I have a personal interest in this considering I am a publisher and my 3.5 product which took two years to build and test was released only two months ago. So we have felt like the rug was pulled out from under us despite positive reviews and encouraging first month's sales. We understand that moving to 4ED is financially the right choice despite the vocal--but minor--opposition.
On the surface, there have been a lot of knee-jerk reactions to the GSL, even from me...but I took a breath and looked it over, and I feel there are ways to create a distinct, original setting within 4ED without having to compromise. I invite anyone to the table and I hope I am right in these determinations:
--Although you cannot alter, define, or redefine entries, this does not stop you from removing them altogether. If you don't any of their races, create your own batch. You might not be able to use the word elf, else it could confuse your entry with theirs, but perhaps you could create a new group of fey-based creatures. People within the setting may call them elf but the book my not give them the official title.
--From the previous point, you could remove all classes that are magic-based and create a setting that is low or absent of magic. You could then take a few rare abilities and reference them as feats. The SRD does imply you could recreate abilities based on those in the books. You could create an all new Wizard class, just not use the name, if you so desire. Plenty of words in the English language.
--The reference document is just that, therefore it lists those terms you can call upon and those you can't...but look at it closer. Sure, some monsters are copyrighted, but certain others can't be. Look at demons. There has been some flak around the idea that 3PP products could not have demons. I think this is incorrect. You could have demons as the name is not copyrighted but just not the demons and the fluff created by WOTC.
--There is also no stipulation you cannot add certain science-fiction elements to a setting. Their mention of a non-fantasy SRD seems to imply a D20 modern 4ed coming soon. But what of techno-fantasy games? I think we are good on this. Shadowrun may not fit with that idea, but I think techno fantasies like Final Fantasy should be ok.
--Remember, you can still add new abilities, paragon paths, maybe even create a whole new rule that is applied to classes we have no thought of. As long as wizard is still a wizard, who cares if there are new rules to expand on them?
--And I don't think they are saying you can't have a company website or a website advertising your product, just that you cannot create some interactive flash-game 4ed website.
I am just saying it’s not all bad. If I am right on these points, I think we can make our setting work. Lets not all freak out over this until we have had a chance to read them all through and understand the meaning of the words rather than assume Scott and the others are plotting the end of the 3PP industry. I still have reservations about 4.0 and had hoped there would be more freedom with the GSL, but since we can't close our eyes and wish for it, we have to make do with what we have.
If I am totally off base on these assumptions...then I will be sad.
There is a ton of room to create a ton of original stuff ranging from entirely new worlds to splat books that add options to what already exists.
I for one am perfectly happy to see other publishers cry in misguided dismay and promise NOT to publish any 4E stuff. That just means more money for us.
People seem to think WOTC is evil for protecting their property and ensuring that 3PP products will not superscede their own products as happened too many time in 3E.
Create what you want. While they are coming out with a license to address other settings there really is nothing in this one that I can see that would prevent you from doing so already (correct me if I am wrong) - it will just take a little ingenuity and thought - something that has long been lost in the RPG industry.
That said, this is very similar to the old Licenses, and I think it is only the paranoid, and people with previous bodies of works that are upset. While I can understand this stance, I don't think that this should be a deterrent to new people in the market.
There is a ton of room to create a ton of original stuff ranging from entirely new worlds to splat books that add options to what already exists.
How? If I want elves to live in the desert instead of a forest, I can't because that would be redefining elves. If I want to keep the 3.5 canon on tieflings, I can't because that would be redefining tieflings.
Sure if you want the traditional fantasy setting you can make one. But the second you try to change ANYTHING (as most settings do) you're in trouble.
The clause in the GSL that states a game could never revert back to OGL does bother me as it seems that WOTC could terminate your product and then prevent you from publishing it under a difference ruleset.
So quote something I said (and was forgotten) on ENWorld:
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.
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.
Like I said...its doubtful that was their intent.
Perhaps. Would you be willing to stake your own IP (not Wotc's but yours), the ownership of your company, your livelihood, and your credit rating on that belief?
The GSL is written in suprisingly plain langage. Wotc can seize your own IP, redefine the rules, and terminate the agreement all for any or no reason, and you have no say in the matter what-so-ever.
-Polaris
No it can't
No it can't
They cannot take away my IP. They wording says they have the right to enforce a clause where you agree to no produce that product for any other line, even beyond the termination of the license. Never anywhere does it say they can take away your IP. Why would they want to be so petty? The most we should expect them to do terminate our license agreement. It may burn a bridge with WOTC but they cannot burn your ideas. And if they want to pursue legal action against a company because of their franchise, then WOTC are setting themselves up to be the biggest petty villains since M.A.D. from Inspector Gadget. As long as my product does not infringe on the IP of D&D and my product still requires all three main rule books of 4ED, I don't understand why they would want to crush a 4-man operation like my company.
It would be like a computer game company going after the fans for making mods of their game. You still need to buy their game, so why crush the spirit of your own fan base.
If I am wrong and WOTC goes out of its way to push down my little nickel & dime, dog & pony show, I am sure you will all hear of it...which would be another reason why WOTC wouldn't do it. Its the 21st century and the landscape of industry, especially in the realm of free thinkers and unique ideas, as changed. Legal terms have not. I have faith there are those within the D&D development community that feel the same.
Sorry, if this feels like I am preaching.
Yes Wotc can take away your IP if you sign/agree to the GSL. Don't take my word for it, go have an IP attorney look at it. He'll tell you the same.
Wotc can under the GSL at a later time, put in a very similiar concept in their "core" works and not include them in the SRD. At that time are you immediately in violation of the GSL, and Wotc can terminate your product and seize your IP.
Read the license. It's a one-sided suicide pact.
-Polaris
Point, and I mean, POINT, to the section where you give away your IP rights in the contract. Otherwise, it doesn't exist. Base your arguements on fact, not paranoia.
SerenaDawn,
Yes Wotc can take away your IP if you sign/agree to the GSL. Don't take my word for it, go have an IP attorney look at it. He'll tell you the same.
Wotc can under the GSL at a later time, put in a very similiar concept in their "core" works and not include them in the SRD. At that time are you immediately in violation of the GSL, and Wotc can terminate your product and seize your IP.
Read the license. It's a one-sided suicide pact.
-Polaris
I assume you're talking about this part:
18. Independent Development. Nothing in this License will impair Wizards’ right to acquire, license, develop, have others develop for it, market and/or distribute materials or products that contain concepts, storylines, or other content similar to, or otherwise compete with, Licensed Products.
That's actually a very standard clause.
You often see it when you're submitting material to a magazine or a publisher or whatever.
The whole point is that you can't make a book about say Eladrin and then when wizards also makes an Eladrin sourcebook a year later you can't sue them and claim they ripped off your totally original idea.
This might seem mean, but it makes sense that when you have 100 publishers churning out sourcebooks, eventually just about every idea is going to be covered and Wizards is going to reach a point where they can't make a book about anything without potentially "ripping off" an idea.
You sure you read section 10, Polaris? Nowhere under section 10 do you surrender your IP. In fact, under section 10.2, it reinforces IP's of all 3rd Parties.
Point, and I mean, POINT, to the section where you give away your IP rights in the contract. Otherwise, it doesn't exist. Base your arguements on fact, not paranoia.
Read section 18 in conjunction with sections 6 and 11. They do effectively give Wotc the right to take away your IP.
Section 10.2 doesn't say what you think it does. Read it again. Section 10.2 instructs the licensee (you) that you must protect the IP rights of third parties. In contract law, "third party" has a very specific meaning. It means the IP owned neither by you nor by Wotc. Section 10.2 doesn't protect your own IP whatsoever, nor does it obligate Wotc do to so either.
Read it again.
