventures without a ton of individually valuable IP (such as a setting book would have) are CLEARLY the best type of product under the GSL.




Funky the way these things turn out, huh, Clark? Back in the day, that's basically where Necromancer was. Now you guys have some of the most recognizable 3rd-party IP out there. Who'd have thought that would ever have a downside?


----------



## Samuel Leming

Orcus said:
			
		

> I dont agree with that.
> 
> But what you have to think about as a publisher is--once the GSL is gone, if I did this as a 4E product I may never be able to produce it as a game book again. Unless something other than the OGL becomes viable. But then again it is hard for me to believe that in 8 or so years when 5E hits that there will still be a lively OGL crowd. I dont know. All this requires a crystal ball, and as you all know there are no crystal balls in 4E



None of us have crystal balls, but it's safe to say that you can find brass balls at both WotC and Paizo... 

Sam


----------



## alanpossible

RSKennan said:
			
		

> Well, I'm thinking about asking my "illiterate cousin Jimmy"  if he wants to dictate a new RPG. His mom has been reading him RPGs and he's got some ideas for one. Would it be ok to use your class and race names?




Certainly


----------



## see

Orcus said:
			
		

> Individual, stand alone, non-setting specific adventures without a ton of individually valuable IP (such as a setting book would have) are CLEARLY the best type of product under the GSL.




Oddly, though, the only case where using the GSL makes sense is when you want to provide a full statblock — in which case, you have to invent new powers, since you're not allowed to duplicate 4e power descriptions.

If you're just doing reference-a-standard-monster adventure, as the 4e GSL/SRD seems to encourage, you don't need the 4e GSL/SRD.  The OGL and 3.5 SRD works well enough.  After all, most of the monsters are in the 3.5 SRD.  Heck, you can't use a "Devil (Pit Fiend)" under the GSL at all . . . but in an OGL-licensed adventure, what's going to stop you?


----------



## Gotham Gamemaster

Orcus said:
			
		

> Bottom line: the guy laughing all the way to the bank is Joe Goodman.
> 
> Individual, stand alone, non-setting specific adventures without a ton of individually valuable IP (such as a setting book would have) are CLEARLY the best type of product under the GSL.




With the debut of the Known Realms, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore though. DCCs, while still eminently usable in any setting, have setting-specific info and Punjar, the Tarnished Jewel (their first 4e product) is certainly set in Aereth. Has there been any word from Goodman Games on the GSL?


----------



## phloog

First off, I'm not of the camp that thinks the GSL is insane...just shrewd and frightening.

Next, I also don't completely agree with the idea that the only thing that will come out is substandard stuff that publishers don't care about....but it's definitely a possibility, and seems to be really a knife in the back of not just the large 3pp, but the small startups.

You've been running a campaign in your own world, with your own backstory, major players, classes, spells, etc.  It's been playtested and revised as your own group's campaign, to the point that it works well, is balanced, and awesomely fun.

Under the OGL, you can publish this thing, and 'give' (for a fee) it to the world to experience, and potentially make money.  All your work might pay off.

Under the GSL, you now have to ask yourself some questions:

- Despite my high opinion of some employees at Hasbro, am I certain they won't decide to exercise their contractual ability to *yoink* my stuff?

- If the first answer is yes, am I certain that those employees have contracts guaranteeing them jobs forever, and no one will come in later who will want to exercise their contractual *yoink* potential?

- Am I certain that I can make all the money I feel I should under the GSL before they introduce 5E or (in my mind equally likely) before they pull the GSL rug out from under me because 3p stuff is selling too well?

To me the thing that will drive the premature dumping of the GSL is not that one little publisher has something so sweet that they damage sales, but that it turns out that the GSL was not enough to stop the 3pps from AS A GROUP selling enough to constitute a share of the market that Hasbro thinks is too large.  I am of the opinion that if multiple 3pp are successful using the GSL, that will actually make it more likely that the revise/revoke it.

I still believe most PEOPLE are ethical - companies are driven by too many external variables to have their own personalities (particularly publicly held companies)...so whatever credit we give the individuals for their ethics, a larger entity does only what drives shareholder value.


----------



## Klaus

Orcus said:
			
		

> Because he agreed.



 But how can a clause remain in effect if the contract it is a part of is revoked?

I (obviously) don't know much about US Law, but Consumer Defense down here would slap that clause down in no time. No OGLing while GSLing, okay. Once out of the GSL, you'd be no longer bound by its restraints.

And how about this: GamerCompany signs the GSL and releases products. After these don't pan out, they license/sell the original OGL products to CompanyGamer, who never signed the GSL in the first place. Could CompanyGamer bring back the OGL-version of the products?


----------



## DaveMage

Yair said:
			
		

> I didn't even know it was _possible_ to have clauses in a contract that apply after the contract is terminated...




I see them many times in my line of work for transition periods - meaning the time a contract ends with one vendor until it begins with a second vendor, or if there is a period after a contract ends when "clean up" is required.  For example, when we change banks, there is generally a 6-month window where there is still money on deposit with the old bank while checks clear, even though we will now primarily do business with the new bank.  We still want certain terms and conditions to apply for the purposes of fees, etc. rather than use a bank's "standard" terms, which can be much more expensive.


----------



## Lizard

Yair said:
			
		

> I was. I think I'm not the only one.
> I didn't even know it was _possible_ to have clauses in a contract that apply after the contract is terminated...




Many employment contracts include "non compete" clauses that extend after the employee has left the company. Granted, these tend to be time limited, not infinite -- one year, two years, etc. The GSL has no limit. Thirty years from now, you still can't release an OGL version of a GSL product.


----------



## Yair

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I see them many times in my line of work for transition periods - meaning the time a contract ends with one vendor until it begins with a second vendor, or if there is a period after a contract ends when "clean up" is required.  For example, when we change banks, there is generally a 6-month window where there is still money on deposit with the old bank while checks clear, even though we will now primarily do business with the new bank.  We still want certain terms and conditions to apply for the purposes of fees, etc. rather than use a bank's "standard" terms, which can be much more expensive.






			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Many employment contracts include "non compete" clauses that extend after the employee has left the company. Granted, these tend to be time limited, not infinite -- one year, two years, etc. The GSL has no limit. Thirty years from now, you still can't release an OGL version of a GSL product.




Aren't such clauses formally part of the _process_ of terminating the contract? So that both sides are still are under the contract throughout the period in question? (And both sides have to benefit for a contract to be valid, so some compensation would be required?)

Regardless, yeah - a limited time I can accept, even though I didn't saw that one coming either. An unlimited time.... that's harder to accept.


----------



## Urza

Orcus said:
			
		

> Bottom line: the guy laughing all the way to the bank is Joe Goodman. Individual, stand alone, non-setting specific adventures without a ton of individually valuable IP (such as a setting book would have) are CLEARLY the best type of product under the GSL.




Which is exactly what they want when you consider they couldn't sell adventures to anyone during 3.0, canceled their adventure line just before 3.5, and by the displeasure of the late 3.5 adventures and H1.. I would speculate will continue to have difficultly selling under 4e.


----------



## pedr

Note that some people are discussing _consumer_ contract protection and referencing legal principles which restrict the terms which a consumer can agree with a supplier of goods or services, usually in an attempt to enforce some standard of 'fairness'. 

The GSL is not a consumer contract. It is a contract between two businesses of some sort or another, as even a sole trader producing Licensed Product is doing so in the course of some kind of business, even if unincorporated. No-one is entering into this contract as a consumer of goods or services produced by WotC. This means that many of these legal principles which restrict terms in consumer contracts and give courts the right to interfere with the plain words of the agreement will not apply to consideration of the terms of the GSL. 

I'm not saying that all terms of the GSL are enforceable - whether in Washington state or elsewhere in the US or world - but that questioning the 'fairness' is probably not going to help much, legally - while many jurisdictions now prevent _consumers_ entering into unfair contracts, not many restrict freedom of contract generally so that _no-one_ can enter into an unfair contract.


----------



## Klaus

pedr said:
			
		

> Note that some people are discussing _consumer_ contract protection and referencing legal principles which restrict the terms which a consumer can agree with a supplier of goods or services, usually in an attempt to enforce some standard of 'fairness'.
> 
> The GSL is not a consumer contract. It is a contract between two businesses of some sort or another, as even a sole trader producing Licensed Product is doing so in the course of some kind of business, even if unincorporated. No-one is entering into this contract as a consumer of goods or services produced by WotC. This means that many of these legal principles which restrict terms in consumer contracts and give courts the right to interfere with the plain words of the agreement will not apply to consideration of the terms of the GSL.
> 
> I'm not saying that all terms of the GSL are enforceable - whether in Washington state or elsewhere in the US or world - but that questioning the 'fairness' is probably not going to help much, legally - while many jurisdictions now prevent _consumers_ entering into unfair contracts, not many restrict freedom of contract generally so that _no-one_ can enter into an unfair contract.



 Note that you can sign up with the license as an individual, not a company.


----------



## PatrickLawinger

Lizard said:
			
		

> Many employment contracts include "non compete" clauses that extend after the employee has left the company. Granted, these tend to be time limited, not infinite -- one year, two years, etc. The GSL has no limit. Thirty years from now, you still can't release an OGL version of a GSL product.




