We have posted the 4e D&D GSL here and it is now live.
Thank you to everyone for your patience and support during this undertaking!
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
The Rouse & Linae FTW!
I will be offline while I peruse the documents.
Bel
I especially like the power templates; but then again, I liked them in the core books too. Now I can use them for my own powers!
I hope your all of to the pub now to celebrate :D
Cheers, LT.
Now I can stop *****ing about where it is and focus on *****ing about what it says. :D
Given how strict the GSL appears to be with regards to websites, I'm curious as to what those will look like. I'd hate to see a return to fans with really awesome sites getting cease and desist letters (as seemed common practice toward the end of the TSR years).
- Ashavan
.....
Now, back to work!
:D
wow no post from Polaris about how this will never happen?
lol
Now that I've read through it a couple of times, I can safely say that not even Microsoft would have come up with a license so obviously destructive to use.
and oddly enough my CS that I'm writing needs no tweaks to comply with Licensing
Now that I've read through it a couple of times, I can safely say that not even Microsoft would have come up with a license so obviously destructive to use.
I'm eager to pick up a third party product and see (See Monster Manual for goblin stats). Oh, thanks for the handy page number, too!
I'm eager to pick up a third party product and see (See Monster Manual for goblin stats). Oh, thanks for the handy page number, too!
more likely we'll see alternate goblin monster entries in 3pp
I'm eager to pick up a third party product and see (See Monster Manual for goblin stats). Oh, thanks for the handy page number, too!
Sorry, according to the GSL FAQ, you can't use page numbers.
The SRD is about what I expected, a little less in some areas, a little more in others, which is nothing to get excited about, but that's not what I wanted out of the SRD anyways.
I'm not sure I want to comment on the GSL, although I'll say my reaction to most of it is *shrug.*
And finally: is it a bit odd that the compatibility logos were released as PDFs? I'd have expected maybe EPS. Of all the things for me to nitpick, but at least it's not an awful jpeg. :P
At least with no GSL, 3PPs would be able to rely on the OGL (and contrary to Wotc wants you to believe almost all of 4E material can be resonably derived from OGL complaint 3E material) and US Copyright law.
Read Sections 6.1 and 11.1-2 carefully. Sure 6.1 says OGL product and product line, but there is an 'interpretation' clause that only Wotc gets to 'reasonably interpret' that's big enough to pilot a Supertanker through. Basically WOTC can decide that all products that even remotely resemble the one 'converted' productline are in violation of the agreement thus effectively making the GSL a "per company" exclusion like we were all afraid of a month ago.
Sections 11.1 and 11.2 confirm this fear and state that section 6 survives termination of the GSL and worse Wotc can essentially terminate the GSL with effectively no notice (a public notice on their own site is considered sufficient notice).
No GSL is better than this GSL.
-Polaris
I think that no GSL is better than this.
Yeah, I agree. Wow. The days of network externalities are certainly dead in 4th Edition. The GSL is pretty harsh and 3rd party publishers are gonna have a hard time swallowing it. I can't imagine anyone giving that much control to Wizards of the Coast. I understand the need for WotC to protect their property, but gosh!
As of now, no fansite issues. They'll get a separate GSL addendum. I cringe at the thought...
So your NPC power stat block would have to look like this:
Human Warlord
bla bla
Viper's Strike
+7 vs AC and see PHB page 145
White Raven Onslaught
+7 vs AC and see PHB page 146.
ROTFLMAO
I don't think the GSL will be that much of a deterrent to 3pps. All of the restrictions seem to in a very roundabout way promote the creation of brand new material instead of using the material published by WotC. Can't publish stats for a kobold wyrmpriest? Don't use kobolds, learn how to balance game material and use something you actually concieved. The restriction about redefining terms that are public domain is a little stickier of an issue, but that's why we have lawyers, it may be as simple as including an adjective (i.e. Elves, |adjective denoting native of this campaign world| instead of Elves).
In addition to what I've said, anyone that signs/agrees to this contract gives up basic rights that they already have and quite frankly gives up far MORE of their own IP rights including the use of "the public domain" then they could possibly gain no matter how attractive the trademark.
I don't see many 3PPs signing this. I might be wrong, but if I were advising a 3PP, I would tell them to stay away from this.
-Polaris
I don't see many 3PPs signing this. I might be wrong, but if I were advising a 3PP, I would tell them to stay away from this.
Agreed - it is far easier to create an own RPG than trying to delve into all this stuff an risk which each word that you print that you're sued by WotC
I don't think the GSL will be that much of a deterrent to 3pps. All of the restrictions seem to in a very roundabout way promote the creation of brand new material instead of using the material published by WotC.
If you want to create new material you have für D&D 4th edition you have to be allowed to have some freedom to use D&D 4th edition terminology and rules texts. I agree that 3.5 SRD went to far. But this thing is so restrictive that it is almost useless.
I haven't read through their fansite policy, but if it is anyways close to this, I guess the days of abundand D&D fan sites are gone.
I hope that D&D insider will offer a little more freedom.
In addition to what I've said, anyone that signs/agrees to this contract gives up basic rights that they already have and quite frankly gives up far MORE of their own IP rights including the use of "the public domain" then they could possibly gain no matter how attractive the trademark.
I don't see many 3PPs signing this. I might be wrong, but if I were advising a 3PP, I would tell them to stay away from this.
-Polaris
Can you please remind us again how much of a business and IP law background you have? I couldn't find anything about it in your profile.
Can you please remind us again how much of a business and IP law background you have? I couldn't find anything about it in your profile.
Well I don't know how much background he has, I have none. But I started to create some stuff I wanted to upload at my website and now I am just thinking - no way, this is far to risky.
And we allready know that some 3rd party companies refrained from "upgrading" to 4th edition.
If this is what WotC wanted to achieve with the new SRD, they succeeded.
Can you please remind us again how much of a business and IP law background you have? I couldn't find anything about it in your profile.
I never said I was a lawyer. I've said the opposite many times. However, (unfortunately) you don't need a JD to understand the GSL. It's written in suprisingly clear and plain language.
I know this will be hard for you but try to answer this with as little bias as possible. If you (and I know you are a lawyer) were advising a 3PP, would you advise them to sign this given what it says?
Again, try to be honest.
-Polaris
I never said I was a lawyer. I've said the opposite many times. However, (unfortunately) you don't need a JD to understand the GSL. It's written in suprisingly clear and plain language.
I know this will be hard for you but try to answer this with as little bias as possible. If you (and I know you are a lawyer) were advising a 3PP, would you advise them to sign this given what it says?
Again, try to be honest.
-Polaris
I have also never said I was a lawyer. I have also said the opposite a great many times. This is because I am not a lawyer.
But if I were a lawyer, I wouldn't read something over once or twice and then start giving out advice on a web forum. Lawyers don't do that, because it's irresponsible and they could get in trouble for casually throwing around legal advice. Non-lawyers *really* shouldn't do that because it's *really* irresponsible.
In law, perhaps more than in a lot other of fields, experience matters. Judging a license or contract or whatever without a significant body of experience in reading and applying licenses and so on is foolish. Do some of the terms sound harsh to me? I guess so, but so do the leases for my car and my apartment when I read them over carefully.
