Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 opkobold Aug 15, 2009 11:46:55	I've reviewed the GSL and it seems pretty clear (see section 5.5) that interactive software applications are never granted GSL licenses. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know what this really implies (other than it seems clear that you're not going to be able to publish a Wizards endorsed video game or other app under GSL). Anyone out there know if it's worth spending time developing software apps that include built-in support for 4E content? Does it make a difference if the application is free/open source instead of published? I have an idea for an app, but I don't want to bother creating a 4E extension to the app if it's going to cause licensing issues. For the sake of discussion, let's say I were to make a "Treasure Builder" application that used D&D 4E specific rules/references in order to create custom D&D 4E items. What are the roadblocks to publishing it as an open source application, let alone attempting to sell it? Thanks, OPKobold
#2 AbdulAlhazred Aug 15, 2009 12:51:57	Probably a giant legal minefield. Practically speaking there are hundreds of "pieces of software" out there now which do things that GSL strictly does not cover. Nobody is selling them AFAIK. Its pretty unlikely WotC is going after people that create a spreadsheet that implements a character sheet and post it on some board. Could they? Perhaps. The legal questions that come up are legion. One would tend to think that selling something like that would put you on thinner ice than giving it away. One would think that a program which explicitly incorporated calculations strictly derived from 4e D&D rules would put you on thinner ice. One would think that a program which had no other purpose than to do those sorts of calculations would put you on thinner ice. One would think that a program which displayed data clearly identical to information in the published 4e rules would put you on thinner ice. Of course one never knows what WotC would actually do in any given scenario. I'd be astounded if they ever in a million years even implied that they would stand for anyone even building the simplest free application along these lines, yet they might never choose to do anything about it. I personally would not invest time and money in such an endeavour on the theory that it would ever be any kind of source of income. Even if you simply managed to just be ignored that would be a lot more likely to end if such a program returned any significant income. Of course this is all just opinion etc etc etc. It would be great if 3rd party utility applications existed for 4e. As it stands its unlikely aside from the existing simple spreadsheets floating around.
#3 opkobold Aug 15, 2009 13:48:52	Thanks for the response - your feedback reinforces the fears I have over such an endeavor. This issue is confusing because (as you mentioned) there seems to be no shortage of free, 4E-related helper apps and templates floating around the web. I'll probably err on the side of caution and exclude any 4E-related content from the app (or make sure the content is optional or for internal use only). A shame - I thoroughly enjoy the 4E system, but it wouldn't be worth the potential headaches. Any further opinions? Has anyone dealt with similar legal issues? OPKobold
#4 bone_naga Aug 15, 2009 15:48:31	I'm not a lawyer, and there are people much better versed in law than myself on these forums. That said, my understanding is that you do not need the GSL to make a 4e product. Kenzer is making a published print product without the GSL. There are plenty of computer-based applications that obviously do not use the GSL. If you're making a free app, there is a good chance that it is covered under fair use laws, depending on how much WotC material you use, and whether or not that product could cause WotC to lose profits. I would say that a Treasure Builder is probably just fine, so long as you do not include any complete items from the PHB or other sources. Even if you sell it, if its a generator, and doesn't actually include stat blocks for WotC items, I don't see how they would have grounds to do anything about it.
#5 Titanium_Dragon Aug 16, 2009 0:22:17	I'm not a lawyer, and there are people much better versed in law than myself on these forums. That said, my understanding is that you do not need the GSL to make a 4e product. Kenzer is making a published print product without the GSL. There are plenty of computer-based applications that obviously do not use the GSL. If you're making a free app, there is a good chance that it is covered under fair use laws, depending on how much WotC material you use, and whether or not that product could cause WotC to lose profits. I would say that a Treasure Builder is probably just fine, so long as you do not include any complete items from the PHB or other sources. Even if you sell it, if its a generator, and doesn't actually include stat blocks for WotC items, I don't see how they would have grounds to do anything about it. The issue is primarily what you're including. Just including the names of the powers or items or classes, they probably can't do anything about it. If you were to include actual power text, however, you'd be at a minimum close to if not actually violating WotC's IP (depending on one's interpretation of how much the game manual is protected by copyright law), and a program which replicated the functionality of, say, the character builder or monster generator would very likely get you sued (or, rather, probably targeted by a C&D, backed with threat of a lawsuit).