Basically, Wotc can post a similiar concept and then at their discretion retroactively call your IP in violation of the GSL and keep you from using it forever. Read sections 6.2 and 6.3 and all of section 11.
-Polaris
The GSL is WotC asking 3pps to produce stuff to exapand the D&D 4E product line, and telling them (3pps) to not produce games that would compete (even if only a small, insignificant bit) with D&D 4E.
(That joke suddenly made me feel old)
If I create the greatest IP to be attatched to 4ED, garner kudos and laurels, with sales to reflect the acclaim, I don't expect WOTC to crush my dreams...hell, I would expect a job offer. ;)
I have no experience, interest or pertinent opinions on that topic.
The thing is the OGL was not just about module content or campaign settings. T
There is a thriving industry of small 3rd party prducers of software gaming aids that were supported and encouraged by the OGL to the mutual benefit of WotC and gamers everywhere.
A comprehensive SRD was fundamental to this.
That entire industry is dead as far as 4E and the GSL is concerned.
They will have to try and negotiate their own content licences and I doubt most have the resources for that.
SerenaDawn, if you don't mind me asking, what publisher do you work for?? PM me if you would prefer. I am always looking for interesting 3pps to buy stuff from.
Well, I appreciate it. I run Dias Ex Machina Games. I have added a sig file, which should help and point a link to our home page.
We have one book (at 393 pages) and it took us two years to develop it. The next one should be faster.
We also have awesome artwork.
Sorry, if it feels like I'm bragging.
We have not made an official standing on the future of our product line. We will gather our thoughts and make an anoucement soon. I have just been getting more and more bothered by the massive blacklash on the GSL, despite initial reservations I had with 4ED in general. My instinct pointed that there was a decent chance that WOTC was not populated by armies of goose-stepping automatons.
And then Linae invited me for coffee...
Read section 18 in conjunction with sections 6 and 11. They do effectively give Wotc the right to take away your IP.
Section 10.2 doesn't say what you think it does. Read it again. Section 10.2 instructs the licensee (you) that you must protect the IP rights of third parties. In contract law, "third party" has a very specific meaning. It means the IP owned neither by you nor by Wotc. Section 10.2 doesn't protect your own IP whatsoever, nor does it obligate Wotc do to so either.
Read it again.
Basically, Wotc can post a similiar concept and then at their discretion retroactively call your IP in violation of the GSL and keep you from using it forever. Read sections 6.2 and 6.3 and all of section 11.
-Polaris
Sheer Paranoia.
Section 18 is a standard clause. If you create a similar body of work that WOTC is already developing, and they don't respond and create their own product, then you can't sue them for doing so. It's so standard that no publisher under the sun doesn't read and understand that.
Furthermore, Section 11 does not require you to surrender your IP, and does not prevent you from developing your IP. Your ideas are your own. What it prevents is development in regards to 4E D&D. If you want to keep developing your IP, you do so independently, without reference to D&D.
Section 6 has everything to do with the Previous License, and nothing to do with IP. It is a statement that if you were a OGL support, you convert over to the new GSL. It has nothing to do with IP.
If you are worried about someone stealing your systems, then you better patent them. Otherwise, no one is going to be taking your creations, or can take them. Especially with the clauses your so pointed in pointing out.
No one is going to be taking things from you that they couldn't have already taken without the contract anyway, like creature formats and stats, if they even bother with such things. No one cares about your ideas. That's the simple truth of publishing.
And then Linae invited me for coffee...
That's all very sweet and nice, and I am sure that Linae is a wonderful person as is Scott.
So what? What makes you think that she is calling the shots here? If anything seems clear from the last couple of years, the "gaming crowd" in wotc are not calling the shots.
You and several others seem to want to believe that Wotc is that same scrappy little company out of Renton that it was 10 years ago. It's not
Wotc is a wholely owned subsidary of a major publically held corporation and needs to be treated as such.
-Polaris
Did you read section 4? Section 4 along with 6, 11, and 18 make it possible for Wotc to effectively steal your IP. Section 18 is standard boilerplate by itself. The problem is in this GSL it's not by itself.
You call it "paranoia". I call it reality. If a contract/lease holder can abuse a written contract, it will happen at some point. I think you have a trial in Seattle right now that proves this very point......enough said.
The only thing that matters is what the written contract permits and if what it permits is worth the risk compared with what it gives.
In the case of the GSL, that's an emphatic no. I may not be a lawyer, but I have fairly easy access to those who are. They've all said the same thing that I concluded as an amature. The GSL is a suicide pact for your IP that Wotc can change/terminate at any time.
-Polaris
WOTC is a publishing company. They print books (among other things). They are in the industry to make money...they make money by printing books...books with words in them. Sure, the are pictures, but mostly words. They get those words from writers. Being a writer myself, trying to find and agent and get a foothold in such an industry, I have learned that, by a majority, publishing companies don't make it a policy to f@#$% with their writers. Bad for business.
Also. I am pretty sure Linae was joking about the coffee. For one, I believe she is an Earth sign to my Water sign, which equals mud in any book. Second, I also said that as a joke but it also implies there are those on our side within the company that want products like mine under their label. It is not so nefarious. Last I saw Linae, she didn't resemble an angler fish.
I mean this in the nicest possible way, but what part of "wholely owned subsidary of Hasbro" did you miss?
A subdivision of a publically owned corporation doesn't work the same way as a privately owned company does, and wink and nod agreements which you seem to be counting on don't apply. Wotc's first, last, and only responsibility is to Hasbro's board of directors and through them the stockholders. Period. End. Of. Story.
So what influence do people like Scott and Linnae have in such an environment? Given the evidence? Pretty much zero.
-Polaris
The clause in the GSL that states a game could never revert back to OGL does bother me as it seems that WOTC could terminate your product and then prevent you from publishing it under a difference ruleset.
Any company pursuing 4th Edition should consider the following:
(1) Will you be able to afford to destroy all the 4th Edition products you have in your warehouse? Will you be able to afford it if that happens in the worst case scenario (for example, you've just received an entire print run for a new product and haven't shipped any of them to distributors yet)?
(2) If the only thing you develop are GSL products, are you willing to give Hasbro the ability to put you out of business at their whim?
(3) If you are diversified beyond GSL products, are you willing to put the fate whatever product lines you might choose to develop under the GSL in Hasbro's hands?
Because that's what you're signing on for.
For me, personally, there's no way I can do business in that environment.
Then the WotC did the unthinkable and put the GSL out, now you have this WotC is out to steal 3pp IP's. Yes, I agree that the GSL seems overly restrictive and does look to derail quite a few promising fan based products.
But, this is legalese, it is intended to sound restrictive, it filters out the chaff.
Chill dude, you're too wound up.
Bel
I say this after having a day to sit back and think, and speak with a lawyer I work with regularly who went over the license for me. There's some touchy ground with making optional rules. I can still do this, as long as it doesn't change anything printed by Wizards. But, like they said, something so simple as a new way to determine ability scores is a no, no--or, as was brought up in the other thread, no way to change selling rituals. There are work around for some/most of these, and I expect, in what I plan on working on, for these to be relatively nominal changes.
The OGL does still offer more leeway, but this version grants a different logo, and possibly gets you in better standing with Wiz and the new line of 4e products. I can;t say that I'm thrilled about the clauses, but I'm not upset, either. I don't see any malice or nefarious plans. It's business. And, I don't think it's risky at all, unless you make a serious error (or, are just plain stupid).
At this point, I ams seriously investigating the option of a 4e production under the GSL. We shall see.
Polaris, why do you do this? First it was the GSL will never come out, you gleefully took every delay as a sign that WotC was just jerking our chain but we were too blind to see it.