The things a company *needs* to say in a license to protect itself simply are not clear to a layman. An intelligent, educated person can decipher the meaning of most of the terms of the GSL. That same person cannot make a judgment about how fair or unfair it is as a license though, because only an expert on these matters can judge it in the proper context of what a license normally looks like.
You're right; I got you mentally transposed with wrecan who is in fact an IP litigator.
However, please do me a favor.
PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION! (Would you or would you not advise a friend/client/whatever to sign this GSL in it's current form?)
-Polaris
The things a company *needs* to say in a license to protect itself simply are not clear to a layman. An intelligent, educated person can decipher the meaning of most of the terms of the GSL. That same person cannot make a judgment about how fair or unfair it is as a license though, because only an expert on these matters can judge it in the proper context of what a license normally looks like.
The old SRD had the advantage that it allowed a lot of freedom and leeway. I never thought "uh maybe I will violate copyright law" if I was posting 3.5 stuff at message boards. I will probably refrain from posting anything crunchy under this new conditions.
I don't have the time to do I want to spend money to hire a lawyer to make sure everything I post/publish will fit into this license. I will do the stuff for my homebrew campaign and that's it. I was thinkin of converting my own campaign setting to 4e. Fortunately I did not start, since I would be pretty disappointed after reading the brandnew GSL.
It would have been better if you'd just said back last GenCon that you weren't going to allow third-party product. And a lot more honest. But, hey, you managed to stop the 3rd party publishers from bandfing together and releasing a 3.5 derivative soon enough to make product for this year's GenCon. Aren't you proud of yourselves?
emwasick,
You're right; I got you mentally transposed with wrecan who is in fact an IP litigator.
However, please do me a favor.
PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION! (Would you or would you not advise a friend/client/whatever to sign this GSL in it's current form?)
-Polaris
I'm not in the amateur legal advice business. That was the entire point of my post.
It's irresponsible to going around spreading doom and gloom or joy and cheer when you don't have the experience to judge the GSL. I'm not going to say anything to influence anyone. There are a lot of people who read these forums who might be considering publishing under the GSL. Some of them are significant publishers and already have lawyers. Others are just starting out, and to them I would say, "Ask someone who knows what he or she is talking about."
The old SRD had the advantage that it allowed a lot of freedom and leeway. I never thought "uh maybe I will violate copyright law" if I was posting 3.5 stuff at message boards. I will probably refrain from posting anything crunchy under this new conditions.
I don't have the time to do I want to spend money to hire a lawyer to make sure everything I post/publish will fit into this license. I will do the stuff for my homebrew campaign and that's it. I was thinkin of converting my own campaign setting to 4e. Fortunately I did not start, since I would be pretty disappointed after reading the brandnew GSL.
Well, I'm actually fairly sure that a lot of what was posted on the web over the last 8 years was in fact a blatant violation of copyright. WotC doesn't have a history of sticking it to everyone out there.
Essentially, it's not like the point of the license is to give WotC an excuse to jump at every opportunity to sue third-party publishers and burn their products...
Actually if you read the GSL sections 6.1, 6.1, 11.1,and 11.2 that's almost exactly what the GSL seems written to allow, i.e. the slash and burn of 3PP and their products. Read the sections carefully. The poison pill is alive and well.
-Polaris
I'm not in the amateur legal advice business. That was the entire point of my post.
I think the question may be a little off. A better question would be, if You will post/bublish any fan material.
My answer is certainly no, with the main reason being that I can't even publish useful NPC stats.
At least with no GSL, 3PPs would be able to rely on the OGL (and contrary to Wotc wants you to believe almost all of 4E material can be resonably derived from OGL complaint 3E material) and US Copyright law.
The GSL can't stop people doing that.
Read Sections 6.1 and 11.1-2 carefully. Sure 6.1 says OGL product and product line, but there is an 'interpretation' clause that only Wotc gets to 'reasonably interpret' that's big enough to pilot a Supertanker through. Basically WOTC can decide that all products that even remotely resemble the one 'converted' productline are in violation of the agreement thus effectively making the GSL a "per company" exclusion like we were all afraid of a month ago.
That's paranoia, pure and simple, contract law simply doesn't work like that.
Having said that, I'm fairly disappointed with this license, it:
1. Isn't fair: in particular, it provides no reasonable guarantees of continuity for 3rd party developers and no indication of periods of termination.
2. Doesn't seem suitable for hobby, and small press, producers.
Well, I'm actually fairly sure that a lot of what was posted on the web over the last 8 years was in fact a blatant violation of copyright. WotC doesn't have a history of sticking it to everyone out there.
So you'd be willing to risk your livelihood, your personal intellectual property rights, and up to a million US dollars (for legal costs) on the notion that you think Wotc will be nice without any written legal guarantees?
Good. Luck. With. That.
-Polaris
Actually if you read the GSL sections 6.1, 6.1, 11.1,and 11.2 that's almost exactly what the GSL seems written to allow, i.e. the slash and burn of 3PP and their products. Read the sections carefully. The poison pill is alive and well.
I won't argue that they couldn't do just that. However, apart from the Book of Erotic Fantasy incident back in the day, how many times have WotC actually used their right to intervene?
The GSL can't stop people doing that.
Yes and no. The GSL can't take away existing rights if you don't agree to it. However, the GSL can indicate (and does indicate) corporate policy making the exercising of your rights riskier, and IMHO Wotc (esp Wotc legal) is betting the existance of the GSL will make it too risky for (generally small) 3PPs to exercise their existing legal rights.
In such a case, de facto the GSL has done exactly what you said it could not.
That's paranoia, pure and simple, contract law simply doesn't work like that.
Been following the news lately? Tune into the City of Seattle vs PBC Inc (owners of the Super-Sonics). Contract law can and often does work like what I suggested. If a contract permits lattitude of the sort I've shown it does, than at some point that lattitude will be exercised. Caveat Emptor.
Having said that, I'm fairly disappointed with this license, it:
1. Isn't fair: in particular, it provides no reasonable guarantees of continuity for 3rd party developers and no indication of periods of termination.
2. Doesn't seem suitable for hobby, and small press, producers.
No kidding, but it's even worse than that (attempting to make you sign away your rights to public domain terms is beyond the pale).
-Polaris
I won't argue that they couldn't do just that. However, apart from the Book of Erotic Fantasy incident back in the day, how many times have WotC actually used their right to intervene?
Then why write it in such a way that they can? (And in fact can yank the license and STILL retroactively keep the poison pill terms). If that wasn't Wotc's intent, then why not define what precisely wotc means by product line and be done with it? If it looks like a poison pill, reads like a poison pill, and can be interpreted as a poison pill...guess what kiddos....it's a poison pill.
-Polaris
Well honestly, this is a joke. You even can't publish useful NPC stats if you use the rules as written, since NPCs have powers from the PHB and by the rules you are not allowed to reproduce them.
So your NPC power stat block would have to look like this:
Human Warlord
bla bla
Viper's Strike
+7 vs AC and see PHB page 145
White Raven Onslaught
+7 vs AC and see PHB page 146.
ROTFLMAO
I don't think you could list the page numbers.
Am I banned from doing so until the agreement reaches WOTC and is approved?