In some states "non-compete" clauses are difficult to enforce unless an employee is hired directly by a major competitor. Now, it might still require a lawyer and some litigation, but, I know one particular individual that had a non-compete clause tossed (here in Texas) by the judge before anything went to trial. His attorney argued that the company laid him off and that he had a constitutional right to earn a living at the type of job he does best (and is paid best for), the judge agreed. He then sued his former employer for the legal fees he incurred, and won.

Now that was a very specific case where a company laid someone off and then got mad when he got a job with a competitor and compounded their own stupidity. It doesn't really apply here, however, if WotC pulled the GSL I am sure that certain small US companies and individuals could argue that they should be allowed to republish material under the OGL because otherwise WotC is trying to prevent them from earning a living. 

That, like a lot of other arguments presented in this thread and others on various message boards, would require significant legal expenses. I can't imagine anyone wanting to fight that battle.


----------



## HyrumOWC

Orcus said:
			
		

> Individual, stand alone, non-setting specific adventures without a ton of individually valuable IP (such as a setting book would have) are CLEARLY the best type of product under the GSL.




You're dead on with this one Clark. If/when we do anything under the GSL it will be along these lines. 

Hyrum.


----------



## 2WS-Steve

Orcus said:
			
		

> They actually did use OGC in MM2--my OGC in fact. In a hillarious twist of fate, they totally screwed up their section 15 designation and were in violation of their own license




Yah -- actually I think that's the second reason they don't use the OGL -- they're too worried about screwing it up again and some blackmail-prone publisher actually making them liquidate books!


----------



## DaveMage

Yair said:
			
		

> Aren't such clauses formally part of the _process_ of terminating the contract? So that both sides are still are under the contract throughout the period in question? (And both sides have to benefit for a contract to be valid, so some compensation would be required?)
> 
> Regardless, yeah - a limited time I can accept, even though I didn't saw that one coming either. An unlimited time.... that's harder to accept.




It's semantics too.  You can look at the GSL as a contract that never ends once you sign it (potentially like an NDA perhaps - or one where trade secrets could be involved).  So even though your license to use material under the contract ends, you're still bound by some of the terms.


----------



## jmucchiello

PatrickLawinger said:
			
		

> Now that was a very specific case where a company laid someone off and then got mad when he got a job with a competitor and compounded their own stupidity. It doesn't really apply here, however, if WotC pulled the GSL I am sure that certain small US companies and individuals could argue that they should be allowed to republish material under the OGL because otherwise WotC is trying to prevent them from earning a living.



And I hope those small companies are laughed out of court since you don't need the OGL to publish RPGs.


----------



## Lizard

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> Yah -- actually I think that's the second reason they don't use the OGL -- they're too worried about screwing it up again and some blackmail-prone publisher actually making them liquidate books!




Or making them sign over the rights to 1/2e to a company making a parody game...


----------



## BadMojo

Orcus said:
			
		

> Bottom line: the guy laughing all the way to the bank is Joe Goodman.
> 
> Individual, stand alone, non-setting specific adventures without a ton of individually valuable IP (such as a setting book would have) are CLEARLY the best type of product under the GSL.




I don't know about that.  The Dungeon Crawl Classics line has, over time, developed a pretty significant body of IP.  Their "Gazetteer of the Known Realms" is chock full of IP that, I can only guess, Goodman doesn't want to throw in the toilet.

The earlier Dungeon Crawl Classics were a lot like you described, but wouldn't all the IP in the Gazetteer (same product line, DCC #35) run the risk of getting tied up with any Dungeon Crawl Class adventures released under the GSL?

Ugh, I can't believe I'd be this bummed out around Free RPG Day.


----------



## pemerton

Yair said:
			
		

> I am surprised that "will survive termination" is even possible.





			
				Yair said:
			
		

> I didn't even know it was _possible_ to have clauses in a contract that apply after the contract is terminated...



The contract is not terminated. The licence granted by WoTC to the other party is terminated. The other party's contractual obligation under clause 6 remains on foot.



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> Note that you can sign up with the license as an individual, not a company.



That doesn't make it a consumer contract. Sole traders, or partnerships, are not consumers just because they're not corporations.



			
				occam said:
			
		

> Let's say you did create an original setting, published as a GSL-licensed 4e product. Could you then extract your own original IP, devoid of all references to SRD-referenced mechanics, races, classes, monsters, powers, rituals, etc. -- leaving only things like country names and descriptions, NPC names and appearances and personality descriptions, original monsters, and the like -- and publish it in some other form, even as an RPG product using some other rules? Even if the GSL seems to forbid it, would WotC actually try to enforce it that way? Even if WotC tried, would they have a leg to stand on?



The only prohibition I have noticed in clause 6 is on publishing that content as part of an OGL-licensed product. Unless I've missed something else in my reading of the licence, a publisher does not contract to refrain from publishing its own IP in some other non-OGL-based form.


----------



## pemerton

Orcus said:
			
		

> Well, I guess you could always argue third party stuff is a teapot (I dont happen to feel that way but some do).
> 
> No, I think this is a huge issue. Basically, the only real way to release thrid party content now is either the OGL which is timeless or the GSL which is revocable.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> given that you have those two choices for distributing your content, if 4E native products also cannot ever be OGL products (like converted products) then essentially you are choosing by making a product in 4E to never be able to publish it again. I guess it is possible, but my guess is that the OGL is going to be the only way for you to ever publish D&D compatible game content in the future once the GSL is revoked and one day it will be revoked. So, no, this isnt a tempest in a tea pot. If 6.2 really means that I cant ever make an OGL version of a native 4E product (not a converted product), then that is a big problem in my mind.



I wasn't  meaning to suggest that 3PPs per se are of no consequence. Just that it is unclear what remedies WoTC might actually have if a publisher were to breach clause 6.2. An injunction seems a little hard to imagine, and the measure of damages would be hard to prove and require WoTC to disclose financial information that they probably would rather not. Unless an account of profits is available for breach of contract under Washington law (which I do not know) it is hard for me to see exactlly how WoTC would enforce clause 6.2.


----------



## see

pemerton said:
			
		

> Just that it is unclear what remedies WoTC might actually have if a publisher were to breach clause 6.2.




Well, I've seen it suggested, if one is restricted by the GSL regarding a product, one arguably doesn't have "authority to contribute" under section 5 of the OGL.  So if you published it under the OGL, you'd be in violation of the OGL, and the OGL would terminate for breach.   If you used the 3.5 SRD for your work, at that point you'd possibly be in simple violation of Wizards copyright (for using the SRD without a valid copyright license).  Which would suggest you'd now face remedies for copyright violation, which are generally more robust than a no-damages contract violation.

How well that holds together, well, is a matter for a lawyer to advise on.  I have no idea.


----------



## Greylock

BadMojo said:
			
		

> I don't know about that.  The Dungeon Crawl Classics line has, over time, developed a pretty significant body of IP.  Their "Gazetteer of the Known Realms" is chock full of IP that, I can only guess, Goodman doesn't want to throw in the toilet.




I've been wondering this same exact thing. I can't imagine why GG would just toss that material, or abandon the players not coming to 4th. All along GG has shown a willingness to publish the same adventures for more than one system.


----------



## Elton Robb

phloog said:
			
		

> First off, I'm not of the camp that thinks the GSL is insane...just shrewd and frightening.




I believe that the GSL was formulated by people who just don't get D&D.  Ryan Dancy did; in his own way.  The whole idea behind D&D was to allow highly creative thinkers to enjoy a game where anything can happen.  I highly believe that people who play D&D aren't really nerds, they are capable of solving problems.

The Spirit of D&D is creativity.  The whole game sparks it and makes it grow.  In the early years, this creativity made GURPS, Boot Hill, and many other games.  Then the OGL happened and it was the best thing for D&D and everyone else.

This new GSL is worse than anything anyone could ever think of for the community.  I think they shouldn't have put out the GSL at all, and just licensed 4e out to people who really want to produce stuff for 4e.  They should have made D&D a "closed" system in my view because everyone now would stand to benefit if they did.

Several people who buy nothing but D&D will still buy D&D.  But the Spirit of D&D would still be preserved.  In my humble opinion, the new GSL should not be a free license, because it doesn't read like a free community license.  It should cost an investment for the company to produce 3rd party product.


----------



## GlassJaw

Elton Robb said:
			
		

> I believe that the GSL was formulated by people who just don't get D&D.




I don't think the GSL was created by people that don't get D&D.

I think the GSL was created by people that don't fully understand what open source means.


----------



## Lizard

GlassJaw said:
			
		

> I don't think the GSL was created by people that don't get D&D.
> 
> I think the GSL was created by people that don't fully understand what open source means.




I think it was created by people that DO fully understand what open source means -- and are frightened by it.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> I think it was created by people that DO fully understand what open source means -- and are frightened by it.




You use the term "frightened" to imply people are "fearful Neanderthals" of it.  Criticism of open source can be justified.  

Trying to paint people who are critical of so-called "new paradigms" as "frightened", "old-time thinkers", people who "don't get it", etc, is not a very good attitude to have, as it shows narrow-minded thinking towards other legitimate opinions.


----------



## Lizard

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> You use the term "frightened" to imply people are "fearful Neanderthals" of it.




Yes. Precisely.



> Trying to paint people who are critical of so-called "new paradigms" as "frightened", "old-time thinkers", people who "don't get it", etc, is not a very good attitude to have, as it shows narrow-minded thinking towards other legitimate opinions.