Then the WotC did the unthinkable and put the GSL out, now you have this WotC is out to steal 3pp IP's. Yes, I agree that the GSL seems overly restrictive and does look to derail quite a few promising fan based products.
But, this is legalese, it is intended to sound restrictive, it filters out the chaff.
Chill dude, you're too wound up.
Bel
Why do I do this? Because someone has to, that's why. Someone has to say that the emperor has no cloths. Fact is I wish I were right initially. I wish there were no GSL because what we have now is functionally much worse. It amounts to a cease-and-desist letter to anyone that even thinks about publishing anything remotely like DnD without using the GSL and putting your IP completely in Wotc's hand.
Epoch-Games,
Interesting because as I've said elsewhere, while I am not a lawyer, I have easy access to people who are, and they tend to agree with me. It's a suicide pact. Yes much of it is standard boilerplate (such as section 18),but when it's combined with the retroactive and post licensing termination clauses AND the SRD requirements, you lose complete control of your IP. It doesn't matter whether or not you think Wotc will do this to you. When signing a contract you have to assume the other party will take every advantage they are allowed.
IMHO anyone that signs this deal is six kinds of a fool.
-Polaris
Bel
Has anyone else noticed that the usual WotC staffers are conspicuously absent since the GSL was released? Weathering the storm?
Bel
It's hard to type posts when you can't pull your palm away from your forehead. :P
(1) Will you be able to afford to destroy all the 4th Edition products you have in your warehouse? Will you be able to afford it if that happens in the worst case scenario (for example, you've just received an entire print run for a new product and haven't shipped any of them to distributors yet)?
(2) If the only thing you develop are GSL products, are you willing to give Hasbro the ability to put you out of business at their whim?
(3) If you are diversified beyond GSL products, are you willing to put the fate whatever product lines you might choose to develop under the GSL in Hasbro's hands?
Because that's what you're signing on for.
For me, personally, there's no way I can do business in that environment.
Then never work for the auto industry, my friend...
Maybe we are the fool. I can see why large companies would be unwilling to hang huge franchises on such conditions, but smaller ones really have nothing to lose.
My IP is copyrighted. It is registered with the government office and my label has an ISBN registration. I am fairly confident my original idea is safe from the greedy greasy ham hands that apparently is WOTC. ;) If I decide to pursue a novel based on my game, there is nothing Wizards can do about it.
I suddenly feel like I am on "Crossfire" or "Hardball" or "I'm Gonna Kick Your Ass with Bill O'Reily."
Six kinds of a fool...well, sir...thankfully, I am a base10 human being.
Has anyone else noticed that the usual WotC staffers are conspicuously absent since the GSL was released? Weathering the storm?
Bel
I have a different and more IMHO more reasonable explaination than DCAnderson.
1. The last time the 'usual Wotc Staffers' said something when the GSL was announced, it created a debacle (including posts that said staffers will never live down on EN world) that is still talked about on EN World including the imfamous "We invested 7 figures in this game...." (You know the quote I'm sure.)
2. Unlike before, we now are on the same 'footing' as said Wotc Staffers. No longer can they say "The GSL doesn't really say that" when we have the actual GSL in our hot little hands. In such a case when the GSL really is as bad if not worse than many feared, the best thing you can say is nothing and try not to fan the flames further.
-Polaris
My IP is copyrighted. It is registered with the government office and my label has an ISBN registration. I am fairly confident my original idea is safe from the greedy greasy ham hands that apparently is WOTC. ;) If I decide to pursue a novel based on my game, there is nothing Wizards can do about it.
False. Copyright law in the US (and it's US law and specifically Washington State law that applies per item 19 of the GSL), is particularly unkind to creative artists. Basically (Steerpike who is an IP lawyer can go into depth) you can not copyright an idea (including game rules). You can only copyright the expression of that idea. Thus once you publish anything under the GSL, Wotc can create a very similiar (if not identical) item in one of their books and then not make it part of the SRD. Once that is done, then YOU are in violations of Wotc's IP rights and copyright per the GSL you've signed. Copyright provides no protection against contracts like this because contracts are self-inflicted. Wotc can then order you to destroy or even seize your own material.
Good luck with that if you think it's still worth it. I meant what I said about six kinds of fool. I did not say it casually.
-Polaris
False. Copyright law in the US (and it's US law and specifically Washington State law that applies per item 19 of the GSL), is particularly unkind to creative artists. Basically (Steerpike who is an IP lawyer can go into depth) you can not copyright an idea (including game rules). You can only copyright the expression of that idea. Thus once you publish anything under the GSL, Wotc can create a very similiar (if not identical) item in one of their books and then not make it part of the SRD. Once that is done, then YOU are in violations of Wotc's IP rights and copyright per the GSL you've signed. Copyright provides no protection against contracts like this because contracts are self-inflicted. Wotc can then order you to destroy or even seize your own material.
Good luck with that if you think it's still worth it. I meant what I said about six kinds of fool. I did not say it casually.
-Polaris
I like how you saw "False" like that. It makes it sound so right.
You need to take a good long look at copyright law. You cannot take something that is copyrighted and do anything with it other than what the creator is allowing. That is the basic foundation of copyright. Clause 10.2 protects my IP and its interaction with the GSL. There are two IPs the GSL deals with: Their property and mine. They are unique, protected, and separate despite being in the same publication. If you make a computer game using the Quake engine and license it, ID software does not own your game and you don't own Quake. You have licensed its use...just the same as the GSL is a royalty free license to create products using the 4ED ruleset. It’s in the name GSL and SRD.
This will not be fully settled until someone from WOTC raises their voice in clarification.
Anyone?
You cannot take something that is copyrighted and do anything with it other than what the creator is allowing.
But they can develop an idea concurrently (not out of malice, perhaps they're oblivious to what you've worked on), publish it and include it in the SRD (again, no malice here) and then learn you've got your own version of it (which redefines the term) and then tell you to stop publishing books that contain the redefined version. Even though you published the idea first.
Or am I wrong? (I'd love to be wrong ;)). If I am wrong, can you point to which part of the GSL proves me wrong?
I buy the rights to...let's say...Hobbit McHobbiton's novel "A Feast of Thrones" (GREAT NOVEL) which has a race of winged, fish creatures called, I don't know, Tunaharpies.
I create the game for 4ED. Let's say then that WOTC, given this apparent wicked streak they have, love the idea, so create a supplement which includes Tunaharpies and don't include them in the SRD so I could not use them.
Well, alas, WOTC is going to get sued by Mr. McHobbiton because they don't own the rights to "A Feast of Thrones." I do. WOTC can also not stop Mr McHobbiton from selling the rights to another company if my company folds or release the rights back to him, nor can they prevent that said company from using an OGL ruleset.
How's that?
How's that?
That's an interesting scenario, although it isn't the one I outlined (in yours they steal the idea, in mine they develop the idea independently). Do you not know what will happen in the scenario I outlined or was I right?
Consider the following:
I buy the rights to...let's say...Hobbit McHobbiton's novel "A Feast of Thrones" (GREAT NOVEL) which has a race of winged, fish creatures called, I don't know, Tunaharpies.
I create the game for 4ED. Let's say then that WOTC, given this apparent wicked streak they have, love the idea, so create a supplement which includes Tunaharpies and don't include them in the SRD so I could not use them.
Well, alas, WOTC is going to get sued by Mr. McHobbiton because they don't own the rights to "A Feast of Thrones." I do. WOTC can also not stop Mr McHobbiton from selling the rights to another company if my company folds or release the rights back to him, nor can they prevent that said company from using an OGL ruleset.
How's that?
No you won't sue Wotc. Under section 10.3 of the GSL you give up your right to sue Wotc with regard to the GSL.