Because reading everything, I can't even RELEASE FREE stuff without the license, and I can't do that without approval.
The only people who would sign on to this are absolute WotC fanbois and utter morons. The two groups are not entirely exclusive.
How many other Systems are out there allowing 3PPs to ride on their success? I've never seen another one but D&D...
There is Linux, but no one uses that.
Oh, except IBM, Sun, Oracle, Dell, the dozens of companies whose entire business is selling and supporting Linux, the hundreds of companies who do Linux consulting, the thousands of web hosting companies whose entire business is based on Linux.
Oh, and there's Dot Net Nuke, which is open source. Then there's Open Office.
Getting where I'm going with this? I think this is a very, very stupid move for WotC. How many publicity black eyes can they have? How many 3pp can they alienate?
WotC has some huge weaknesses and they just stomped on the ability for partners to cover them. They are probably the worst adventure writers in the industry and I think we can agree that their tech skills are at about a community college level. Why would they create an environment where no one wants to help them out? They're really good at making roleplaying games so why are they refusing to let people safely make complimentary products? From a business perspective, it's mystifying. Frankly, from a business perspective WotC seems to be run by mildly retarded spidermonkeys. I've never seen a company work so hard to achieve so little.
The thing that sucks is that the game at the heart of all this is awesome. It's everything else they're doing that is crazy.
Not being a lawyer, but now having talked to one (who is also a gamer).. the GSL is a suicide agreement where WotC gets to pull the trigger at any time they want to. They can, in fact, seize your IP for themselves after it's published, then turn around and sue YOU for infracting on their new version of the SRD which now includes your concepts.
The only people who would sign on to this are absolute WotC fanbois and utter morons. The two groups are not entirely exclusive.
There are a couple of lawyers over at the Paizo forums. One tried to defend the GSL and then it sank in how terrible of a deal it would be to use. He specifically cited what you just mentioned, that the GSL basically lets WotC take any IP that uses the GSL just by creating their own version of it.
If I create a pirate class today and publish it on Oct 1st, and WotC creates one 2 years from now then I lose the rights to my IP.
The GSL is effectively the rawest legal deal most lawyers who have looked at it have seen.
Which I think is fine, if you want to make stuff for D&D, make it for D&D.
If you want to make your own stuff, don't say "compatible with D&D" and don't use D&D as the building block either... make your own game from top to bottom so that no one can claim it has anything to do with their IP.
I guess my expectations of gaming publishers are much different than a lot of people's are though, since the only d20 based non-wotc product that could stand on it's own two feat (read: did not imply in any way that it was for use with D&D) where written under the name of one of the guys that built the rules the first time, and thereby were not fully using other peoples work to simplify the process of releasing their own game.
I think the GSL is really just WotC saying "if you want to make D&D material for us, we will let you. Rember though, if you say it's D&D then it is... and by the way, we own D&D"
Which I think is fine, if you want to make stuff for D&D, make it for D&D.
If you want to make your own stuff, don't say "compatible with D&D" and don't use D&D as the building block either... make your own game from top to bottom so that no one can claim it has anything to do with their IP.
I guess my expectations of gaming publishers are much different than a lot of people's are though, since the only d20 based non-wotc product that could stand on it's own two feat (read: did not imply in any way that it was for use with D&D) where written under the name of one of the guys that built the rules the first time, and thereby were not fully using other peoples work to simplify the process of releasing their own game.
yep.
to me, this means ensurance of better quality product from 3PP's...a sort of seperating of the wheat from the chaff...reducing "noisy" poor quality product, and increasing better planned, and better penned material. those who want in on the license should be aware that ultimately the material they create is property of WotC because of the license, which is WotC's IP. if a publisher wants to keep their IP, then they shouldn't publish as a part of the D&D GSL and instead create their own system OR use the 3.5 OGL OR another system license.
as a possibly relevant anecdote...
whenever i've gained employment at a new videogame company one of the many contracts that i sign is one that states simply that anything i create at the company, with company property and tools is product and property of the company. that means game designs, artwork, concept sketches, 3d models, animation, scripts, R&D technologies, etc. that i do at work belong to the company, i have absolutely NO legal right to them. it could have absolutely nothing to do with the current game i'm working on, or any game they have planned for the future, as long as it's using company time and/or company assets, it's theirs. solution? leave all my own personal work at home, on my personal hard drive and as hard copy on file. anything i feel is valuable enough i get copyright for myself before showing it or using it.
this just seems similar to me.
yep.
to me, this means ensurance of better quality product from 3PP's...a sort of seperating of the wheat from the chaff...reducing "noisy" poor quality product, and increasing better planned, and better penned material. those who want in on the license should be aware that ultimately the material they create is property of WotC because of the license, which is WotC's IP. if a publisher wants to keep their IP, then they shouldn't publish as a part of the D&D GSL and instead create their own system OR use the 3.5 OGL OR another system license.
I don't think it will cause there to be better quality product by itself. I am not sure how it would be. I would think that because of the restrictions on the license would make it more likely that they would put less effort into the product, not more.
as a possibly relevant anecdote...
whenever i've gained employment at a new videogame company one of the many contracts that i sign is one that states simply that anything i create at the company, with company property and tools is product and property of the company. that means game designs, artwork, concept sketches, 3d models, animation, scripts, R&D technologies, etc. that i do at work belong to the company, i have absolutely NO legal right to them. it could have absolutely nothing to do with the current game i'm working on, or any game they have planned for the future, as long as it's using company time and/or company assets, it's theirs. solution? leave all my own personal work at home, on my personal hard drive and as hard copy on file. anything i feel is valuable enough i get copyright for myself before showing it or using it.
this just seems similar to me.
The difference would be that the company is paying you a guarenteed salary. I guess I see similarities too, but they aren't enough for me to say they are comparable situations.
If they don't have any protection, I don't see them having any significant incentive to put anything they feel really important on the line. I think that the will put in less important things that will get less attention than they normally would.
While I feel that WotC should protect themselves when putting out the GSL, but if being protected is that important, shouldn't (in a perfect world) the 3rd parties have some protection as well?
Edit: I had a little trouble reading your post because it was one paragraph.
at the end of the day, it must be realized that 3PPs are using an IP of WotC to produce a product for a profit. the D&D brand and D&D 4e are all property of WotC. publishers that want to use the brand and system that belongs to WotC to publish material for profit must recognize that their IP does not trump the system they are using to create it and thus is technically property of WotC. i think this keeps the D&D and D&D 4e system purer because it forces publishers to think twice about what kind of material they choose to create. it also ensures that WotC has the power to enforce a certain level of quality out of ALL products created using their GSL. basically the "evil" wording that others are reading out of it is purely legal retoric to cover their bases and make sure that if it comes down to it, they have the absolute legal right and power to pull or enforce or extend or usurp any product that falls under their brand. seems like a completely reasonable legal contract. it doesn't mean that they're going to go all "evil empire" on everyone and start zotting publishers left and right...it just means that if one of those publishers starts making D&D 4e porn supplements on how to weild your rod of lordly might, they can and will pull it to keep their brand identity pure and unpolluted.