#6 AbdulAlhazred Aug 16, 2009 11:33:09	There are a whole number of factors that would come into play. First of all the Fair Use Doctrine does consider the impact of the use on profits. It is one of the four factors which must be considered by statute when you mount a fair use defense. The next consideration would be theoretically exactly what can copyright cover. In the case of a game, which is essentially entirely creative content it could be construed to cover a lot. In the case of material which recapitulates facts it covers less, but still offers protection. Since D&D is entirely an invention of people's minds it is highly unclear that anything would fall into the later category, even game mechanics. It is possible that other forms of IP, such as patents, might also be a factor. All of this is largely moot however since unless you're independently wealthy or exceedingly determined the mere presentment of a threat to sue is going to end the project right then and there. Of course WotC may well be perfectly happy to ignore you, as I said before, simply because they aren't dumb and really in general don't probably consider suing their customers to be a good business practice when it isn't necessary. This is the overriding reason why all the spreadsheets and such exist. Good will is worth far more than the negligible benefit that might accrue to them by stopping them. More to the point, while such tools might put a small dent in their DDI income it probably overall creates larger interest in the game. The safest course would be to make a program which can generate treasure parcels for any game and is totally data driven. The program itself is then beyond question unrelated to D&D. It may so happen that data exists which lets people generate 4e treasure parcels, but as long as it can do other things as well, that probably doesn't matter. Things like maptools can also maybe get away with what they do. The program is most definitely not at all specific to D&D and has existed since before 4e came out. Yet you can find tons of macro libraries for it that do all sorts of 4e specific stuff. Still, if DDI ever manages to provide a VTT for 4e it would not surprise me in the least if they became quite interested in what rptools is doing, especially since you can find lots of those macro sets on their boards. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
#7 opkobold Aug 16, 2009 13:03:36	It would be nice if WotC would come out with an amendment to the GSL specific to interactive content (or a different license altogether). Something along the lines of: "the user of the product must have a current D&D Insider account to have access to interactive materials covered by GSL". I know there are technical issues involved with doing this, but providing such a provision would ease the fears of 3rd party developers and increase the value of having a D&D insider account.
#8 bone_naga Aug 16, 2009 13:15:18	I don't think patents would be an issue. What would they be able to patent? The mechanic of rolling a die and adding modifiers? Hardly original. Powers? Again, while their format and wording might be, the idea of powers that can be used at will or have to be recharged is not original either. As far as IP, my understanding (I did a little reading on copyright stuff for some college work on plagiarism, but again I'm no lawyer), is that the rules aren't copyrighted, just a particular expression of those rules. That's why as long as your generator doesn't copy entire stat blocks, you should be ok. And I don't think Maptools has anything to worry about even if the VTT is released since it uses no WotC material, except some predefined light sources from the 3e SRD. I'm not familiar with all the macros for 4e (the only one I use is for healing/damage to keep track of HP). The most I could see happening is maybe WotC demanding that the offending content be removed from the forums. However, if those macros only interpret the rules rather than reprinting them, even that would likely be off limits. So they could have a macro to track healing surges, but that macro shouldn't already contain the exact number of surges available to each class. Of course, this is all moot since I don't see WotC ever releasing the VTT, both due to their history with software, and the fact that Maptools as a free program, offers so much functionality that I don't think they could create a for profit program good enough to compete.
#9 Titanium_Dragon Aug 16, 2009 17:31:09	I don't think patents would be an issue. What would they be able to patent? The mechanic of rolling a die and adding modifiers? Hardly original. Powers? Again, while their format and wording might be, the idea of powers that can be used at will or have to be recharged is not original either. There are things which are potentially patentable, but not a whole lot. It is rather irrelevant, though, as they haven't, to my knowledge, patented anything in 4e. As far as IP, my understanding (I did a little reading on copyright stuff for some college work on plagiarism, but again I'm no lawyer), is that the rules aren't copyrighted, just a particular expression of those rules. That's why as long as your generator doesn't copy entire stat blocks, you should be ok. Not exactly true. While copyright does not protect rules (or indeed, ideas), the trouble is that it does protect a particular expression of the rules and things which are too close to it. You cannot change every word in Harry Potter then rerelease it as Larry Stones.
#10 AbdulAlhazred Aug 17, 2009 7:08:29	There are things which are potentially patentable, but not a whole lot. It is rather irrelevant, though, as they haven't, to my knowledge, patented anything in 4e. Honestly its highly unlikely we would know if there were patents covering aspects of 4e. Unless you've paid for a patent search and even then there is usually considerable time lag between the application for a patent and when it is published. Things at USPTO have been getting more transparent in the last couple of years, but its pretty unlikely you would find out about it before they sprung it on you if there were going to. Not exactly true. While copyright does not protect rules (or indeed, ideas), the trouble is that it does protect a particular expression of the rules and things which are too close to it. You cannot change every word in Harry Potter then rerelease it as Larry Stones. The thing is it would be true that you couldn't copyright the rules to baseball. You could copyright your book that explains and lists them. D&D is a whole different kettle of fish. No such game existed before it was written. The very rules themselves are a creation of its authors. You cannot for example publish a game that is identical to Scrabble mechanically, regardless of what you call it, what it looks like, or how you paraphrase the rules to Scrabble. At the very least you are at the very edge of what might or might not be permissible. The problem with a 4e 3rd party software is its financially marginal to start with and the questions are serious enough that you could never hope to cover your legal risk AND make any money beyond your lawyer bills.
#11 cerois Aug 28, 2009 16:41:09	You cannot for example publish a game that is identical to Scrabble mechanically, regardless of what you call it, what it looks like, or how you paraphrase the rules to Scrabble. ummm yes you can...