Also section 10.2 doesn't say what you think it does. It protects the rights of third party IPs and that in contract law means the IP rights of those who are not a party to the GSL. Essentially if you violate someone else's IP in a GSL product, Wotc is not responsible.
Also you need to review your copyright law. Pay attention to Seldon v. Baker, TSR v Mayfair Games, and many others. Nimmer (hat tip to Steerpike7) has published a law text that covers this and the US Govt includes this point in their copyright FAQ. Copyright does not protect your idea. Only the expression of it. That's been broadly interpreted for works of pure artistic merit (i.e. books) but not so for game systems. Basically, you can not copyright instructions including game rules and game systems.
-Polaris
Epoch-Games,
Interesting because as I've said elsewhere, while I am not a lawyer, I have easy access to people who are, and they tend to agree with me. It's a suicide pact. Yes much of it is standard boilerplate (such as section 18),but when it's combined with the retroactive and post licensing termination clauses AND the SRD requirements, you lose complete control of your IP. It doesn't matter whether or not you think Wotc will do this to you. When signing a contract you have to assume the other party will take every advantage they are allowed.
IMHO anyone that signs this deal is six kinds of a fool.
-Polaris
Polaris, good for you. You're not a lawyer, neither am I. You have lawyers that agree with you, and I have lawyers that agree with me. I work with contracts on a regular basis, including writing them alongside legal teams. Further, I have retained the services of one firm I've worked with in the past, and put a lot of faith in, specifically to assist with the GSL's interpretation. The beauty of law is interpretation and gambling/taking an educated guess on how it will stand up in the eyes of the court.
The problems you have stated aren't completely without merit, but they bring other situations. For example, the theory that the GSL will be to get everyone to sign up and the revoke it, killing any/all competition stinks of malice and would severely impact any judge's view of the spirit and intent of the license, which could render it completely worthless. The spirit and intent of any contract must be able to withstand scrutiny, which if the ideas being tossed around here such as killing all competition, stealing IP, and others come to pass, would draw considerable doubt on the GSL.
No you won't sue Wotc. Under section 10.3 of the GSL you give up your right to sue Wotc with regard to the GSL.
Also section 10.2 doesn't say what you think it does. It protects the rights of third party IPs and that in contract law means the IP rights of those who are not a party to the GSL. Essentially if you violate someone else's IP in a GSL product, Wotc is not responsible.
"Well, alas, WOTC is going to get sued by Mr. McHobbiton because they don't own the rights to "A Feast of Thrones." The hypothetical mentioned has nothing to do with the GSL....its falls in the realm of violating someones IP, which is fair game.
Also you need to review your copyright law. Pay attention to Seldon v. Baker, TSR v Mayfair Games, and many others. Nimmer (hat tip to Steerpike7) has published a law text that covers this and the US Govt includes this point in their copyright FAQ. Copyright does not protect your idea. Only the expression of it. That's been broadly interpreted for works of pure artistic merit (i.e. books) but not so for game systems. Basically, you can not copyright instructions including game rules and game systems.
The talk I'm seeing here is about IP and not GAME RULES or GAME SYSTEMS. I think you should probably read before responding. Honestly, it almost seems like your posting just to post and ramble.
I have a well respected IP lawyer as a close family friend and frankly he thinks the lawyers you "have access to" should clean their glasses and actually read the license.
Comments from a message board should never, even remotely, be considered sound legal advice in any way. Period. The only sufficient legal advice is that which you personally get from a credited lawyer.
I'm there SerenaDawn and EpochGames in that I'll be providing 3PP support for 4th Edition. I have a setting that has been in development for several years (systemless until 4th Edition).
No you won't sue Wotc. Under section 10.3 of the GSL you give up your right to sue Wotc with regard to the GSL.
Also section 10.2 doesn't say what you think it does. It protects the rights of third party IPs and that in contract law means the IP rights of those who are not a party to the GSL. Essentially if you violate someone else's IP in a GSL product, Wotc is not responsible.
Also you need to review your copyright law. Pay attention to Seldon v. Baker, TSR v Mayfair Games, and many others. Nimmer (hat tip to Steerpike7) has published a law text that covers this and the US Govt includes this point in their copyright FAQ. Copyright does not protect your idea. Only the expression of it. That's been broadly interpreted for works of pure artistic merit (i.e. books) but not so for game systems. Basically, you can not copyright instructions including game rules and game systems.
-Polaris
10.3 actually isn't about the licensee suing wizards. It's about you helping wizards sue someone else, and saying you can't sue other people on behalf of wizards (ie, if someone copies your use of the SRD, wizard says they'll sue and not you (and you're not allowed), but you may have to be a witness)
It does say "Licensee will take no action that will harm, misuse or
bring into disrepute the activities, properties or products of Wizards or Wizards Intellectual Property." but, if you break it down:
You cannot harm activities of wizards
You cannot misuse activities of wizards
You cannot bring into disrepute the activities of wizards
You cannot harm activities of wizards intellectual property
You cannot misuse activities of wizards intellectual property
You cannot bring into disrepute the activities of wizards intellectual property
You cannot harm properties of wizards
You cannot misuse properties of wizards
You cannot bring into disrepute the properties of wizards
You cannot harm properties of wizards intellectual property
You cannot misuse properties of wizards intellectual property
You cannot bring into properties the activities of wizards intellectual property
You cannot harm products of wizards
You cannot misuse productsof wizards
You cannot bring into disrepute the products of wizards
You cannot harm products of wizards intellectual property
You cannot misuse products of wizards intellectual property
You cannot bring into disrepute the products of wizards intellectual property
None of that says you can't sue wizards. ti says you can't publically ***** about their policies (since you are in a business relationship with them, it'd be a bad idea either), and it says you can't do some really silly things like "harm activities of wizards intellectual properties" which is impossible to happen.
It does seem also to say that you cant burn their books, but if you want to be a licensee why would you want to?
Wotc can create a very similiar (if not identical) item in one of their books and then not make it part of the SRD.
If you think about this a bit, this is a bit of a silly argument. How are we supposed to KNOW that they published something similar in another book? The license only imposes an obligation to look at the updated SRD which is listing of terms and other items that you are allowed to use. Not a comprehensive listing of don'ts found every single D&D product that Wizard's issues.
For example because they published a kobold Lair in the DMG mean I am precluded from writing my own kobold lair with my own map using my own creatures? There is nothing in the SRD that tells me that. Since the SRDs are the legal documents that I deal with then I am not in violation of anything.
Now if I took statblocks, map, artwork, and text out of the DMG not only I could lose my GSL grant but also be sued for copyright which already existed.
The GSL/SRD combination is about permission. In exchange for the following items out of our copyrighted text you have the following obligations. The prohibition is already covered by copyright law.
Now if I make a Thunderstrike Hycar Horselord and Wizards makes that one of their terms then there is trouble. For both of us. First Wizard's is in jeopardy outside of our agreement because they took something that didn't belong to them i.e. the Thunderstrike Hycar Horselord.
The GSL is limited to my use of the D&D 4th edition rules. Any other problem are resolved by the laws of the United States and the different States.
Now suppose I was foolish enough to use some term like Tough Warrior to define a class so I can present the full stat block of a fighter. Tough Warrior is a common term and if I made the Acme RPG with a Tough Warrior there is no way I can sue Wizards for making a Tough Warrior for their RPG.
But if I was using the GSL and Wizard happen to define their own Tough Warrior and then put it in the SRD terms. Then I am royally screwed.
So what does this exercise tell use. Don't be cute about trying to end-run wizards with your GSL material. Make truly original content. Instead of a Tough Warrior make a class called Immerian Pit Fighters, or Achean Spearman.