That assumes the opinions are legitimate. 

The GSL, as written, is not just aimed at protecting trademarks or avoiding people downloading the SRD -- as if anyone disinclined to pay for a game wouldn't just download an illegal PDF instead. It's about locking down one particular vision of D&D -- hence the whole "no extending or redefining terms" thing. It's worth comparing the GSL to the STL. The STL also defined a lot of terms and said they could not be redefined -- but they didn't include things like "elf" and there was no issue about replacing defined terms with new terms. (Also, WOTC never really enforced the 'defined terms' clause, but that's a side issue.) WOTC evidently spent a lot of time and money deciding what D&D "should be", and doesn't want a lot of variant playstyles out there -- even if the goal of selling PHBs and keeping players within the D&D 'sphere' is still met. The 'your product lines die when we say they die' clause also points to this.

The PTB at WOTC/Hasbro understands very well what the OGL did -- it created a baseline of D&D completely out of their control, one which could grow, mutate, split, and exist entirely on its own, in perpetuity. They fear that happening with 4e, after investing "seven figures" in it. Thus, the GSL.

I honestly do not know why they bothered with any license at all; as written, they will get only minimal benefits from having it.


----------



## The Little Raven

Lizard said:
			
		

> That assumes the opinions are legitimate.




"If you don't agree with my opinion on open gaming, then your opinion is not legitimate."

There's no room (or desire) for discussion on this topic with a person who is that arrogant and close-minded.



> I honestly do not know why they bothered with any license at all; as written, they will get only minimal benefits from having it.




That's because any reason they would give would immediately be dismissed by you as illegitimate.


----------



## Nellisir

Lizard said:
			
		

> I honestly do not know why they bothered with any license at all; as written, they will get only minimal benefits from having it.




I'm not a fan of the GSL, but the fact is, it's only restrictive when you put it up against the OGL.  If, 8 years ago, WotC had put out the GSL instead of the OGL, we'd all be cheering.

I'm not saying we should be cheering now - we do have the OGL to compare it against, after all -- but it has its place.

And I dunno, maybe I'm just cynical, but with airlines charging you for snacks and checked luggage, and $4/gallon gas, and contaminated tomatoes -- the GSL seems like it's just in line with the times.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Lizard said:
			
		

> The GSL, as written, is not just aimed at protecting trademarks or avoiding people downloading the SRD -- as if anyone disinclined to pay for a game wouldn't just download an illegal PDF instead.




That's different.  Downloading an illegal PDF is still illegal and you can still be prosecuted for it.  Downloading a free legal version is basically deciding to give away a valuable product by commoditizing it.  And I can see a creator not wanting to do that.



> WOTC evidently spent a lot of time and money deciding what D&D "should be", and doesn't want a lot of variant playstyles out there -- even if the goal of selling PHBs and keeping players within the D&D 'sphere' is still met. The 'your product lines die when we say they die' clause also points to this.




Well, that's the publisher's choice.  People like Paizo decide to stick with the OGL.  I think publishers have the right to license and dictate terms, while the licensees have the right to refuse them.  

One of the reasons I seem a bit of a contrarian to the OGL perspective is that I believe creators have rights and should have control over their work.  I think a creator should choose the terms of the license over the terms of the licensee.  And I would like licensees to choose carefully.  Ultimately, if people are pissed about a license becoming more restrictive, they should be thinking of creating their own stuff.  

It's like work-for-hire.  You want to write for Marvel comics, fine, accept the paycheck.  But if you want total control, go the harder creator-owned route.  I wish more people did the harder route, but at the same time I don't begrudge the people who want to write for a paycheck either.  But the guys doing work for hire know the risks that they might someday be out of a job and have no control over their creations.

In other words--ANY license is risky, even the OGL, because you don't have ultimate control.  Unless you own your own property there are risks.  Anybody who licenses from another has to take risks.



> I honestly do not know why they bothered with any license at all; as written, they will get only minimal benefits from having it.




Well, seeing as how people seem to value the D&D trademark from the official company more than a specific version of the game, based on how well the completely different D&D is selling, it stands to reasons that there is value in third party stuff.  So I suspect it will be popular with the right publishers.  If they choose to go the "work for hire" route, they know the risks.  The GSL is a more typical license for IP.

I'm sure there are some publishers who would object to the ones saying that "there should not be a license if its this bad".


----------



## Lizard

Mourn said:
			
		

> "If you don't agree with my opinion on open gaming, then your opinion is not legitimate."
> 
> There's no room (or desire) for discussion on this topic with a person who is that arrogant and close-minded.




Again, you make the presumption all opinions are legitimate and equal, that some cannot, in fact, be dismissed out of hand. It's nicely egalitarian, but it's also wrong.

If someone begins a conversation with "In my opinion, 2+2=5", there's no real reason to go further. I do not consider that arrogance (though I also don't consider arrogance to be a sin). I could list many other, better, examples, but they'd veer into politics and religion which are out of place on this board.

IAE, I notice a sudden leap of logic here. I didn't say the PTB weren't right to fear open gaming. If their goal is control, and it is, then open gaming IS a threat to that, and it's quite rational to fear it. I wouldn't argue otherwise. Their opinion IS valid, given their desires. If you're allergic to bee stings, you are quite correct to fear bees.



> That's because any reason they would give would immediately be dismissed by you as illegitimate.




Well, let's wait until we're given reasons. Then I'll tell you. At the moment, we've had 10 months of "WOTC believes in open gaming!", followed by a license which says "No, we don't." The actual reasoning behind the license remains entirely speculative. 

Since you've spent a lot of time arguing that WOTC was hurt by the OGL, I find it a little hard to accept you're now saying that they're NOT driven by a desire to prevent that harm a second time. (I disagree that they were hurt, of course, and I notice no WOTC or Hasbro representative has stepped up and publically stated "We lost money due to competition from third parties" -- or, if they have, I haven't seen it posted yet.)


----------



## Lizard

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Well, that's the publisher's choice.  People like Paizo decide to stick with the OGL.  I think publishers have the right to license and dictate terms, while the licensees have the right to refuse them.




Of course. Who is talking about "rights"? WOTC can say "To publish under the GSL, you must strip naked, paint yourself blue, and dance about on the steps of the Washington Monument", and I'd support their right to offer that as their terms of contract. I'd also say it was a pretty crappy deal if you took it, but wouldn't try to stop you from doing so.

You seem to be conflating "shouldn't" with "can't".

I think the GSL, as written, is a bad deal for most publishers and ultimately bad for WOTC.

I support the right of people to publish under it if they choose. I might. I will do so with the full knowledge I'm basically creating time-limited material and so produce things which do not have what I consider to be long-lasting potential, unless I see an easy way to convert them to a non-OGL system when the time comes.

I also support the right of people to complain about it and try to do something to change it. And WOTC has the right to listen, or not, as they see fit.



> One of the reasons I seem a bit of a contrarian to the OGL perspective is that I believe creators have rights and should have control over their work.




No one was forced to publish under the OGL. They knew the terms. They accepted them. End argument.



> I'm sure there are some publishers who would object to the ones saying that "there should not be a license if its this bad".




They can object. Isn't freedom great?


----------



## The Little Raven

Lizard said:
			
		

> Again, you make the presumption all opinions are legitimate and equal, that some cannot, in fact, be dismissed out of hand. It's nicely egalitarian, but it's also wrong.




I never said all opinions are equal. My opinion is obviously superior to yours, for example. However, dismissing someone's opinion as not being legitimate because it doesn't coincide with your own is just arrogant.



> If someone begins a conversation with "In my opinion, 2+2=5", there's no real reason to go further. I do not consider that arrogance (though I also don't consider arrogance to be a sin).




This is BS. No one is saying 2+2=5. You basically call people that don't agree with your opinion on the GSL cowards. That's the sign of an arrogant jerk.



> I could list many other, better, examples, but they'd veer into politics and religion which are out of place on this board.




No, instead you just use insults and provide examples that are frankly irrelevant to the discussion.



> Their opinion IS valid, given their desires.




Wait a minute.. it's valid, but it's not legitimate?

What's this semantic dance you're doing called, anyhow?



> Well, let's wait until we're given reasons.




That would be a good idea, but it's obvious from the tone of your posts that you've already made up your mind, since you declared dissenting opinions illegitimate.



> Since you've spent a lot of time arguing that WOTC was hurt by the OGL, I find it a little hard to accept you're now saying that they're NOT driven by a desire to prevent that harm a second time.




I never said it hurt them. I said it didn't work out exactly as they intended. And I'm not saying that they're not driven by a desire to protect their interests. I'm saying that your off-hand dismissal of dissenting opinions as illegitimate is a barrier to any kind of serious discussion, since it rejects discussion out-of-hand because anyone opposed to your opinion doesn't have a legitimate opinion in your eyes.


----------



## Lizard

Mourn said:
			
		

> I never said all opinions are equal. My opinion is obviously superior to yours, for example. However, dismissing someone's opinion as not being legitimate because it doesn't coincide with your own is just arrogant.




This, again, is based on the idea that "opinion" is a synonym for "arbitrary".




> This is BS. No one is saying 2+2=5. You basically call people that don't agree with your opinion on the GSL cowards. That's the sign of an arrogant jerk.