The problem is that, as written the GSL a lot more then that. Using the GSL as written to stop D&D porn would be like swatting flies with a bazooka. Granted there is a section that does pertain directly to quality control. And I don't think anyone has a problem with that. The problkems poeple are objecting to are basically:
1) The GSL can force you out of publishing for 3.5. All 3.x stuff is published under the OGL, however if you were to publish a product for 4e, it would have to be under the GSL, unless you have a good lawyer. If you published a similar product under the OGL and GSL, then WotC can interpret that as a converted product. The GSL specifically allots WotC the soul right of interpretation, so yes all they have to be is remotely similar. The GSL then prevents you from producing that product line under the OGL, and requires you to destroy your product of that line produced under the OGL.
2) The GSL can effectively be changed, or ganked with out notice. You could wake up one day and discover your in copy right violation for something you weren't in yesterday. Worse yet you have to pay the cost of destroying any unsold product. And are still responsible for what is already on the shelves.
3) The GSL makes publishing adventures difficult at the very least. For example if you wanted to use a stock monster form the MM, you can only print it's name, and that it can be found somewhere in the monster manual.
4) The GSL is extremely restrictive in what you can publish. For example, you can't print different methods of generating ability scores. As if WotC has IP rights to random number generation, indeed!
5) The GSL gives WotC IP rights to everything you create under it, and then allows them to SUE YOU for publishing your own work.
6) The GSL forces you give up your right to use many things that are technically in public domain. For example Orcus. (The concept of Orcus as a mythological being is thousands of years old, thus predating WotC, D&D, any and all copy right law, and the U.S for that matter. It is very much public domain.)
7) If WotC decides to sue you, you give up your right to trial by jury, meaning it comes done to who has the better lawyer, and you have to pay their legal expenses.
8) You can't use the GSL to defend yourself, it can only be interpreted in a manner that is beneficial to WotC.
9) It allows WotC to seek damages that are not normally allowed to by law.
I'm going to stop here, I think my list has grown quiet large enough, and I'm off to bed. needless to say, the GSL is suicide for anyone who signs on to it.
Same to you as to Hellmute:
Are you an IP Lawyer? Did you consult one and remember the exact wording? If not, don't make claims. Some people who work in businesses who regularly see licences already said that the GSL is rather open in comparison to other licences.
There were three lawyers who went over the GSL at the Paizo board and one who went over it on the Open Design project. Conclusion: it's bad for publishers. Really bad. However, it's fiendishly written so as to skirt the spirit of the law. Congrats to their lawyers on that one. I, personally, am not a lawyer. I'm going to see two of them tonight (including 1 IP lawyer) at my weekly D&D game (we're all excited about switching to 4e). I'll get their opinion and let you know but only if you promise to stop whining when you find out that you're wrong. You don't need to be a kickboxer to know that getting kicked in the face is bad, just like you don't need to be a lawyer to see that the GSL is bad for publishers (I was a professional kickboxer by the way, so feel free to use me as a source should a debate about whether getting kicked in the face is bad arise).
I work in a business and regularly have to make business decisions regarding licenses (technical licenses, in my case) and the GSL would be a deal breaker. It's not the kind of thing you want to include in a business plan because you give too much control over your own ability to do business to WotC.
For amateur writers who want to publish PDFs, the GSL is fine because you're not going to lose much in the event that WotC exercises some of the more aggressive sections of the GSL. For professional OGL writers and small businesses, the GSL is in effect WotC's way of showing them the door.
It's unfortunate that the support material we're going to see is likely to be of the same quality that we've seen from WotC over the past few years. They have a few diamonds but they put out a lot of trash. I still have yet to see a WotC adventure that excites me. The GSL is bad for gamers. Pure and simple. It artificially squelches competition which is going to lead to poor quality material. We've seen it on Dungeon and Dragon magazines online. That stuff was just plain bad. Keep on the Shadowfell is abysmal. We should get used to it because WotC has been consistently lowering the quality standard for everything except their core rules (which, again, are amazing).
Some people who work in businesses who regularly see licences already said that the GSL is rather open in comparison to other licences.
You gonna back this one up, or are you just doing the same thing to me that you are complaining about?
You don't have to answer that, I already know.
To me it would be kinda interesting if Wizards released a 5-10 page simple, stupid adventure that followed the GSL, that way everyone reading it would know what to except, well those that aren't lawyers (or speak legalese). It would be nice to preview what a GSL product looks like.
There's also a lot of uncertainty as to how much of the license is enforcable as written: things like "you're responsible to keep checking the license" are on uncertain legal ground.
A recent ruling regarding Talk America- they changed their terms on the website, and didn't notify their customers. The 9th circuit appeals court ruled "Parties to a contract have no obligation to check the terms on a periodic basis to learn whether they have been changed by the other side.", saying "a party can’t unilaterally change the terms of a contract; it must obtain the other party’s consent before doing so. This is because a revised contract is merely an offer and does not bind the parties until it is accepted. And generally “an offeree cannot actually assent to an offer unless he knows of its existence.”" citing previous rulings.
I cannot find the text of the Talk America agreement and therefore cannot confirm that it included a "changes" clause, but it's questionable even whether it would count, since the judge ruled "an offeree cannot assent to an offer unless he knows of its existance" - cannot.
This has so far been the first, and only time that a website-changed-without-notice license has been put to the test of law.
California also has a lot of laws regarding unconsionable contracts (such as restrictions on arbitration clauses) - I'm not a lawyer, or american so I can't tell you what those are, but it would be worthwhile to check.
As it is now, the GSL as written is ridiculously over-powering: Taken as it is, they could write down that they gain possession of your couch and you have to deliver it to them at your expense without using a car, and since there's no way for the licensee to bow out of the license without it being terminated by Wizards, you would be held to the license, and I find it hard to believe such a license clause would not be unconscionable.
As it is now, it's completely uncertain what the GSL actually means to law. But it is certain that it is overreaching to the point that there is no benefit to the license- any publisher underneath it, as written, is worse off, limiting their choices forever.
I noticed one or two posters complain about not being able to include definitions in their monster stat blocks... uh, monster stat blocks in the Monster Manual don't even do that, unless it is for a power or somesuch that is unique to a particular monster. It would be like creating an Ogre Mage Wizard and wanting to include the definition for Magic Missile in its stat block. lol
Just a note: They actually do. The Dragonborn Paladin Death Knight on page 51 has definitions for:
Valiant Strike
Terrifying Strike
Divine Challenge
and
Second Wind
in it's stat block.
There is a lot of uncertainty in this GSL.. for example, it does use the word 'creation' in one section, suggesting that if you create something, and then that thing becomes a 4e reference, it may not count as 'redefining'. But it also may. There's no way to tell without an answer from Wizards: the license simply does not cover the eventuality of creating something that eventually becomes a 4e reference.
Actually, nothing you create becomes a 4E Reference, because a 4E Reference is defined in the GSL as terms, tables, and templates from the SRD.
. . . and since there's no way for the licensee to bow out of the license without it being terminated by Wizards, you would be held to the license, and I find it hard to believe such a license clause would not be unconscionable.
It seems obvious, though not stated within the license specifically, that any 3pp could terminate the license by simply discontinuing its use. You wouldn't even have to notify WotC.