Also you are right in that you would be a fool to trust your most valuable IP to this license. However doesn't mean you can't take advantage of it. If you think you can profit despite the amount of work make something NEW just for 4th edition. Plan on only supporting it for a limited time (i.e. 5 to 10 years). Then you make your bucks and still keep the stuff you really value.
Also the *****torm also occurred on the initial release of the OGL and D20 STL. Wait and see what official clarification or modification they make.
The GSL is not the way to release that hit campaign you ran for 20 years. It is a business license and needs to be approached as such. Wizards is not in the business of stealing other people's intellectual property. The vaunted condemnation that they are only beholden to their shareholder means also they don't want to expose the company to unnecessary risks. Actually copying other people works via a one side license doesn't decrease risk but only makes them more of a target.
The problems you have stated aren't completely without merit, but they bring other situations. For example, the theory that the GSL will be to get everyone to sign up and the revoke it, killing any/all competition stinks of malice and would severely impact any judge's view of the spirit and intent of the license, which could render it completely worthless. The spirit and intent of any contract must be able to withstand scrutiny, which if the ideas being tossed around here such as killing all competition, stealing IP, and others come to pass, would draw considerable doubt on the GSL.
Thank you for bringing this point up- it's a big one. Contracts cannot just say anything and be ok in the eyes of the law. If WotC were to cancel the GSL after letting it run for a few months (long enough for a bunch of other companies to commit themselves and give up some OGL product lines), they would have to defend that decision in court.
Courts absolutely do not just say, "Hey, you signed a contract- tough luck!" to everyone. Contracts have to both follow the law and be signed with reasonably good intent. The law doesn't let people create evil trap contracts.
Now suppose I was foolish enough to use some term like Tough Warrior to define a class so I can present the full stat block of a fighter. Tough Warrior is a common term and if I made the Acme RPG with a Tough Warrior there is no way I can sue Wizards for making a Tough Warrior for their RPG.
Ah but, is the mere continued existence of your Tough Warrior "redefining" a '4e reference', or does creation/definition/redefinition only happen once?
Private: "I am screwed"
Sergeant: "Think in a postive manor son"
Private: "OK, I am *postive* that I am screwed"
-- david
Papa.DRB
The problems you have stated aren't completely without merit, but they bring other situations. For example, the theory that the GSL will be to get everyone to sign up and the revoke it, killing any/all competition stinks of malice and would severely impact any judge's view of the spirit and intent of the license, which could render it completely worthless. The spirit and intent of any contract must be able to withstand scrutiny, which if the ideas being tossed around here such as killing all competition, stealing IP, and others come to pass, would draw considerable doubt on the GSL.
Do you have a million dollars you can throw away so a judge can actually look at it? There is all sorts of "anti-lawsuit" language in the GSL (much of it admittedly pretty standard boilerplate). I think that Hasbro believes that no 3PP will have the resources to force a judge to actually look at the GSL to get it to this point and until that happens the only interpretation that matters is Wotc's. If a party to a contract can take advantage of the terms, if you are the other party, you have to assume that at some point they will.
-Polaris
Do you have a million dollars you can throw away so a judge can actually look at it? There is all sorts of "anti-lawsuit" language in the GSL (much of it admittedly pretty standard boilerplate). I think that Hasbro believes that no 3PP will have the resources to force a judge to actually look at the GSL to get it to this point and until that happens the only interpretation that matters is Wotc's. If a party to a contract can take advantage of the terms, if you are the other party, you have to assume that at some point they will.
-Polaris
Actually, there isn't.
10.3 is about lawsuits brought by wizards or you on others, as well as misusing Wizard's property - essentially saying you can't sue people on wizard's behalf, and you'll help wizards if they ask for it when they're suing someone else, and a bunch of stuff about not damaging wizards property or actions, but nothing about not damaging wizards.
10.4 is about wizards suing you regarding their intellectual property
11.4 is wizards suing you as well, regarding noncompliance with the license.
14 is about people suing wizards because of your product (say, if you manage to legally release BOEF and it gets into the hands of a minor) - basically if that happens you're responsible.
Courts absolutely do not just say, "Hey, you signed a contract- tough luck!" to everyone. Contracts have to both follow the law and be signed with reasonably good intent. The law doesn't let people create evil trap contracts.
You can put almost anything in a contract that isn't blatently illegal. It's up to the courts and a judge (usually) to determine what is and is not reasonable, and that assume that you have a big enough warchest to keep the suit active against Hasbro.
Good. Luck. With. That.
Basically in a situation where one party can outspend another party by a factor of 1000 to one (and that is not an exagerration in this case) the poorer party generally loses contract suits even if they are legally in the right.
-Polaris
Do you have a million dollars you can throw away so a judge can actually look at it? There is all sorts of "anti-lawsuit" language in the GSL (much of it admittedly pretty standard boilerplate). I think that Hasbro believes that no 3PP will have the resources to force a judge to actually look at the GSL to get it to this point and until that happens the only interpretation that matters is Wotc's. If a party to a contract can take advantage of the terms, if you are the other party, you have to assume that at some point they will.
-Polaris
wow....can we have a reality check on aisle 3 please? A million dollars?!? Nowhere even near the realm of possibility. A standard retainer for legal services (which should help you avoid the lawsuit)? A couple to several grand. Should you need to go to court? Well, you're looking at a few more grand, pending on what the retainer covers. It really doesn't take anywhere near as much as some people might have you believe to get it into court. And, the majority of these types of things are handled out of court.
You don't like the GSL? Fine. Don't use it. But, don't sit here and throw completely blatant, inflammatory, and ignorant statements about. Anyone who is seriously looking at using the GSL to publish either a) doesn't have much to lose or b) has enough to keep their basic ducks in a row. Yes, you have to take the worse to mind and either determine whether the worst case scenario is going to force you belly up, or be one you can withstand.
You keep saying that someone has to say these things. And, have further appointed yourself as that someone. But, face it, if anyone is seriously looking at going this route, you are not going to be their voice of reason and warning--their lawyers, partners, and investors are.
Actually, there isn't.
Actually there is.
Section 10.3 and I quote, "Licensee will not initiate any suit or take any action on account of any such infringements or imitations, or otherwise institute any suit to take any action regarding Wizard's Intellectual Property." (emphasis mine)
That last bit certain does mean you can't sue Wotc if they 'coincidentally' included on of your terms in their SRD and thus effectively seized your IP. That last clause prevents any IP suit against you against Wotc whatsoever.
-Polaris
wow....can we have a reality check on aisle 3 please? A million dollars?!? Nowhere even near the realm of possibility. A standard retainer for legal services (which should help you avoid the lawsuit)? A couple to several grand. Should you need to go to court? Well, you're looking at a few more grand, pending on what the retainer covers. It really doesn't take anywhere near as much as some people might have you believe to get it into court. And, the majority of these types of things are handled out of court.
A lawsuit can run you a million easy if Hasbro pulls out all the legal tricks (which they would). There are discovery costs, court costs, expert witness cost, the list goes on and on. The only way you get out with a few grand is if the judge gives you a summary judgement in your favor. IP law is so tricky when it comes to games especially roleplaying games whch straddle the line between art and a game, that you almost certainly would not get a summary judgement.
-Polaris
Actually there is.
Section 10.3 and I quote, "Licensee will not initiate any suit or take any action on account of any such infringements or imitations, or otherwise institute any suit to take any action regarding Wizard's Intellectual Property." (emphasis mine)
That last bit certain does mean you can't sue Wotc if they 'coincidentally' included on of your terms in their SRD and thus effectively seized your IP. That last clause prevents any IP suit against you against Wotc whatsoever.