No, actually, I said "The people who WROTE the GSL were afraid of open source." That's not the same as saying people who approve of it of are. In any event, "coward" is not a proper term. A coward is someone who has baseless fears. As we both seem to agree, if one desires complete control, fear of opening up IP is perfectly valid.

Their opinion is VALID because they correctly understand that they will lose control of their IP if it is open.

Their opinion is ILLEGITIMATE (or, rather, not worth considering in an objective debate about whether or not the GSL is good for publishers) because it is driven by that fear.

In short, I don't consider the fear of loss of control of IP to be a legitimate motivation for behavior. Given that motivation, however, their decisions have been rational.

Logical action from a faulty premise. It's extremely common human behavior. If you believe you're going to win the the lottery (false premise) you should spend a lot of money on buying tickets (correct, logical, conclusion).

In the case of WOTC, or whoever is actually behind the GSL, we see the primary goal is to "put the genie back in the bottle", hence the perpetual termination clauses. The problem is, the fear that opening 4e in perpetuity will harm a presumed 5e is wrong; the sales of 4e, despite the huge amounts of competitive material out there, prove that. The prescence of True 20, Spycraft, and so on have had little to no obvious impact on 4e sales, which are higher than expected -- and there were high expectations. So the belief that a fully open 4e would lead to long term harm is objectively invalid, as a fully open *3e* did not -- and, indeed, by keeping the D&D market alive and active, probably *increased* 4e sales by reducing people drifting out of the D&D space.

So they are making a perfectly rational decision to shoot themselves in the foot. A mostly-closed 4e will lead to attrition and contraction, and when 5e comes around, this will mean lower overall sales, as players will have left D&D entirely and won't be enticed to come back -- if they're gaming at all. Ryan Dancey was incorrect in predicting that opening D&D would lead to good ideas becoming part of the "source code", but he was correct in that it kept gamers playing D&D instead of moving on, and that's helped WOTC directly.

And, please, stop conflating "Lizard's opinion of the people who wrote the GSL" with "Lizard's opinion of uninvolved third parties who support the GSL". The drives of both groups are quite different. Actually, I can't figure out the latter at all. Do you think the GSL will produce better supplements than the OGL/STL did? If so, why? There's still no quality control, no approval process. If you think the "Defined terms" will lead to more consistency and quality...read the STL. It was very similar, and the D20 logo didn't mean a damn thing for quality purposes. It seems that there's nothing the GSL does *better* than the OGL from the perspective of consumers, and it does many things worse, so the only motives I can come up with for lauding it are...well, I can't come up with any that are rational, to my mind. "Better than nothing" is about it, and that's damning with faint praise.


----------



## Orcus

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I'm not a fan of the GSL, but the fact is, it's only restrictive when you put it up against the OGL.  If, 8 years ago, WotC had put out the GSL instead of the OGL, we'd all be cheering.
> 
> I'm not saying we should be cheering now - we do have the OGL to compare it against, after all -- but it has its place.
> 
> And I dunno, maybe I'm just cynical, but with airlines charging you for snacks and checked luggage, and $4/gallon gas, and contaminated tomatoes -- the GSL seems like it's just in line with the times.




I agree with the first part of your thread in general, since at that time were were going from nothing to the whole thing. I'm not sure I would be cheering not being able to use my namesake demon at any point in time  But I do agree, that the GSL seems more restrictive than it is because the OGL is there for us to compare it against.


----------



## Voadam

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I'm not a fan of the GSL, but the fact is, it's only restrictive when you put it up against the OGL.  If, 8 years ago, WotC had put out the GSL instead of the OGL, we'd all be cheering.
> 
> I'm not saying we should be cheering now - we do have the OGL to compare it against, after all -- but it has its place.
> 
> And I dunno, maybe I'm just cynical, but with airlines charging you for snacks and checked luggage, and $4/gallon gas, and contaminated tomatoes -- the GSL seems like it's just in line with the times.




I think we'd still say the revocable and changeable at will clauses, pulping of product upon termination clause, and limited uses clauses make it a poor business proposition for licensees and it could be a lot better but we might get some licensed 3rd party directly D&D products out of it despite the poor terms of the license which would be better than nothing.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> In the case of WOTC, or whoever is actually behind the GSL, we see the primary goal is to "put the genie back in the bottle", hence the perpetual termination clauses. The problem is, the fear that opening 4e in perpetuity will harm a presumed 5e is wrong; the sales of 4e, despite the huge amounts of competitive material out there, prove that. The prescence of True 20, Spycraft, and so on have had little to no obvious impact on 4e sales, which are higher than expected -- and there were high expectations. So the belief that a fully open 4e would lead to long term harm is objectively invalid, as a fully open *3e* did not -- and, indeed, by keeping the D&D market alive and active, probably *increased* 4e sales by reducing people drifting out of the D&D space.
> 
> So they are making a perfectly rational decision to shoot themselves in the foot. A mostly-closed 4e will lead to attrition and contraction, and when 5e comes around, this will mean lower overall sales, as players will have left D&D entirely and won't be enticed to come back -- if they're gaming at all. Ryan Dancey was incorrect in predicting that opening D&D would lead to good ideas becoming part of the "source code", but he was correct in that it kept gamers playing D&D instead of moving on, and that's helped WOTC directly.




First of all, "harm" is relative.  It could be that WoTC have decided that letting people that an open system will eventually lead to attrition--maybe they are using long-term thinking.  If you have a strong brand, you enforce the brand.  I think the OGL lead to weakening of the brand, honestly, and I think this is Wizards attempt to correct it.  Ironically, Ryan was wrong about the fans of the game ending up rebelling and forcing D&D to remain the same--this radical rule change ended up with high sales.

Part of D&D 4e success seems to be re-establishing the brand indentity.  D&D is D&D.  No "OGL", "d20", or other attributions.  As soon as Wizards announced 4e, sales of other d20 product fell.  You call that "putting the Genie back in the bottle"...but people seem very willing to replace their free Genie with the bottled Efreet.

Your opinion which you say is "objective fact" has a few flaws.  I don't believe you can prove that people who play games like M&M and Spycraft are "kept in the D&D space".  Those games were rather different.  Also, the fact more people jumped on the d20 bandwagon lead to less competing games that were more different.  I see no empirical evidence the D&D game line was increased by the existence of d20 games.  

Saying 4e's closed nature will lead to attrition doesn't make much sense.  If sales are higher on 4e, why would they go down because the game isn't open?  Apparently more people care about the regular D&D brand than the OGL games, so I think the more restrictive GSL, which by no means is a "closed game", will not affect things that much.  (And if 4e sales do go down, I believe it will be more because the game actually changed, rather than a lower number of third-party publishers).

I mean I don't really like 4e, and I would like to see an OGL game get a lot of popularity--but that doesn't change that your logic seems a little flawed.

I actually think the GSL has some advantages.  Making the "viral" part optional rather than mandatory is more appealing to publishers--let them have the control.  Using the D&D logo is a big plus.  And the fact that the GSL is more restrictive will force some publishers to work on more unique unlicensed products, which will help gaming overall and prevent a D&D monoculture.

I'm not blind to the GSL being restrictive.  But I don't see how the use of it will hurt D&D in the long run or that it's a "bad" license.


----------



## Lizard

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Saying 4e's closed nature will lead to attrition doesn't make much sense.  If sales are higher on 4e, why would they go down because the game isn't open?




Sales were high on 4e because, IMO, the openness of 3e kept people in the "D&D space", even if they drifted to other D20 games -- because they could then easily drift back to D&D. In 1998, if you played D&D but wanted to do a spy game, you were likely to move to GURPS or some other non-TSR system (Top Secret was never very popular, and it used different rules anyway). Then, when you were ready to switch again, you were already "out of" D&D, so there was no real incentive to pick D&D over, say, Fantasy Hero or Runequest. With D20, however, you could switch genres without switching systems, so that you stayed close to D&D.

Thus, after eight years, the total attrition of the D&D market was much less than it had been in 2000, when D&D was pretty much at its nadir. The OGL kept people close to WOTC, even if they weren't actually playing D&D -- and primed them for the upgrade.

Now, how they'll react to 4e once they've seen and digested it..that's anyone's guess. A lot of people don't like it when they read it, but actually playing it is a very different experience. 

But, like it or not, they will eventually look for some other game. In 2000->2008, it would be likely that other game would be something using the same D20 engine. In 2008+...it will more than likely be a competitors game, perhaps one based on the D20 SRD, perhaps a totally new system. And when they're done with THAT, D&D is no longer an easy pick to switch back to. And that's where the problem will lie.

If your group does nothing but run D&D campaigns back to back, then, this may not resonate with you. If your group cycles through campaigns every 2 years or so, it might.


----------



## dmccoy1693

Orcus said:
			
		

> I agree with the first part of your thread in general, since at that time were were going from nothing to the whole thing. I'm not sure I would be cheering not being able to use my namesake demon at any point in time  But I do agree, that the GSL seems more restrictive than it is because the OGL is there for us to compare it against.




The most restrictive part of the GSL is, IMO, the fact that there is now only one license.  BoEF is a prime example.  They weren't allowed to publish it under the d20STL so they published it OGL.  Now, if you write something and WotC says no-no, you're screwed.  

Had Wizards made the EXACT SAME restrictions in the form of OGL 2.0A and D&DSTL and put a stipulation in the D&DSTL that you had to use OGL 2.0A in order to publish under the D&DSTL, I would be all for this license.  But considering that Wizards has final say over any products I write as to whether or not they will ever be published, I cannot in good faith work under this license.