Just a note: They actually do. The Dragonborn Paladin Death Knight on page 51 has definitions for:
Valiant Strike
Terrifying Strike
Divine Challenge
and
Second Wind
in it's stat block.
Valiant Strike (standard; at-will) - Necrotic, Weapon
The line above includes five 4E References. No definitions are given. And the rest of the entry for Valiant Strike is permissible under the rules regarding Applied Mechanical Results. All that is given are the creature's stats. The definition of the Valiant Strike power appears in the Paladin class description in the Player's Handbook.
I've noticed a lot of posts on here expressing worry about sections 6.1, 11.1 and 11.2 of the GSL. If you read those sections again, notice that section 6.1 prohibits the use of the OGL, starting the moment you agree to use the GSL, and from then on, even if the license becomes terminated. However, it does not prohibit anyone from publishing non-GSL/OGL homemade systems of their own, including similar or even identical IP they choose to also include in their GSL 4E compatible products. You can even do so at the same time, having your own GSL vs. homemade system products compete for sales. Your IP rights are garanteed by section 12 a. All that 11.1 does is allow WotC to terminate the license; homemade systems with similar content will not be affected. 11.2 ensures that WotC continues to be protected after the license is terminated (ie. from being sued in connection with something you included in your 4E Compatible product later on). That's it.
Actually I suggest you read section 6.1 again. You're right, but the one and only entity that gets to determine what is GSL related and non-GSL related is Wotc and they can change their minds without notice, and you are still responsible to comply. It's not section 18 alone that permits Wotc to take away your IP. It's section 18 when coupled with section 4 (the SRD), and sections 6 and 11 that do. Section 10 keeps you from suing Wotc even if/when they do.
-Polaris
Actually, nothing you create becomes a 4E Reference, because a 4E Reference is defined in the GSL as terms, tables, and templates from the SRD.
To the best of my knowledge, you're correct -- to a point.
Example: On October 1st, I publish a PDF that includes a "druid" class. Under the terms of the GSL, I'm fine and dandy.
On June 1st, 2009, WotC publishes a book that includes a "druid" class, and they add the term "druid" to the SRD. Now, all of a sudden, I'm in violation of the GSL, because my "druid" redefines WotC's druid.
Actually, nothing you create becomes a 4E Reference, because a 4E Reference is defined in the GSL as terms, tables, and templates from the SRD.
A 4e reference is more closely defined as the name of the term, table,or template.
It's not clear one way or the other:
create something, The Book of Happyness, and in it you define a Class, let's call it a "Happy Cleric" and then in PHB3, they release the Happy Cleric paragon path, and put that in the SRD. The GSL can be interpreted in two ways:
1) "Happy Cleric" is now a 4e reference, and your existing product is now redefining it, and is therfore against the licence.
2) you "created" your "Happy Cleric", and therefore it is not a redefinition since at the point of definition there was no 4e reference "Happy Cleric" to define.
When it says the 'licencee will not define, or redefine, or alter the definition of a 4e reference' it's pretty vauge: it doesn't define precisely if you create something, is that the definition, done and over, or does it continue to be defined as long as the product exists.
It says you can 'create original material' as long as it doesnt redefine something. But the question is: does this apply retroactively, or does it mean that once you create something it's created forever and you can't 'create' it again unless in a new product.
It seems obvious, though not stated within the license specifically, that any 3pp could terminate the license by simply discontinuing its use. You wouldn't even have to notify WotC.
Termination of a contract can only occur as per the contract's terms, or by agreement of both parties. That's the entire purpose of a contract- to be binding.
Valiant Strike (standard; at-will) - Necrotic, Weapon
The line above includes five 4E References. No definitions are given. And the rest of the entry for Valiant Strike is permissible under the rules regarding Applied Mechanical Results. All that is given are the creature's stats. The definition of the Valiant Strike power appears in the Paladin class description in the Player's Handbook.
Well, yes, that would be fine.. but I mean that if you look at the entry in the monster manual, it has the full definitions of those powers- damage, attack, etc.
It could be argued that using a PC power in a monster automatically passes the calculation clause, because you aren't reprinting "str vs AC, 1[W]+stength modifier" parts, you're pre-calculating the numbers.
The thing that really bugs me about the GSL as written is that it might as well not have any text at all, and just say "you agree to let us make you do whatever we want" and really mean the same thing. Anything not expressly written in the license can added later.
Assuming it's enforcable.
Actually I suggest you read section 6.1 again. You're right, but the one and only entity that gets to determine what is GSL related and non-GSL related is Wotc and they can change their minds without notice, and you are still responsible to comply.
You're right too, but I don't see that as an exception. I see that as the rule in its entirety. WotC doesn't want us publishing the same material for both editions, so choose 3E or 4E. Given that WotC isn't supporting 3E anymore, I choose 4E.
It's not section 18 alone that permits Wotc to take away your IP. It's section 18 when coupled with section 4 (the SRD), and sections 6 and 11 that do. Section 10 keeps you from suing Wotc even if/when they do.
-Polaris
Section 4 states that any IP you create for a GSL product must follow the rules for doing so in both the license and the SRD. The rest of the section concerns only WotC's IP. Nothing there suggests your IP is at risk.
Section 6 allows WotC to determine what is and is not a Converted OGL Product Line, and states that the license will be terminated if you publish the same product line for both 3E and 4E. Of course, WotC can also terminate the license whenever they feel like it.
Section 11, in conjunction with the other sections mentioned therein, ensure that you will never try to sue someone on WotC's behalf, and that nobody can sue WotC in connection with your GSL products.
Section 18 does not grant any rights to WotC, it simply states that the license will not affect the rights they already have.
Have I missed anything specific?
Subsection 10.1 says WotC's IP is the property of WotC.
Subsection 10.2 says you are the licensee of any material licensed to you by parties other than WotC.
Subsection 10.3 says that if WotC sues somebody, or somebody sues WotC, you agree to be a witness for WotC upon request, and that they'll reimburse reasonable expenses. It also says that you will not sue anybody for infringing WotC's rights, or for stealing WotC's IP.
Subsection 10.4 says that WotC can sue you for any damages you cause by using their IP without following the rules set forth in the GSL and SRD.
To the best of my knowledge, you're correct -- to a point.
Example: On October 1st, I publish a PDF that includes a "druid" class. Under the terms of the GSL, I'm fine and dandy.
On June 1st, 2009, WotC publishes a book that includes a "druid" class, and they add the term "druid" to the SRD. Now, all of a sudden, I'm in violation of the GSL, because my "druid" redefines WotC's druid.
A 4e reference is more closely defined as the name of the term, table,or template.
It's not clear one way or the other:
create something, The Book of Happyness, and in it you define a Class, let's call it a "Happy Cleric" and then in PHB3, they release the Happy Cleric paragon path, and put that in the SRD. The GSL can be interpreted in two ways:
1) "Happy Cleric" is now a 4e reference, and your existing product is now redefining it, and is therfore against the licence.
2) you "created" your "Happy Cleric", and therefore it is not a redefinition since at the point of definition there was no 4e reference "Happy Cleric" to define.
When it says the 'licencee will not define, or redefine, or alter the definition of a 4e reference' it's pretty vauge: it doesn't define precisely if you create something, is that the definition, done and over, or does it continue to be defined as long as the product exists.