-Polaris
Again, your logic is flawed, Polaris. You wouldn't be suing them in relation to their intellectual property. You would be suing them in relation to your intellectual property. The court may rule differently, that it was in fact their IP at the end, but that would be for the court to decide. Then, at that point you'd be in violation of the GSL after the fact, but you can already be sure you've lost your license, and another case could possibly be brought forth.
You can put almost anything in a contract that isn't blatently illegal. It's up to the courts and a judge (usually) to determine what is and is not reasonable, and that assume that you have a big enough warchest to keep the suit active against Hasbro.
Good. Luck. With. That.
Basically in a situation where one party can outspend another party by a factor of 1000 to one (and that is not an exagerration in this case) the poorer party generally loses contract suits even if they are legally in the right.
-Polaris
Actually, you can put anything in a contract, even something blatantly illegal. The courts still exist to determine the merit of contracts. It doesn't take a million dollars to sue someone either.
What we're discussing here is your doomsday scenario in which WotC yanks the GSL after a few months have passed and a few major 3PPs have voided their OGL rights. At that point, those companies would have both the resources and the incentive to band together and take things to court. The other alternative would be the destruction of their existing stock of books and the cessation of PDF sales. Obviously this is a really bad thing, so of course they would sue. At that point, WotC would have to show the court that they were acting in good faith and that they pulled the GSL for legitimate reasons.
Hasbro is not in a position to outspend other companies "1,000 to 1" in order to win such a trivial lawsuit. There is no godly reason to spend millions of dollars to get rid of OGL competitors and 3PPs for 4e. It would be absolutely brainless to make that move, because the cost vastly outweighs the benefit.
A lawsuit can run you a million easy if Hasbro pulls out all the legal tricks (which they would). There are discovery costs, court costs, expert witness cost, the list goes on and on. The only way you get out with a few grand is if the judge gives you a summary judgement in your favor. IP law is so tricky when it comes to games especially roleplaying games whch straddle the line between art and a game, that you almost certainly would not get a summary judgement.
-Polaris
Yes, a lawsuit can run into the millions. However, you said just for a judge to look at it. If you've got a clear cut case, which I should hope you would before taking on someone as big as Wizards, it is quite possible to get a summary judgment, and a lot of other things you mention don't even need to be included or cost that much. Plus, if you're sure enough that you're going to win a case, let's not forget that the loser pays. There are plenty of lawyers out there looking to jump on a big case to make a name for themselves, institute a new law, or what have you--finding a contingency based lawyer isn't hard unless you have a weak case.
Again, your logic is flawed, Polaris. You wouldn't be suing them in relation to their intellectual property. You would be suing them in relation to your intellectual property. The court may rule differently, that it was in fact their IP at the end, but that would be for the court to decide. Then, at that point you'd be in violation of the GSL after the fact, but you can already be sure you've lost your license, and another case could possibly be brought forth.
No it's not. Read the GSL again. Until and unless competant authority says otherwise, the sole and only entity that judges whether or not you are in violation of the GSL or not is Wizards. Given that Wizards would almost certainly view new SRD material as their IP, they would yank your GSL accordingly with all the termination provisons applying. At that point you've got a mess, and IP law when it come to RPGs is muddy at best. Unless Wizards blatently copied your material (which can be very hard to prove unless it's obvious), you probably are out your IP and your company.
Not worth it.
-Poalris
Polaris, you think I care about game mechanics? Sometimes, I feel like I want to pelt you with Canadian nickels.
Amethyst did very little to the 3.5 engine. We added Class Focus, tossed in some neat prestige classes and monsters and developed some rules when dealing with technology. We had no unique game-rule hook to sell to people. We let the setting do that. For our product, the ideas are everything. The setting that it presents is our product. We have no plans on adding in some new batch of rules or creating a swag of alternative approaches to rules. In fact, the wording in the SRD and the GSL is so unusual because it allows Amethyst to snake perfectly through the landscape and emerge with a totally unique concept that still feel like D&D as well as feeling like Amethyst.It’s about the setting, and the ideas we present are unique and copyrighted by an individual, not the company, which we then create a game based on that independent IP. Being the holder of that IP, I feel confident that WOTC will not try to damage their reputation by destroying a small player in the 3P market. Would I stake my IP on it?
Apparently, I might...
Actually, you can put anything in a contract, even something blatantly illegal. The courts still exist to determine the merit of contracts. It doesn't take a million dollars to sue someone either.
It can if appropriate tactics are used and they would be. It's easy for a deep-pockets party to run up suit costs astronomically. It's one big reason you don't want to wind up in a lawsuit against the govt unless you have huge pockets yourself.
Hasbro is not in a position to outspend other companies "1,000 to 1" in order to win such a trivial lawsuit. There is no godly reason to spend millions of dollars to get rid of OGL competitors and 3PPs for 4e. It would be absolutely brainless to make that move, because the cost vastly outweighs the benefit.
Actually Hasbro has extremely strong motives to make that move. Right now tabletop RPGs exist in a very muddy area between outright games (like Monopoly for example) and works of art (most fictional novels for example). It's very unclear how much of an RPG's text should be considered an expression of rules or an expression of artistic merit. Further complicating things is that computer games have much tighter controls over copyrighting rules (code in that case) then printed games.
The upshot of all this is, is Hasbro has a very strong incentive to make a predence setting case to reverse the notion that game rules can't be copyrighted at least when it comes to RPGs. Why? So at minimum they can take total control of the license possibly for future sale.
-Polaris
And thanks to all of you who have sent messages publicly and privately. We are a small operation and every word of support helps. We really appreciate it.
No it's not. Read the GSL again. Until and unless competant authority says otherwise, the sole and only entity that judges whether or not you are in violation of the GSL or not is Wizards. Given that Wizards would almost certainly view new SRD material as their IP, they would yank your GSL accordingly with all the termination provisons applying. At that point you've got a mess, and IP law when it come to RPGs is muddy at best. Unless Wizards blatently copied your material (which can be very hard to prove unless it's obvious), you probably are out your IP and your company.
Not worth it.
-Poalris
So, you agree with me by telling me I'm wrong? Strange, but not the worst you've done. If you decided to take them to court, we can all bet you'd lose the GSL. Point one. You agree. Your IP vs. their IP can be hard to prove unless it's obvious--a bit redundant, but we'll go with it. Again, you agree by saying it's the courts decision. The bottom line being: by taking legal action, you're challenging the merit of the GSL. The question is whether you'd be in violation of the GSL by taking them to court, and that could only be decided once actual ownership of the IP is decided. But, if you're going to damage your relationship with WotC by suing them, you're not going to member to the GSL anymore. So, really, I don't see where the argument is with this particular point.
Yes, a lawsuit can run into the millions. However, you said just for a judge to look at it. If you've got a clear cut case, which I should hope you would before taking on someone as big as Wizards, it is quite possible to get a summary judgment, and a lot of other things you mention don't even need to be included or cost that much. Plus, if you're sure enough that you're going to win a case, let's not forget that the loser pays. There are plenty of lawyers out there looking to jump on a big case to make a name for themselves, institute a new law, or what have you--finding a contingency based lawyer isn't hard unless you have a weak case.
I bolded the critical part of your above statement. The problem is if Wotc did what I am suggesting, then you'd be forced to argue what is and is not protected under copyright law as it applies to RPGs. There is nothing about this part of copyright law that is clear cut.
-Poalris
So, you agree with me by telling me I'm wrong? Strange, but not the worst you've done. If you decided to take them to court, we can all bet you'd lose the GSL. Point one. You agree. Your IP vs. their IP can be hard to prove unless it's obvious--a bit redundant, but we'll go with it. Again, you agree by saying it's the courts decision. The bottom line being: by taking legal action, you're challenging the merit of the GSL. The question is whether you'd be in violation of the GSL by taking them to court, and that could only be decided once actual ownership of the IP is decided. But, if you're going to damage your relationship with WotC by suing them, you're not going to member to the GSL anymore. So, really, I don't see where the argument is with this particular point.