----------



## Gilwen

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I'm not a fan of the GSL, but the fact is, it's only restrictive when you put it up against the OGL.  If, 8 years ago, WotC had put out the GSL instead of the OGL, we'd all be cheering.




I agree too, but to me the GSL seems like a step that is being presented out of order. Like if 8 years ago WOTC had released the GSL and then the OGL the flow would seem unbroken and we'd be cheering WOTC's vision. But the putting the genie back in the bottle is just chopping up the wake and the water won't be smooth again for a bit.

Gil


----------



## pemerton

see said:
			
		

> Well, I've seen it suggested, if one is restricted by the GSL regarding a product, one arguably doesn't have "authority to contribute" under section 5 of the OGL.  So if you published it under the OGL, you'd be in violation of the OGL, and the OGL would terminate for breach.   If you used the 3.5 SRD for your work, at that point you'd possibly be in simple violation of Wizards copyright (for using the SRD without a valid copyright license).  Which would suggest you'd now face remedies for copyright violation, which are generally more robust than a no-damages contract violation.
> 
> How well that holds together, well, is a matter for a lawyer to advise on.  I have no idea.



But clause 5 of the OGL states "If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License." In the hypothetical situation in which someone tried to backwards convert a GSL product to the OGL, it would be "fluff" content that was being reproduced in the OGL product, in breach of clause 6.2 of the GSL, but the new d20 "crunch" would be OGC that the publisher did have authority to contribute, wouldn't it? All the publisher would have to do would be to make sure that the offending fluff was not labelled as OGC.

Or am I missing something?


----------



## ruemere

I'd like to argue two paraphs here, hence the cuts.



			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> [...]
> I see no empirical evidence the D&D game line was increased by the existence of d20 games.  [...]



Competition keeps the market from stagnating. And volume of sales is irrelevant to competition of ideas.

4E mechanics contain certain similiarities to other games previously published - one could argue that the experiences of various OGL games may have allowed 4E designers to introduce or avoid certain developments.



> [...]If sales are higher on 4e, why would they go down because the game isn't open?[...]



Two possible causes:

*Lack of third party support for long term campaigns. *
It's highly unlikely that third party publishers will stake their precious, well developed worlds on GSL. And, as history proves, adventures and standalone add-ons offer smallest profits.

*Lack of inventive derivatives.*
There is a reason that M&M, Arcana Evolved, Spycraft and other games became classics - they offered stuff people found to be lacking in base game. I doubt there will be any such game released under GSL.

Actually, official game expansions from WotC can be summarized as:
- basic manuals adding to core books (Manual of the Planes, Open Grave, PHB II)
- basic campaign setting revivals (1-3 books per setting)
- adventure series (one)

Anyone looking for well supported setting (with several books released each year) is unlilkely to find such. At the same time, 3.xE brought us Iron Kingdoms, Midnight, Scarred Lands, Freeport.

That's why, while I loved Black Company by Green Ronin (their whole line of Mystic Vistas is heartily recommended), I was not surprised that it became merely a part of collection. It's a great book, but without support, well, it was not as appealing as it could have been.

4E may endure the trial of time, but as long as it's future is dominated by a single vision, it is unlikely to maintain its audience for more than 3-4 years.


Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## JohnRTroy

The problem with that logic is that it assumes that the OGL was the only thing driving competition.

It wasn't.  Many RPGs existed.  In fact, one could make the case that the OGL--specifically the d20 SRD version licensed under the OGL--hurt the gaming industry by providing too many competitors that weren't really different.  It's like everybody went into the dog breeding business and ignored hamsters, cats, bunnies, etc.  Or everybody's making soup products, instead of other things like pizza, rice, etc.

Heck, even TSR had Boot Hill, Star Frontiers, Gamma World, Marvel Super-Heroes, Amazing Engine, etc.  

That's one reason I think the GSL is actually good because it forces some evolution on the gaming industry.  Now that it has consequences and limits, we'll see more people creating truly innovative games instead of following the path of least resistance and feeding off of the D&D teat.  Not everything can be handled by the d20 system, and having a monoculture I think stifles innovation.


----------



## jaldaen

pemerton said:
			
		

> Or am I missing something?




The only things you can truly convert over to 4e wholesale is the PI (Product Identity or "fluff"; which was not released as part of the OGL) and the non-mechanical OGC. 

The mechanical OGC in any converted product remains forever OGC, all you are doing is expressing the OGC in 4e mechanical terms using 4e References and creating new 4e rules to fill the gaps. This "new expression" of the OGC is not OGC and essentially becomes 4e GSC (4e Game System Content). You cannot take this content back with you if you attempt to return to the OGL. Nor can you return your PI once you convert because:



> 6.2 No Backward Conversion. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that it will not publish any product pursuant to the OGL that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents of a Licensed Product.




This means anything you convert over to 4e via the GSL, be it PI or OGC is considered "non-returnable" to the OGL for the Licensee. However, oddly enough the OGC is still OGC and so any one else, except for the Licensee can use it, which seems odd, but there you have it 

In addition, once your PI becomes "non-returnable" to the OGL it is that way forever. No returning to the OGL for that PI or anything that Wizards of the Coast could construe as that PI.

*Note:* IANAL.


----------



## Henry

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> It wasn't.  Many RPGs existed.  In fact, one could make the case that the OGL--specifically the d20 SRD version licensed under the OGL--hurt the gaming industry by providing too many competitors that weren't really different.  It's like everybody went into the dog breeding business and ignored hamsters, cats, bunnies, etc.  Or everybody's making soup products, instead of other things like pizza, rice, etc.




Yet this doesn't compare with the period from 1991 to 2000, when there was no OGL, and gaming as a whole was at its weakest it had been in twenty years. Heck, the biggest fish after TSR was White Wolf, and they had -- what? Fifty thousand regular customers at most?  I foudn one figure that says 5.5 million collective book sales over ten years, but that's not as many fans as D&D, by a long stretch.

I remember WotC's 1999 estimate that 2.5 million people tabletop-gamed monthly; Then an estimate by Charles Ryan in 2003 or so, that said (I'm thinking 4 million, I'd have to ask him or find a reference). 

Found it - last paragraph of article. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...ns-a-magnet-for-fantasy-fans---name_page.html

In just four years time, that's a substantial increase, and 3e and the OGL may not be responsible for all of it, but I really dispute someone dismissing it out of hand.

_*Some people would attribute most all of it to 3rd edition and not the OGL, but to me that's like saying a cake is great solely because of the flour. _


----------



## GlassJaw

Lizard said:
			
		

> I think it was created by people that DO fully understand what open source means -- and are frightened by it.




If they are frightened by it, I think that proves my point that they don't understand it.


----------



## pemerton

ruemere said:
			
		

> 4E mechanics contain certain similiarities to other games previously published - one could argue that the experiences of various OGL games may have allowed 4E designers to introduce or avoid certain developments.



But does it contain mechanics similar to those of RPGs published under the OGL?

To the extent that it adopts a more self-consciously anti-simulationist mechanical approach, it seems to have learned mostly from non-d20/OGL games - and this hypothesis draws some support from references made to indie games by both Heinsoo and Mearls.


----------



## pemerton

jaldaen said:
			
		

> The only things you can truly convert over to 4e wholesale is the PI (Product Identity or "fluff"; which was not released as part of the OGL) and the non-mechanical OGC.
> 
> The mechanical OGC in any converted product remains forever OGC, all you are doing is expressing the OGC in 4e mechanical terms using 4e References and creating new 4e rules to fill the gaps.



This could be summarised: a GSL conversion of an OGL product will reproduce the fluff (which may or may not have been OGC) and will replace the old mechanics (which may or may not have been OGC, but probably were to a large extent) with new mechanics which are stated using References from the new SRD.



			
				jaldaen said:
			
		

> This "new expression" of the OGC is not OGC and essentially becomes 4e GSC (4e Game System Content).



Unless I missed it, the licence does not define any such concept. What we have is text the copyright of which belongs (principally if not entirely) to the publisher, but which incorporates 4e References licensed under the GSL.



			
				jaldaen said:
			
		

> You cannot take this content back with you if you attempt to return to the OGL. Nor can you return your PI once you convert



Well, there are two issues here.

Any attempt to reproduce the content of a publication licensed under the GSL as a publication licensed under the OGL would be a violation of the GSL. But the issue I was considering was whether it would also be a violation of clause 5 of the OGL. And that clause only requires one to have authority to contribute the OGC in the publication. So, provided that everything appearing in the OGL version that had also appeared in the GSL version was not OGC, clause 5 would not come into play.

(I should add - I am assuming here what seems to me to be an overly wide reading of Clause 5. I do not think that clause 5 requires me to not be under contractual obligation not to contribute the OGC in question. I think that it only requires me to have sufficient rights in the OGC in question that, in purporting to contribute it, I am not infringing anyone else's property rights. But perhaps I am reading clause 5 too narrowly.)



			
				jaldaen said:
			
		

> This means anything you convert over to 4e via the GSL, be it PI or OGC is considered "non-returnable" to the OGL for the Licensee. However, oddly enough the OGC is still OGC and so any one else, except for the Licensee can use it, which seems odd, but there you have it



That is because the OGL does not preclude use of that OGC. And the Licensee would also enjoy the benefit of that non-preclusion - that is, a backwards conversion is forbidden by the GSL but (provided the OGC declaration is done properly) does not appear to be forbidden by clause 5 of the OGL.



			
				jaldaen said:
			
		

> In addition, once your PI becomes "non-returnable" to the OGL it is that way forever. No returning to the OGL for that PI or anything that Wizards of the Coast could construe as that PI.