It says you can 'create original material' as long as it doesnt redefine something. But the question is: does this apply retroactively, or does it mean that once you create something it's created forever and you can't 'create' it again unless in a new product.
I think you guys are getting the GSL and OGL mixed up here.
If you create a Druid/Happy Cleric, it's yours. They can't copy it verbatim. None of your original material in GSL products will ever be considered open content, as defined in the OGL. There is no such thing in any GSL products you create.
As for them adding a 4E Reference with the same name later, the best way to avoid the problem of retroactive conflict is to come up with names that you can copyright, like Happy Cleric, as opposed to just Cleric. That way WotC can't use the same name.
And even if you do publish a Druid class, and WotC adds a 4E Reference named Druid to the SRD, I don't think you would be required to change your product retroactively. New products you create after that would have to refer to either your druid, or their druid, but could not include a third druid definition, or a copy of your druid from the earlier work.
I think you guys are getting the GSL and OGL mixed up here.
If you create a Druid/Happy Cleric, it's yours. They can't copy it verbatim. None of your original material in GSL products will ever be considered open content, as defined in the OGL. There is no such thing in any GSL products you create.
You're mis-intepreting what I said, I think:
What I mean is that, a 4e reference is a name.
A GSL product cannot have something with a name from the SRD used to mean something else.
If wizards comes up with their own Happy Cleric, then that is a name in the SRD.
It is not clear whether this causes the original product to be infringing (as it's Happy Cleric i snot a SRD Happy Cleric) or not (as it was already created before hand, and not retroactively infringing)
You're mis-intepreting what I said, I think:
What I mean is that, a 4e reference is a name.
A GSL product cannot have something with a name from the SRD used to mean something else.
If wizards comes up with their own Happy Cleric, then that is a name in the SRD.
It is not clear whether this causes the original product to be infringing (as it's Happy Cleric i snot a SRD Happy Cleric) or not (as it was already created before hand, and not retroactively infringing)
If you copyright "Happy Cleric" then WotC can't use it, unless you give them permission.
Now if you aren't under the GSL, all bets are off.
But by my reading of the GSL (and I am not a lawyer), the GSL states that if you are a signatory to the GSL, and they do come up with a Druid/Happy cleric that is close to the druid/happy cleric you are using under the GSL, they can put their version in the SRD, and you might no longer be allowed to use your version.
Now if you aren't under the GSL, all bets are off.
My reading of the GSL is that it doesnt say one way or the other in this regard: Which is the major problem. There is other text in the sections which may suggest that it's when you -create-/-define- it that matters, since you aren't defining it after the WOTC Druid comes out. You're not allowed to make a Druid after that, but before that, since you aren't 'redefining a 4e reference' it's not against the license, and since you're not defining it at all after it IS a 4e reference, since it's already defined, you're off the hook.
That is, however, only one way to read it.. your way is also supported by the wording, which is a bit of a quandry.
IANAL, again, but I have to think that any judge would say that the spirit of the license is obviously to prevent the misuse of existing material, not the misuse of FUTURE material.
Licensee acknowledges that Wizards has previously defined each 4E Reference.
I agree that subsection 4.1 of the GSL could be problematic for 3pps who create original material with names that can be reproduced by other companies, not just WotC. The only way I see to ensure that it does not happen is to use trademarkable names for things you don't want redefined.
Anybody can make a Druid class, but not everybody can make a Happy Cleric, because "Happy Cleric" is the IP of webrunner.
Excerpted from subsection 4.1 of the GSL:
Licensee acknowledges that Wizards has previously defined each 4E Reference.
I agree that subsection 4.1 of the GSL could be problematic for 3pps who create original material with names that can be reproduced by other companies, not just WotC. The only way I see to ensure that it does not happen is to use trademarkable names for things you don't want redefined.
Anybody can make a Druid class, but not everybody can make a Happy Cleric, because "Happy Cleric" is the IP of webrunner.
Well, I don't care if a thousand other people release books with Druids in them, that's not really a problem. If you use a generic name, it's going to be generic, and it's going to be re-used.
But I still don't quite see that it's cut and dried that I'd have to destroy my Druid book once PHB2 comes out.
"Licensee acknowledges that Wizards has previously defined each 4E Reference." - yes, I acknowledge that Wizards has previously defined "Fighter". "Druid" is not a 4e reference yet, and therefore I do not have to acknowledge that it is previously defined. So I can make a druid.
When PHB2 comes out. Druid's now in the SRD. I acknowledge that it has been previously defined by wizards. I can't make a druid right now any more. However, I already have a druid in print. I don't have to redefine druid since it's already defined. I've got books printed months ago to prove it! It doesnt say that I acknowledge that it's now been always defined by Wizard since June 19.
In fact, it would be impossible for me to Acknowledge that, since you can't acknowledge something that isn't true- if it was trying to change the 'facts' (4e references are always treated as if they were already defined in all circumstances) it would be written like that - not as an acknowledgment.
Basically:
Writing a book is defining terms.
Does reprinting that book count as defining terms?
Does selling a previously printed book count as defining terms?
Does creating a second edition of the book with exactly the same content count as defining terms (see Discworld GURPS for an example of this.. it was first released as GURPS Discworld, then later as Discworld Roleplaying Game with new art but the same text except for a notice to that effect)
Does compiling your previously printed material count as defining terms?
The problem is section 11 and others which state that Wotc can change or revoke the license with essentially no notice and puts the responsibility soley on the licensee to insure that all GSL products are valid with the current GSL.
That means that if your old books had "Druid" in them and were published under the GSL, that GSL can be retroactively changed to make those older books illegal under the GSL and you would be forced to destroy them.
Essentially Wotc can effectively seize your IP using the terms of this GSL.
-Polaris
webrunner,
The problem is section 11 and others which state that Wotc can change or revoke the license with essentially no notice and puts the responsibility soley on the licensee to insure that all GSL products are valid with the current GSL.
That means that if your old books had "Druid" in them and were published under the GSL, that GSL can be retroactively changed to make those older books illegal under the GSL and you would be forced to destroy them.
Essentially Wotc can effectively seize your IP using the terms of this GSL.
-Polaris
Section 11 is termination, not anything else. It only occurs upon termination of the license. It is only through termination of the license that you are forced to destroy the books bearing the logo. If they do terminate the license, you've got more problems then destroying your books.
Also: it is not yet clear whether an already published book is held to new terms. The licensee is, but that may only be for stuff they do from then on. Changes define the 'continued use of the licensed materials'. It is not clear if continuing to sell a book you already wrote using the licensed materials count as continuing the use of licensed materials.
It's no good to argue about what they COULD put in the license, otherwise we could argue about how they're coming to make us all wear funny hats and dance the macarena. We can only argue about what's in the license right now.
But they can't seize your IP.. they can force you to not be able ot use it, but they wouldn't gain control over it themselves.
Excerpted from subsection 4.1 of the GSL:
Licensee acknowledges that Wizards has previously defined each 4E Reference.
I agree that subsection 4.1 of the GSL could be problematic for 3pps who create original material with names that can be reproduced by other companies, not just WotC. The only way I see to ensure that it does not happen is to use trademarkable names for things you don't want redefined.