Well yes, I am because you are ignoring the risks. If you attack the king, you have to kill the king. It's the same here. If you file that lawsuit and fail (even in part), you've just voided the entire GSL and you are hosed. Furthermore, you'd have to argue a point where the case law is NOT very clear if computer games are brought up (and Hasbro certainly would) and the nature of RPGs in general. Because it's not an especially clear area of law, you would probably not get a summary judgement and that means you lose because Hasbro can outspend you.
-Polaris
Actually there is.
Section 10.3 and I quote, "Licensee will not initiate any suit or take any action on account of any such infringements or imitations, or otherwise institute any suit to take any action regarding Wizard's Intellectual Property." (emphasis mine)
That last bit certain does mean you can't sue Wotc if they 'coincidentally' included on of your terms in their SRD and thus effectively seized your IP. That last clause prevents any IP suit against you against Wotc whatsoever.
-Polaris
That clause is the one that says you can't sue other people regarding Wizard's Intellectual Properties ('such infringements and imitations' being defined earlier as the things that you're helping them protect against)
It's there to keep you from trying to sue people for stealing your templated Kobold Lich that has Scorching Hands, since all those things are 4e references.
It can if appropriate tactics are used and they would be. It's easy for a deep-pockets party to run up suit costs astronomically. It's one big reason you don't want to wind up in a lawsuit against the govt unless you have huge pockets yourself.
Again, what is the incentive? It's a huge risk to run up the cost of a lawsuit. You can lose, no matter how rich you are, and then you have to pay.
Your claim here rests on WotC's willingness to put a lot of money on the line over something very small. The third-party market share is very small. You don't get successful in business by staking millions of dollars on a gamble to destroy tiny competitors. It's just not worth it.
Actually Hasbro has extremely strong motives to make that move. Right now tabletop RPGs exist in a very muddy area between outright games (like Monopoly for example) and works of art (most fictional novels for example). It's very unclear how much of an RPG's text should be considered an expression of rules or an expression of artistic merit. Further complicating things is that computer games have much tighter controls over copyrighting rules (code in that case) then printed games.
You disprove your own point. If RPGs are in a gray area, why would WotC spend *millions of dollars* to seek clarification? For that to be worthwhile, there would have to be some prospect of recouping that money. Where is this potential profit?
The upshot of all this is, is Hasbro has a very strong incentive to make a predence setting case to reverse the notion that game rules can't be copyrighted at least when it comes to RPGs. Why? So at minimum they can take total control of the license possibly for future sale.
-Polaris
First of all, your last sentence doesn't mean anything that I can decipher. Total control of what license? Sale? Huh?
Second, going to court carries the risk of losing. That means there would be a precedent created that would *hurt* WotC. Publicly-traded companies are not in the business of taking dumb risks. Going to court and potentially losing a case that would open up your IP to everyone is a dumb risk unless it has a considerable upside. You have yet to name any meaningful gain that WotC could hope for here.
Let's say they want to acquire some small-time writer's IP. You know an easy way to do this? HIRE the person or BUY his work. It's a lot cheaper than a multi-million dollar lawsuit and it doesn't bring any bad press. You think some small-time RPG writer will say no to a chance to get his version of psionics or whatever in the official rules? Suing people and trying to screw them out of their own work is not a smart tactic. It's expensive and risky.
That clause is the one that says you can't sue other people regarding Wizard's Intellectual Properties ('such infringements and imitations' being defined earlier as the things that you're helping them protect against)
It's there to keep you from trying to sue people for stealing your templated Kobold Lich that has Scorching Hands, since all those things are 4e references.
The thing is that preventing you from suing on behalf of wizard is not the only thing it does. That's why I quoted the sentence in it's entirety. READ IT AGAIN. Don't interpret. Don't asume. Just read it.
The second part of that sentence clearly states that if you file a suit (and it doesn't say against whom) that pertains to Wotc's IP, you are in violation of the GSL. If you file a suit against Wotc regarding their IP claiming that it violates your own you are in violation of the technical terms of 10.3.
-Polaris
If Wotc/Hasbro had complete control over the DnD IP (game rules, everything) that would be worth from what I can gather at least 10 years of profits (if not more) than running DnD. If you don't think that this idea hasn't at least been considered by Hasbro then you are kidding yourself. The more control you have over an IP means the more valuable it is.
-Polaris
It can if appropriate tactics are used and they would be. It's easy for a deep-pockets party to run up suit costs astronomically. It's one big reason you don't want to wind up in a lawsuit against the govt unless you have huge pockets yourself.
Again, I really wonder where you're getting your info here. I've been involved with lawsuits against the government, even won a few. Cost was nominal, less than it cost me to be a defendant in other cases. Further, let's remember that big companies don't make their money by partaking in big time lawsuits--they like to settle things quickly, and quietly, and do sometimes reap the benefit of ignorant/inherent fear that more money equals a "win" button. Also, while WotC has a strong ally in their parent company Hasbro, it doesn't mean that Hasbro gives them a key to the vault for pet projects. Wasn't it Ryan D. who said something along the lines of WotC barely earns a line in the Hasbro accounting books?
Actually Hasbro has extremely strong motives to make that move. Right now tabletop RPGs exist in a very muddy area between outright games (like Monopoly for example) and works of art (most fictional novels for example). It's very unclear how much of an RPG's text should be considered an expression of rules or an expression of artistic merit. Further complicating things is that computer games have much tighter controls over copyrighting rules (code in that case) then printed games.
The upshot of all this is, is Hasbro has a very strong incentive to make a predence setting case to reverse the notion that game rules can't be copyrighted at least when it comes to RPGs. Why? So at minimum they can take total control of the license possibly for future sale.
-Polaris
Hasbro has stepped into this minefield before. There have been all those version of Monopoly that people tote about, and Hasbro let them until a product came about that gave their IP a bad name. Ghettopoly, it was called. They won the lawsuit to stop the game from being made, but had a little bit of trouble when the producers brought in other unofficial variations of Monopoly, based on cities, sports teams, etc. The ruling was then that rules can't be copyrighted, but a product such as Ghettopoly damaged the image of Hasbro's IP. They don't go after other mimics, and they often license the Monopoly features for a relatively nominal fee. As evil as they may seem, they don't want to crush all competition.
I bolded the critical part of your above statement. The problem is if Wotc did what I am suggesting, then you'd be forced to argue what is and is not protected under copyright law as it applies to RPGs. There is nothing about this part of copyright law that is clear cut.
It is pretty well defined. Game mechanics cannot be protected by copyright. Presentation, wording, yes--that can be copyrighted, but not the mechanics. You're always referring to Steepike's comments, but now that they don't suit your needs, you're ignoring them?
Emwasick,
If Wotc/Hasbro had complete control over the DnD IP (game rules, everything) that would be worth from what I can gather at least 10 years of profits (if not more) than running DnD. If you don't think that this idea hasn't at least been considered by Hasbro then you are kidding yourself. The more control you have over an IP means the more valuable it is.
-Polaris
They allready control it. If they didn't then nobody would even need to use the GSL.
I don't see this massive sea change where WotC somehow owns DnD more than they do.
And I don't see how their going to make some huge profit from it either.
The thing is that preventing you from suing on behalf of wizard is not the only thing it does. That's why I quoted the sentence in it's entirety. READ IT AGAIN. Don't interpret. Don't asume. Just read it.
The second part of that sentence clearly states that if you file a suit (and it doesn't say against whom) that pertains to Wotc's IP, you are in violation of the GSL. If you file a suit against Wotc regarding their IP claiming that it violates your own you are in violation of the technical terms of 10.3.