Again these prohibitions arise under the GSL. As far as the OGL is concerned, what seems to matter (given clause 5) is proper declaration of OGC.



			
				jaldaen said:
			
		

> IANAL.



I am a lawyer, but an academic one, who does not teach contract and who does not have a practice certificate. So none of the above is legal advice - just an attempt to work out the implications of each licence.

Nor am I encouraging anyone to backwards convert in violation of obligations under the GSL - I'm just trying to understand the legal implications of doing so.


----------



## Gilwen

I think the bottom line is WOTC want's 3pp support but they them to  support the game their way and the GSL is designed to do just that. Even during Dancey's tenure he said that 3PP suprised them in the ways they chose to support the game. They thought 3PP would do adventures and those kinds of supplements. For the most part 3PP didn't do that they came straight on and a lot in direct competition.  I know I personally didn't buy many WOTC books beyond the 3 core for 3.0, about 7, but even fewer for 3.5 which amounted to 4 total. Over 90% of my RPG collection is from other publishers that used the OGL.

This time around WOTC is trying to shape things to go the other way and to get the type of support that they want the rest of the companies to provide in a away where tWOTC are left as head of the team. Nothing wrong or inheritly bad but this wouldn't be such a issue if the GSL had been released 8 years ago instead of the OGL.

Keep in mind my opinions are from what I am seeing now not from some intimate knowledge. You may reserve the right to say I'm nuts 


my .02,

Gil


----------



## Henry

Gilwen said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong or inheritly bad but this wouldn't be such a issue if the GSL had been released 8 years ago instead of the OGL.




Funny thing is, there was quite a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the OGL also when it was released, on rec.games/frp.dnd, about how WotC was trying to destroy the Gaming world by supplanting every game with d20. It didn't happen, but I don't think the GSL would have been any better received back then, and in fact might have flopped had it been as restrictive; the theory at the time was that the changes to D&D were possibly "too radical" and they didn't want to scare off the D&D fans, and in fact wanted them to embrace this new game system. Now, there's no doubt about the majority of D&D gamers "embracing d20", and the new D&D, so there's not as much fear to closing down the license a bit, because it's more of a known quantity now.

I'm still curious what will come out of it, other than a bunch of adventures from good to mediocre, and a few class/race/feat books. If something really innovative and important to D&D gamers comes out of the GSL, I'll be very surprised and impressed.


----------



## Nellisir

Lizard said:
			
		

> Thus, after eight years, the total attrition of the D&D market was much less than it had been in 2000, when D&D was pretty much at its nadir. The OGL kept people close to WOTC, even if they weren't actually playing D&D -- and primed them for the upgrade.



I think alot of people forget, or don't realize, that D&D's high point wasn't eight years ago, or ten years ago -- it was more like twenty-five years ago.  Honestly, I think the OGL and the "game bubble" it created around D&D did a huge amount to level off and reverse D&D's decline.


----------



## Gilwen

Henry said:
			
		

> I'm still curious what will come out of it, other than a bunch of adventures from good to mediocre, and a few class/race/feat books. If something really innovative and important to D&D gamers comes out of the GSL, I'll be very surprised and impressed.




Yah I remember all of that turmoil and the list debates. I learned alot from watching it all.  I agree that there would ahve been just as much gnashing. Oh and when I say they should have released the GSL first, I mean it in the sense that they released it with the 3E stuff instead, not transplant the lincense and 4E SRD.

I'm leaning on the "I'll be impressed side" for the 3PP, there's a lot of talented ppl working hard. I htink after the dust settles and ppl get to work then something is going to come of it, someting new and unthought of and ppl will go "why didn't I do that". I think entry will be more cautious since the GSL is a higher barrier (at least with the current schools of thought about what the GSL means) than the OGL was and companies will really need to ease into the market rather than jump in first if they care about how the GSL can affect their IP longterm.
I'm looking to learn a lot from the GSL debates this time around too. 

gil


----------



## Gilwen

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I think alot of people forget, or don't realize, that D&D's high point wasn't eight years ago, or ten years ago -- it was more like twenty-five years ago.  Honestly, I think the OGL and the "game bubble" it created around D&D did a huge amount to level off and reverse D&D's decline.




As I remember it ADD was all but stuck in the ground when WOTC took over the property.
I think you are right about the reversal, I don't know if the OGL can claim a majority of that feat but it certainly helped I think, epecially in the early days. 
I also think that the GSL is going ot help WOTC sell a heck of a lot of DnD books this time around too. 
Gil


----------



## Orcus

Voadam said:
			
		

> I think we'd still say the revocable and changeable at will clauses, pulping of product upon termination clause, and limited uses clauses make it a poor business proposition for licensees and it could be a lot better but we might get some licensed 3rd party directly D&D products out of it despite the poor terms of the license which would be better than nothing.




How did you feel about the d20 STL, which was changable at will, required pulping and limited use?


----------



## kenmarable

Orcus said:
			
		

> How did you feel about the d20 STL, which was changable at will, required pulping and limited use?



There is a slight difference in that, if you broke the d20 STL, it would be possible to continue publishing without the logo and text (obviously much easier for PDf than print, but still possible). So there was a second license to fall back on.

But your point is still valid that the changeable at-will, pulping, limited use factors were around back in 2000 as well. Just back then the OGL was around as a nice safety net.


----------



## jmucchiello

Orcus said:
			
		

> How did you feel about the d20 STL, which was changable at will, required pulping and limited use?



Clark, the d20 STL was written in a much friendlier manner. It's the change in manner that makes all the scary parts of the GSL even scarier:

Compare STLv6 S.3 to GSL S.10.1 and 10.3. They serve the same purpose yet one is 2 lines long and puts no real burden on the licensee. The GSL tells you to be a watchdog for WotC, forever since it survives termination.

STL includes request for review copies of material only in relation to Quality Standards (S.4). The GSL allows request of review copies for any reason (S.9) and the reason doesn't have to be specified.

The d20 license had a 30-day cure period for violations. The GSL has no cure period.

Heck, you can update the STL Confirmation Card at your earliest convenience. The GSL's SOA must arrive within 14 days of the change or you are in violation.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Clark, the d20 STL was written in a much friendlier manner. It's the change in manner that makes all the scary parts of the GSL even scarier:
> 
> Compare STLv6 S.3 to GSL S.10.1 and 10.3. They serve the same purpose yet one is 2 lines long and puts no real burden on the licensee. The GSL tells you to be a watchdog for WotC, forever since it survives termination.




Mr. Mucchiello, I'm no lawyer, but I don't see anything in 10.1 or 10.3 that makes Licensees "WotC watchdogs." What I do see is that 10.3 is a clause (if that is the right word) that allows WotC to call Licensees up as witnesses.



> STL includes request for review copies of material only in relation to Quality Standards (S.4). The GSL allows request of review copies for any reason (S.9) and the reason doesn't have to be specified.




Read S.9 again. It states that WotC can request a copy to see if it is in compliance with any section of the GSL.



> The d20 license had a 30-day cure period for violations. The GSL has no cure period.




So they switched to a "one strike you're out" system instead of a "you can mess-up as much as you want as long as you fix it fast enough" system.



> Heck, you can update the STL Confirmation Card at your earliest convenience. The GSL's SOA must arrive within 14 days of the change or you are in violation.




Define "earliest convenience." Within 2 weeks? 4 months? 1 year? I've seen a company move 3 times in the space of 6 months.


----------



## Nellisir

Gilwen said:
			
		

> I'm leaning on the "I'll be impressed side" for the 3PP, there's a lot of talented ppl working hard. I htink after the dust settles and ppl get to work then something is going to come of it, someting new and unthought of and ppl will go "why didn't I do that". I think entry will be more cautious since the GSL is a higher barrier (at least with the current schools of thought about what the GSL means) than the OGL was and companies will really need to ease into the market rather than jump in first if they care about how the GSL can affect their IP longterm.
> I'm looking to learn a lot from the GSL debates this time around too.




What struck me the other day, and I think what might be one of the biggest effects of the OGL, is how many people weren't "wowed" by 4e, and I don't mean that in game terms or play terms or mechanics. I mean, to a lot of people, myself included, 4e is just another d20 variant to rip apart and bring back to our home game, like Iron Heros or Arcana Evolved or Spycraft or d20 Modern.  More grist for the mill.  Rather than treating 4e as a complete system, they're justing taking chunks off.


----------



## Gilwen

Nellisir said:
			
		

> What struck me the other day, and I think what might be one of the biggest effects of the OGL, is how many people weren't "wowed" by 4e, and I don't mean that in game terms or play terms or mechanics. I mean, to a lot of people, myself included, 4e is just another d20 variant to rip apart and bring back to our home game, like Iron Heros or Arcana Evolved or Spycraft or d20 Modern.  More grist for the mill.  Rather than treating 4e as a complete system, they're justing taking chunks off.