Anybody can make a Druid class, but not everybody can make a Happy Cleric, because "Happy Cleric" is the IP of webrunner.
But, in my opinion, that is quite horrible. I just am imagining every class, feat, magic item, power, monster, and so on having some name attached to the front that belongs to the company (Bigby's [blank] type stuff) . Yeah, it can be done, but it feels horribly clumsy and stupid.
But, in my opinion, that is quite horrible. I just am imagining every class, feat, magic item, power, monster, and so on having some name attached to the front that belongs to the company (Bigby's [blank] type stuff) . Yeah, it can be done, but it feels horribly clumsy and stupid.
It doesn't have to be a generic name with something tacked on, WotC has plenty of examples left out of the SRD... beholder, yuan-ti, mind flayer/illithid, etc. These aren't clumsy, and I don't think it's stupid at all. It's actually very smart.
Anything that you do intend to be generic can be named generically, like Druid. You'll just have to be satisfied with changing it to a reference to the PHB II, once WotC releases the SRD containing that book's 4E Reference for Druid. That's not the end of the world. In fact it provides a golden opportunity to update your own products, by removing generic stuff that is already in the D&D books, and adding new content in its place, such as the Zynete Campaign Setting, 2nd Edition... which is still 4E Compatible! Of course, you don't have to put the "2nd Edition" in the title if you don't want to, but advertising the new content would be excellent for sales, wouldn't it?
Anything that you want to keep specifically to yourself (the way WotC hogs beholders and illithids) should have trademark names.
Anything that you do intend to be generic can be named generically, like Druid. You'll just have to be satisfied with changing it to a reference to the PHB II, once WotC releases the SRD containing that book's 4E Reference for Druid. That's not the end of the world. In fact it provides a golden opportunity to update your own products, by removing generic stuff that is already in the D&D books, and adding new content in its place, such as the Zynete Campaign Setting, 2nd Edition... which is still 4E Compatible! Of course, you don't have to put the "2nd Edition" there if you don't want to.
The problem here is:
1. You'd have to make doublesure that your 'generic' Druid was really generic and matched the new SRD entry.
2. You'd have to pulp all existing stock of the old product. Not a problem if you are pdf publisher, but a pain for a dead-tree publisher.
-Polaris
I don't refute Wizards' control over terms like "Armor Class," but calling "armor" and "class" "4E References" just sets me off. It's not insane, it's not irrational, but it is arrogant. I consider myself to be savvy with English, and if I were a publisher I'd still want a lawyer who is also a gamer on retainer to read every single damn word I publish to make sure I don't accidentally refer to a "class" of something other than character professions.
For me, the jury's still out on the GSL. I know that when I read it, it makes me wish I had a lawyer, and that's not a very good sign. But I don't have counsel on retainer, so I'm reserving judgement. I am very glad that Paizo is going to stick with the OGL. D&D3.5 and D&D4 are very different games, and I think having a choice between the existing style and the new style is going to do good things for the sales of products relating to both styles.
I will say that I am disappointed that D&D4 will not be open. That's a shame, and ultimately a mistake, in my opinion.
You know what chaps my hide? The implication in the SRD that Wizards owns words. Yes, yes, I know, if I don't sign, I'm under no obligation to use their inviolate definition of "elf," but it is still obnoxious.
No they don't. They just say, that if you want to produce anything for 4e you have to use the term "armor" in the same manner as defined in the PHB. You are not allowed to use "armor" to describe armored vehicles for example.
The "SRD" which should better be called "LOW" (List of Words) just says which words have a special defined meaning in a 4th edition D&D product.
The real problem is, that you can't produce a decent easy to use product under this license. You can't produce useful NPC stats (i.e. stats which actually state what the NPC can do), are not allowed to reprint a few lines of text from the rules for easy reference in an encounter, and so on.
Heck you could even change the name of your Druid and leave everything else the same and your book would then be legit once more. Druid doesn't sound nearly as cool as WARDEN OF IRONWOOD to me, anyway. =P
I don't think so. If everything else was exactly the same as a Druid as defined by Wizards and you just slapped a different name on it, then you have redefined the druid as a warden of ironwood and that would be in breach of contract.
If you copyright "Happy Cleric" then WotC can't use it, unless you give them permission.
A name cannot be copyrighted. The text that describes the name can be (and, in fact, is the moment you write it). A name, however, can be trademarked.
No they don't.
I'm sorry, but I am not certain what part of my post you are refuting. I'm not trying to be a jerk, here -- I honestly don't see what your "No they don't" refers to, because I don't seem to have mentioned a "they" doing anything. Could you clarify?
They just say, that if you want to produce anything for 4e you have to use the term "armor" in the same manner as defined in the PHB. You are not allowed to use "armor" to describe armored vehicles for example.
We seem to be in total agreement on what is going on here, although I gather that you are not frustrated by it as I am.
The "SRD" which should better be called "LOW" (List of Words) just says which words have a special defined meaning in a 4th edition D&D product.
Many of which shouldn't have special defined meaning. And they don't, unless you sign the GSL. I'm not saying that Wizards can come down on publishers for using the word "elf" to mean something different than it does in D&D4 if those publishers have not signed the GSL. They can't. I'm offended from a simple linguistic perspective, not a legal one. You just can't control the language like this -- not at such a basic level. The word "class" has function -- general, broad meaning. It's a living word.
To put it another way, someone in another thread actually suggested that would-be designers avoid using terms from mythology and folklore, because Wizards is likely to hit on them for later additions to the GSL. That's completely backward! If Wizards wants to provide special defined meaning for certain terms, they should be the ones having to deal with the onus of originality. "Character class" is a completely acceptable thing for Wizards to claim ownership of. D&D originated the concept. But "class" is not. You shouldn't just just flaut the dictionary definition of a word for legal purposes. It's vile.
I feel the same way about words like druid and fighter. Fighter, for gods' sakes! But I acknowledge that is harder to argue against, as they are backed with actual mechanics. Class is an easier target, because it is just so freaking egregious. It's also a great example, because when it comes right down to it, the entirety of the GSL and SRD are only about classification.
The real problem is, that you can't produce a decent easy to use product under this license. You can't produce useful NPC stats (i.e. stats which actually state what the NPC can do), are not allowed to reprint a few lines of text from the rules for easy reference in an encounter, and so on.
I guess so. That is certainly annoying. I'm less concerned about that than the potential implications for people losing their marketable creative work -- not to Wizards, but just to oblivion.
It doesn't have to be a generic name with something tacked on, WotC has plenty of examples left out of the SRD... beholder, yuan-ti, mind flayer/illithid, etc. These aren't clumsy, and I don't think it's stupid at all. It's actually very smart.
Anything that you do intend to be generic can be named generically, like Druid. You'll just have to be satisfied with changing it to a reference to the PHB II, once WotC releases the SRD containing that book's 4E Reference for Druid. That's not the end of the world. In fact it provides a golden opportunity to update your own products, by removing generic stuff that is already in the D&D books, and adding new content in its place, such as the Zynete Campaign Setting, 2nd Edition... which is still 4E Compatible! Of course, you don't have to put the "2nd Edition" in the title if you don't want to, but advertising the new content would be excellent for sales, wouldn't it?