I can see that too. For me there are definately wow parts to it but overall I wasn't blown away, but I haven't actually played yet either so I'm still hopeful. I'm also hopeful for a decent MMO based on 4E mechanics, the rules seem to really lend themselves to translating to software or other games such as a card game,  it already seems to be reading like a magic game with some of the rules and the booster books that are planned. I'm waiting for WOTC to come out with their own power cards and other card accessories to play with.

 Ripping it apart may still very well happen in my group. For me reading through the PHB felt incomplete and I think that's partly due to the booster books model (PHB II for example) that have been announced as goign ot have core material.
I'll be looking to 3PP to eventually fill in the gaps and give me alternatives to play 4E, if that doesn't happnen there's always ripping the system apart or going with another system. 

Gil


----------



## BSF

Gilwen said:
			
		

> I think the bottom line is WOTC want's 3pp support but they them to  support the game their way and the GSL is designed to do just that. Even during Dancey's tenure he said that 3PP suprised them in the ways they chose to support the game. They thought 3PP would do adventures and those kinds of supplements. For the most part 3PP didn't do that they came straight on and a lot in direct competition.  I know I personally didn't buy many WOTC books beyond the 3 core for 3.0, about 7, but even fewer for 3.5 which amounted to 4 total. Over 90% of my RPG collection is from other publishers that used the OGL.
> 
> This time around WOTC is trying to shape things to go the other way and to get the type of support that they want the rest of the companies to provide in a away where tWOTC are left as head of the team. Nothing wrong or inheritly bad but this wouldn't be such a issue if the GSL had been released 8 years ago instead of the OGL.
> 
> Keep in mind my opinions are from what I am seeing now not from some intimate knowledge. You may reserve the right to say I'm nuts
> 
> 
> my .02,
> 
> Gil




This certainly appears to be true and it is something that I have been dissatisfied with.  I have never really cared what the publisher's vision of D&D should be.  I have my own vision.   I have consistently been less satisfied with my games when I am running them to somebody else's vision.  Really, the toolbox approach to 3.x and the d20STL/OGL are the things that brought me back to D&D away from the HERO system.  

And dang!  It kept me here in D&D land as well.  There has been so much material that I can keep playing a D&D derivative game at my home table using fresh material for each campaign.  I mix and match however I choose.  I blend different rulebooks together to fit my vision.  

It is a little bit of amateur/lazy game designer that seeps through.  I borrow from others to mix and match my own version of fun.

Sure, I can do that with the new version of the game.  But it doesn't look like I will see the same third party innovation for the ruleset.  WotC appears to want third party support of their vision of how the game should be played.  They don't want third party support of different ways the game might be played by those with a different vision.  So if I can't be lazy and use a bunch of different innovation from third parties, what is stopping me from moving on to other games?

Or maybe it would be more accurate to ask, what is encouraging me to move to a new version of the game that makes it harder to rapidly build my vision of the games I want to run and play in?

It certainly appears that I am not the target demographic for the new edition.  That makes me sad, but I am still a gamer and there are still new products to buy.  Whether it is Pathfinder based, True20 based, general OGL based, or even a completely different game system, there are still a lot of things I can play.  Including 4e.  But without the innovation with the 4e ruleset that I saw in the 3.X days, I doubt that 4E will be a favorite system or one that I use for long campaigns.  At least, not for a few years.  As I said, I can do the design work myself.  I just prefer to use toolkits when they are available.  So maybe I will get to a long 4E campaign in a couple of years when I develop all the little pieces here and there, between different games that I am playing.  

That is what makes the GSL look weird to me.  It precludes the type of products that I prefer and that undermines the likelihood that I will support the game with my consumer dollars.  I would like to think that they could have crafted a license that would support the game in the ways I like to use it as well as in ways that WotC would like to see it used.  But that might be a bit too idealistic.

Clearly, WotC thinks the support driven toward their vision of the game will strengthen it.  To be honest, since this is the GSL, I hope they are right.  Even if I don't want to play in their sandbox right now, I do hope they are successful.  If for no other other reason than the fact that I will certainly run some 4E games at some point in time.


----------



## Voadam

Orcus said:
			
		

> How did you feel about the d20 STL, which was changable at will, required pulping and limited use?



That it was a much different license than the OGL and a good thing the OGL did not require it. 


I had no problem with OGL products that did not bear the d20 TM. Particularly as the d20 license became progressively more restrictive as time went by. I'm quite happy with my Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, etc. 

I say this primarily as a consumer, I still buy pdfs of 1e and 2e D&D books years after having moved on to 3e. I'd guess there are more than 1,000 RPG books I don't have that I have an interest in getting eventually even though realistically I won't get all of them.

I'm quite disappointed that many d20 pdfs will be gone after December because the owners don't want to put in the effort to change the files to get rid of the logo, the compatibility language, all the d20 stl references to Monster Manual, etc.

This is directly attributable to the revocable and changeable nature of the d20 STL and WotC's willingness to use that power to attempt to shut down availability of old products. WotC could easily have said no new d20 logo products after June 1, but instead chose to cut them off all of them after an ease down period.

I fully expect this to happen to GSL products in the future without even the option for these products to be changed to purely OGL ones.

Meanwhile OGL products without the d20 TM will not have an artificial termination date imposed by WotC on their availability.


----------



## Voadam

I should also say that I felt the d20 TM was useful, at a glance from a cover I could tell that something was for D&D or closely compatible (which was something I looked for).

Once RPGnow started tagging OGL/3e products this served the same function for me.


----------



## mxyzplk

FormerlyDickensC said:
			
		

> I have a friend in law school...yea yea I know, my first mistake...but we were talking and there is one issue that I can't understand.
> 
> The 4E rules are governed by copyright.  They are not patentable, and even if the rules were patentable there is no patent on/governing them (that I know of).  Therefore the only legal mechanic governing them prevents nothing but their word-for-word reproduction.  I/we can not publish a document re-describing the rules, but creating a software application that inherently uses those rules without re-publishing them is not prevented by a copyright. Copyrights do not do that. Only patents provide such action.
> 
> Therefore, unless the 4E rules are actually patented, then I see no legal action that can be taken against anyone for creating a software app that inherently uses those rules without re-publishing them.
> 
> A similar example are automated financial trading strategies (i.e., stock market trading bots).  If I publish my trading algorithm in a book, I have no recourse against anyone who implements that strategy in their own software and then resells that software.  I may be able to take action against someone who publishes the algorithm using words similar to my published description.  But the algorithm is no more my property than the moon.  I think the same applies to the 4E rules system (just as the trading algorithm).
> 
> Of course, a real IP attorney would need to address this.  But perhaps there are those on this board who may have input.  Am I completely missing something here, or what???




So you're right, and here's the clever thing about the GSL.  If you sign up, you are accepting restrictions beyond what the law probably allows you to do anyway.  It's like the old Mayfair vs TSR case - the judge did not find that Mayfair had done anything wrong in producing D&D compatible supplements per se, except that they had signed a specific licensing agreement with TSR that said they couldn't do certain things.  It was violation of that license, and not copyright per se, that got them...

Of course it's the "probably" that keeps everyone from doing it - law is never for sure and no one has deep enough pockets to keep up with Hasbro legal, who is all about suing people for related transgressions.  And the law is complicated, with the rules vs trademarked terms vs copyright.  Although they've been beaten by little guy before - they got spanked by RADGames who was making Monopoly-compatible addons, which to my not a lawyer interpretation is pretty darn close to making D&D supplements.  http://boardgames.about.com/b/2005/12/03/radgames-selling-monopoly-add-on.htm


----------



## kunadam

BSF said:
			
		

> That is what makes the GSL look weird to me.  It precludes the type of products that I prefer and that undermines the likelihood that I will support the game with my consumer dollars.  I would like to think that they could have crafted a license that would support the game in the ways I like to use it as well as in ways that WotC would like to see it used.  But that might be a bit too idealistic.



My feeling exactly.
If I remember correctly the best 3.x book was voted to be Unearthed Arcana, a book about tweaking the rules. That was the only D&D product that I bought when it appeared (others I did only well after release, and when I was able to read some reviews)


----------



## megasycophant

Gilwen said:
			
		

> ... it already seems to be reading like a magic game with some of the rules and the booster books that are planned. I'm waiting for WOTC to come out with their own power cards and other card accessories to play with.



I'm so surprised that this is the first I've heard this.  It's just what I've thought all along as well -- the rules read like M:tG cards.  My immediate reaction was to think it would be easier to track things if I created decks for players.  (I'll refrain from giving my $0.02 on my preferences regarding whether I think "D&D" should make me feel that way.)


----------



## Protagonist

megasycophant said:
			
		

> My immediate reaction




Are you sure it wasn't a immediate interrupt?


----------



## elnopintan

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yes. Precisely.
> 
> 
> I honestly do not know why they bothered with any license at all; as written, they will get only minimal benefits from having it.




Because this license has clauses to force people to not continue supporting OGL. If it works, this will eventually kill OGL publishing.


----------



## Ydars

The really worrying thing, for me as a D&D customer, is the way the GSL seems to enshrine lots of the fluff of D&D as "uneditable" such that no 3PP can produce anything other than vaniila fantasy.

Quite frankly, this sort of product is exactly what most people who buy 3PPs seem to HATE; they want the edge, the different vision and slant on D&D.

BY potentially shutting 3PPs from producing "their" takes on D&D, I think the community will be infinitely impoverished and the game of D&D will enjoy a much reduced life-span.

This is assuming that anyone actually signs the GSL and produces anything for 4E; so far it does not seem likely that much is going to come out.


----------



## megasycophant

Protagonist said:
			
		

> Are you sure it wasn't a immediate interrupt?



I stand corrected!  I had that thought before the reading of the rules was fully resolved, so it would be an interrupt.


----------



## Henry

elnopintan said:
			
		

> Because this license has clauses to force people to not continue supporting OGL. If it works, this will eventually kill OGL publishing.



That part I seriously doubt will kill OGL gaming, because even Clark, the most gung-ho person I know for 4e, is holding back his biggest IP from the GSL.


----------



## Aegir

Henry said:
			
		

> That part I seriously doubt will kill OGL gaming, because even Clark, the most gung-ho person I know for 4e, is holding back his biggest IP from the GSL.




I think this will end up being a big part of why the OGL is not only not killed, but possibly strengthened. Punlishers are simply not going to publish any of their really important IPs under the GSL; they'll put out stand-alone splats that promote their brand and act as a sign of quality to the 4e customer base, then hope that some will come back and buy their OGL content, while its popular with the crowd that never moved to 4e.

The biggest question is whether the OGL will stay alive enough with fresh, new releases to keep a sizable fanbase alive. If it does that then it may hang onto a few more people then it would've otherwise.


----------



## see

Interesting news on Goodman Games going 4e . . . they've announced their 4e Dungeon Crawl Classics will be released in August and in stores in early September.

http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=20164#p20164
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=20182#p20182

That release date seems to rule out using the GSL.

So, are they going 4e without a license, with a special license from WotC, or what?


----------



## Orcus

see said:
			
		

> Interesting news on Goodman Games going 4e . . . they've announced their 4e Dungeon Crawl Classics will be released in August and in stores in early September.
> 
> http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=20164#p20164
> http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=20182#p20182
> 
> That release date seems to rule out using the GSL.
> 
> So, are they going 4e without a license, with a special license from WotC, or what?




I cant seem to figure out what is going on with this. 

I know Joe gave away a free gazetteer at FreeRPG day for 4E. I also see that his 3 new DCCs are listed as being for 4E. And, per his post on his boards, he seems to confirm those products will be released in August. I want to see what the actual word is on this. 

Clark


----------



## Yair

see said:
			
		

> Interesting news on Goodman Games going 4e . . . they've announced their 4e Dungeon Crawl Classics will be released in August and in stores in early September.
> 
> http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=20164#p20164
> http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=20182#p20182
> 
> That release date seems to rule out using the GSL.
> 
> So, are they going 4e without a license, with a special license from WotC, or what?



Strange.


----------



## Pinotage

see said:
			
		

> That release date seems to rule out using the GSL.
> 
> So, are they going 4e without a license, with a special license from WotC, or what?




Weird. But good news in a way. I wonder if they paid the $5000 or something. I know it wasn't required but I wonder if they didn't do that before even seeing the GSL back in February.

Either way, it'll be nice to see DCCs for 4e.

Pinotage


----------



## Ydars

Goodman have now put up a 4th product for 4E that is listed as available from August. All the products appear to have prices so they aren't getting around things via the "freebies" route.

Does anyone know anything else? I can't help but notice that NO-WHERE are the words Dungeons and Dragon mentioned in connection with these 4th edition products; they use the shorthand 4E.

I could be wrong, but something tells me that Goodman have developed products in the hope that GSL would be a safe harbour but have now decided "to hell with it" and will publish them without a license.

I must emphasise that this is pure speculation; I just don't know why they wouldn't use the D&D logo or the words Dungeon and Dragons unless they were trying to avoid legal problems.


----------



## DaveMage

Well, amongst publishers going 4e, Joe Goodman just won Gen Con.


----------



## Ydars

Davemage;l don't count on it! I can hear the bulldozers firing up as everyone joins in on the "wacky races" to produce 4E suppls before GenCon!

Now, everyone will be trying to work out what they have done and punting their own products out if it is relatively risk free.

It could be good for 4E, at least in the short-term.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

When I talked to Goodman Games at the GAMA Trade Show they had the modules in question on display (at least the covers). When I talked to them they said they had everything done except the monsters which just needed to be dropped in. Given the restrictions of the SRD which don't allow statblocks of existing monsters anyway it wouldn't seem that had to skip the GSL and SRD anyway. I could see them dropping monsters in without statblocks and just say things like 2x Level 1 Kobold  and 3x Level 4 Orc and let people figure out for themselves to look up something similar in the MM.


----------



## jmucchiello

Orcus said:
			
		

> I cant seem to figure out what is going on with this.
> 
> I know Joe gave away a free gazetteer at FreeRPG day for 4E. I also see that his 3 new DCCs are listed as being for 4E. And, per his post on his boards, he seems to confirm those products will be released in August. I want to see what the actual word is on this.



What is there to figure out? There are only 3 possibilities and one of them isn't worth speculating about:

1) Special license with Wizards
2) No D&D logo, just the wild and wooly world of copyright law
3) Insanity 

#3 can't really be discussed meaningfully or respectfully so it's only here for completeness sake. Both the remaining options make one thing clear - GG is not using the GSL.


----------



## Ydars

But this doesn't answer the question of how they have managed to do this. Do we know if they have signed up to the GSL or not and if so, why are they talking about having this stuff to sell in August; i.e. before WoTCs stated embargo date?

A lack of stat blocks doesn't get around this; unless they are trying the old "this is system neutral" dodge but since it says "for 4E" on their site, this would be a bit funny IMHO.


----------



## Ydars

Someone pointed out on another thread that they wouldn't be able to use the logo for another few weeks even if they have signed up for GSL.


----------



## JimLotFP

Ydars said:
			
		

> A lack of stat blocks doesn't get around this




Funny since the GSL wouldn't allow stat blocks anyway, right?


----------



## Brown Jenkin

JimLotFP said:
			
		

> Funny since the GSL wouldn't allow stat blocks anyway, right?



That was my thinking. They can put in 2x Level 1 Kobolds or 3x Level 4 Orc and let people figure out for themselves to look it up in the 4e MM. As far as I know 4E is not trademarked in any way and most people buying it will also know the DCC line is for D&D so they will be able to put that together as well.


----------



## JimLotFP

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> That was my thinking. They can put in 2x Level 1 Kobolds or 3x Level 4 Orc and let people figure out for themselves to look it up in the 4e MM. As far as I know 4E is not trademarked in any way and most people buying it will also know the DCC line is for D&D so they will be able to put that together as well.




Yeah, this GSL thing might just really bite WotC in the butt.

I mean... people can't redefine 4e terms or give statblocks in their publications under the GSL anyway...

What prevents a company from using the OGL (to give access to the basic D&D terms), presenting just plain monsters with no statblocks, and slapping "4e" on the cover? What practical difference will it have on the product itself, beyond not getting the D&D/GSL logo on the back?


----------



## Yair

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> What is there to figure out? There are only 3 possibilities and one of them isn't worth speculating about:
> 
> 1) Special license with Wizards
> 2) No D&D logo, just the wild and wooly world of copyright law
> 3) Insanity
> 
> #3 can't really be discussed meaningfully or respectfully so it's only here for completeness sake. Both the remaining options make one thing clear - GG is not using the GSL.



The thing is that I, for one, would be extremely surprised at both #1 and #2, so this is a rather interesting turn of events and I'm left to wonder which one of them is it.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> That was my thinking. They can put in 2x Level 1 Kobolds or 3x Level 4 Orc and let people figure out for themselves to look it up in the 4e MM. As far as I know 4E is not trademarked in any way and most people buying it will also know the DCC line is for D&D so they will be able to put that together as well.



I think that's going too far. Many monsters in adventures are unique and/or original, and the GSL certainly allows to put in their stats. Adventures would be poorer without such stats, sticking to just the MM entries. So I'm thinking that, whatever option they chose, they will put in some original stats in addition to picking up the MM references.


----------



## jmucchiello

Yair said:
			
		

> The thing is that I, for one, would be extremely surprised at both #1 and #2, so this is a rather interesting turn of events and I'm left to wonder which one of them is it.



My guess is he is using a special license with WotC. Such a license agreement might contain gag language and so Joe G can't state publicly "I have a special deal." If he didn't have a special deal, I see no reason why he would be cagey about saying "We're not using the GSL or any other special agreement."


----------



## Ydars

It looks like you could be right; Adamant games have also announced 4E adventures and this time in July!!!


----------



## DaveMage

Or they've figured out that they don't need the GSL (or any license) to make adventures.

Alternatively, they may be able to use the OGL to access names in the SRD, or they can simply use monsters that are from real-world mythology - no license required.


----------



## CapnZapp

Ydars said:
			
		

> This is assuming that anyone actually signs the GSL and produces anything for 4E; so far it does not seem likely that much is going to come out.



You mean one _week_ after the GSL becoming available and people can even start making plans...?


----------



## Wicht

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> If he didn't have a special deal, I see no reason why he would be cagey about saying "We're not using the GSL or any other special agreement."




Perhaps because by not saying anything he more or less insures that everyone will be talking about his product.


----------



## jmucchiello

Wicht said:
			
		

> Perhaps because by not saying anything he more or less insures that everyone will be talking about his product.



Clever.


----------