Anything that you want to keep specifically to yourself (the way WotC hogs beholders and illithids) should have trademark names.
That might work for some names, but I don't think coming up with new names not from folklore and mythoglogy in any language (even by accident) is not that easy. (Happy Cleric is not that inventive and I don't think WotC could be stopped from using it if they wanted to).
However the problem is even not limited to monsters.
Lets assume an alternate world where the Mind Flayer was not created before 4th edition. In this world a company signs onto the GSL and creates a common weapon called "Mind Flayer." That company also publishes a good number of adventures and you often see the Mind Flayer used in them.
It is then that the WotC of this world creates the monster, Mind Flayer, and adds to the SRD.
The company is in trouble now. WotC was nice and gave them a six month sell off period for all materials. But they still have to change their books to correct for this. They can't just change it so that the adventures refer to the Mind Flayer, because creatures wielding illithads as weapons doesn't make much sense.
Besides just not printing those books under the GSL any more, their only option is to change the name, lets say to Furedian Mind Stunner (Furedia being a nation in this company's campaign setting) to avoid any possible problems. They have to go through every adventure and change change those words and adjust page layout if the small increase in the weapon's name length caused any problems there.
The company are going to run into the problem where people will still buy older versions of adventures from stores and ebay. Those people might get the corrected Campaign Setting and an older adventure. They are going to see something called a Mind Flayer in the adventure (it refers to the Campaign Setting for all it's abilities although it gives short rules for using it) and they can't find the Mind Flayer in the Campaign Setting, because it is no longer there.
Also they can't really sell the campaign setting as a updated version (1.5?) with just that change, because the Mind Flayer took up about two paragraphs in a 200 page campaign setting book. I can't imagine your customers would be happy with that. So do they just make minor adjustments to the campaign setting? But that just makes more problems for people that grab new adventures with the old campaign setting or people that get the new campaign setting, but have old adventures.
I don't think that you can easily just switch a name from one of your books, especially if you actually used it thoughout all your books. And I would think there would be a problem trying to trademark everything just to avoid it being overridden by WotC.
How many other Systems are out there allowing 3PPs to ride on their success? I've never seen another one but D&D...
Off the top of my head, Runequest, FUDGE, and D6, with Traveller's SRD due any day now.
If I create a pirate class today and publish it on Oct 1st, and WotC creates one 2 years from now then I lose the rights to my IP.
Then don't create a 'Pirate' or any other generic sounding class. Make a Darksea Pirate. Take all of the existing class names and assume that WotC WILL use them then make any classes you create be a little more unique than that.
There are a ton of reasons to NOT like the GSL but this one isn't a very realistic objection.
Now the using their license to eliminate competition for their DDi, I find that provision particularly heinous.
Many of which shouldn't have special defined meaning. And they don't, unless you sign the GSL. I'm not saying that Wizards can come down on publishers for using the word "elf" to mean something different than it does in D&D4 if those publishers have not signed the GSL. They can't. I'm offended from a simple linguistic perspective, not a legal one. You just can't control the language like this -- not at such a basic level. The word "class" has function -- general, broad meaning. It's a living word.
Yes, Nemo, 'class' is a 'living' word and has many meanings in the outsideworld.
But, when you want to make a game supplement for D&D 4E (or at least a compatible product) then you should understand that WotC made the word 'class' strictly defined and in the SRD because so ANY player ANYWHERE can use this word with D&D 4E in mind to have the same meaning everyone knows who plays said game.
If you would not adhere to the SRD/GSL and say "Oh I don't like the Orc in the PHB i want to have my Orc have +4 on Strength" then it could be possible that a player buys (or downloads) your book and is confused which Orc he should use in his adventure/campaign.
For clarity: the GSL/SRD is not only to protect the IP of Wizards, but to say "when ANYONE says and means a D&D4E than he means EXACTLY the as defined in our/licensed books"
For clarity: the GSL/SRD is not only to protect the IP of Wizards, but to say "when ANYONE says and means a D&D4E than he means EXACTLY the as defined in our/licensed books"
I understand this perfectly well, and I know the reasoning behind it. I remain offended on an intellectual level. I acknowledge the potential irrationality of my position.
Originally Posted by Nemo_the_Lost
I'm offended from a simple linguistic perspective, not a legal one. You just can't control the language like this -- not at such a basic level. The word "class" has function -- general, broad meaning. It's a living word.
But to "controll the language" like this is one of the big points from D&D.
Almost every rule is like a legal text and they want that it stays this way.
If you think the 4E Orc isn't for you, than you shouldn't do work for 4E because you can't redefine the orc and this is good as it is!
I wouldn't want a D&D where you can 'legaly' redefine any feat or skill or creature in as many supplements as you want.
As a DM you would have to say "you may use the Skill definition (as incomplete it might be) from Book Y but not from book X" this isn't what I want in my games and i think it is good that WotC says "If you want to make a D&D4E supplement and use the Orc in it, you have to understand that a standart Orc has the values as defined in MM1"
I don't think that WotC thought "now we prohibit that anyone can use the word Orc EVER"
In that your right: They can't do this AND i think, they didn't and wouldn't do it.
I wouldn't want a D&D where you can 'legaly' redefine any feat or skill or creature in as many supplements as you want.
So you didn't want D&D 3 or 3.5? Because under the OGL you could do exactly these things. Maybe you meant to say "I prefer that only WotC can redefine a feat or skill"? Even so why?
If I were making a module which involved a different use for the survival skill, possibly expanding it to allow a character to use his survival skill to make distinctive trail markers for allies to follow. This could be interpreted as 'redefining' the survival skill and thus be prohibited. Under the OGL this was fine. Under SRD? Not so clear.
For years the OGL has existed and the only contradictory definitions which have existed in the game have been the ones that came from WotC supplemental books. Primarily problems with spells definitions, feats, etc. Third party versions of these sorts of things have never been a problem because everyone understands that supplemental stuff only trumps core when players and DMs agree to it.
So you didn't want D&D 3 or 3.5? Because under the OGL you could do exactly these things. Maybe you meant to say "I prefer that only WotC can redefine a feat or skill"? Even so why?
If I were making a module which involved a different use for the survival skill, possibly expanding it to allow a character to use his survival skill to make distinctive trail markers for allies to follow. This could be interpreted as 'redefining' the survival skill and thus be prohibited. Under the OGL this was fine. Under SRD? Not so clear.
For years the OGL has existed and the only contradictory definitions which have existed in the game have been the ones that came from WotC supplemental books. Primarily problems with spells definitions, feats, etc. Third party versions of these sorts of things have never been a problem because everyone understands that supplemental stuff only trumps core when players and DMs agree to it.
From the new SRD, page 2:
Adding Original Material
Per Section 4.1 of the GSL, you can add functions to 4E
References as long as, in doing so, you don’t redefine that 4E
Reference. For example, simply adding a use for the
Athletics skill doesn’t redefine the whole skill, so you could
create such a new use.
That addresses at least one of your issues.
From the new SRD, page 2:
That addresses at least one of your issues.
While that proves quite well that my example was a poor one it doesn't really talk about what I said at all.