-Polaris
That still doesn't mean you can't sue them in relation to your own IP.
Also, when was the last time someone accused WotC of stealing ideas? Have we ever heard of some OGL company who claims WotC writers ripped off their stuff? Why did the 3e era pass without anyone saying WotC stole their 3e ideas? Why would this change now? Is it because the evil 4e days are upon us and now anything goes?
Further, why would they even do this? It's just dumb to think that someone would make a character class or monster or whatever that was *so awesome* and so *obviously* profitable that WotC had to steal it so they could get even richer. Seriously, it's D&D. OK, Joe Shmoe wrote a kick-ass Druid PDF. Wow, maybe he'll make millions selling it. But Mike Mearls will come along and change things to make it harder for Joe to take WotC to court when the PH2 comes out with a ripoff of Joe's *amazing* Druid that is practically an ATM spewing out $50 bills all day long. Riiiiight.
Emwasick,
If Wotc/Hasbro had complete control over the DnD IP (game rules, everything) that would be worth from what I can gather at least 10 years of profits (if not more) than running DnD. If you don't think that this idea hasn't at least been considered by Hasbro then you are kidding yourself. The more control you have over an IP means the more valuable it is.
-Polaris
What are you talking about? Does someone else I'm not aware of own D&D?
When the GSL was released, I was initially concerned about what I could release. For me, I don't care that I can't go back to OGL as I don't have any products written for it. Besides, I like 4th Edition better than 3.0/3.5 :P
With all of the doom and gloom, it is refreshing to see some positive thinking in regards to the GSL and Wizards. Me and my peoples are on the same page of EpochGames and SerenaDawn. Yes it's more restrictive but it is open enough to allow some really great content out there for the gamer community. Could Wizards go after us? Sure, always a possiblity. Will they? Assuming we follow the rules of the GSL, I'm gonna bet no.
Hasbro has stepped into this minefield before. There have been all those version of Monopoly that people tote about, and Hasbro let them until a product came about that gave their IP a bad name. Ghettopoly, it was called. They won the lawsuit to stop the game from being made, but had a little bit of trouble when the producers brought in other unofficial variations of Monopoly, based on cities, sports teams, etc. The ruling was then that rules can't be copyrighted, but a product such as Ghettopoly damaged the image of Hasbro's IP. They don't go after other mimics, and they often license the Monopoly features for a relatively nominal fee. As evil as they may seem, they don't want to crush all competition.
Yes, and that started with Anti-Opoly. The problem is that Monopoly is a board game. The rules for such games (and sports) are very well laid out and the precedents are clear.
It is pretty well defined. Game mechanics cannot be protected by copyright. Presentation, wording, yes--that can be copyrighted, but not the mechanics. You're always referring to Steepike's comments, but now that they don't suit your needs, you're ignoring them?
No I'm not. I am repeating what Stearpike7 said in fact on the old C-and-C boards. Right now the precedence for RPGs is that game rules can't be copyrighted. This is true. However, the precedence for tabletop RPGs is far less clear cut because the presentation and rule themselves arguably have artistic merit in of themselves (an argument you can't make very well for a standard board-game). As such, and especially considering there is a strong computer game tie-in where the precedence is quite different (you CAN copyright code), you've got a legal mess which means the case is sufficiently murky so you won't get the summary judgement.
Sure you can win against the govt or a big corporation, but you almost have to get a summary judgement (or the company/govt/whatever feels that the action isn't worth their time and buys you out....most suits never make it to court).
-Polaris
They allready control it. If they didn't then nobody would even need to use the GSL.
No they really don't. Right now, I can print an entire game that is DnD and as long as I don't call it that explicitly, I'm fine. That's becaue the OGL is perpetual and that means that Wotc doesn't control their entire IP (DnD).
Because of that, it is my belief that Wotc has determined that the OGL has to die. Wotc can't kill it outfight, so they are effectively trying to poison it out of existance.
-Polaris
No they really don't. Right now, I can print an entire game that is DnD and as long as I don't call it that explicitly, I'm fine. That's becaue the OGL is perpetual and that means that Wotc doesn't control their entire IP (DnD).
Because of that, it is my belief that Wotc has determined that the OGL has to die. Wotc can't kill it outfight, so they are effectively trying to poison it out of existance.
-Polaris
Good grief. The biggest reason people buy D&D is because it's called D&D. It's not the only reason and content does matter, but it's a big one.
If you want to publish a game under the OGL, you can. But you can't market it as D&D. That means you will be lucky to sell anything much at all. Look at the explosion of OGL companies at the beginning of 3.0, back in 2000. What happened to most of them? They went out of business.
And that is precisely my point. Yes, anyone can come along and make a D&D ripoff that uses the 3.5 SRD and little else. But hardly anyone will buy it. It's not worth an expensive lawsuit to kill that.
The thing is that preventing you from suing on behalf of wizard is not the only thing it does. That's why I quoted the sentence in it's entirety. READ IT AGAIN. Don't interpret. Don't asume. Just read it.
The second part of that sentence clearly states that if you file a suit (and it doesn't say against whom) that pertains to Wotc's IP, you are in violation of the GSL. If you file a suit against Wotc regarding their IP claiming that it violates your own you are in violation of the technical terms of 10.3.
-Polaris
"institute any suit to take any action regarding Wizard's Intellectual Property."
Okay, as I understand it, no lawsuit of the type could be held to say it pertains to WOTC's IP. It's a lawsuit regarding YOUR IP, and whether what WOTC has is infringing on it. They can't point at it and say, you can't sue, because it hasn't been established that it's WOTC's IP that you're suing about. If it has been established, then you've already lost anyway.
Afterwards, if you win, then it's not WOTC's ip. if you lose, then it was determined that what you were suing about, and WOTC's IP are seperate.
Only the most twisted interpretation could say that you trying to sue someone that infringed on your copyright is "suing regarding their intellectual property". You can't say "I'm not going to sue Wizards because I can't sue them regarding their intellectual property that they stole" because in that case it's not their intellectual property.
However: what it IS preventing you from doing, is suing them for leaving Beholders out of the SRD, or having an encounter power called "Polaris's Mother is a Prostitute", since that would be their intellectual property you would be suing about.
"institute any suit to take any action regarding Wizard's Intellectual Property."
Yes, but read the rest of the GSL. Who gets to determine if that item you are suing about is your IP or Wotc's.
Answer: Wizards. The contract specifically says so.
As such just by filing the suit, Wotc can (and probably would) terminate your GSL on this basis and via section 11 just in case they lost in court.
Either way, you're hosed.
-Polaris
"institute any suit to take any action regarding Wizard's Intellectual Property."
Okay, as I understand it, no lawsuit of the type could be held to say it pertains to WOTC's IP. It's a lawsuit regarding YOUR IP, and whether what WOTC has is infringing on it. They can't point at it and say, you can't sue, because it hasn't been established that it's WOTC's IP that you're suing about. If it has been established, then you've already lost anyway.
Afterwards, if you win, then it's not WOTC's ip. if you lose, then it was determined that what you were suing about, and WOTC's IP are seperate.
Only the most twisted interpretation could say that you trying to sue someone that infringed on your copyright is "suing regarding their intellectual property". You can't say "I'm not going to sue Wizards because I can't sue them regarding their intellectual property that they stole" because in that case it's not their intellectual property.
However: what it IS preventing you from doing, is suing them for leaving Beholders out of the SRD, or having an encounter power called "Polaris's Mother is a Prostitute", since that would be their intellectual property you would be suing about.
Well, the latter would be against other laws, so it wouldn't be an IP lawsuit.
Anyway, the real point of that clause is to point out that licensees cannot sue someone else on WotC's behalf. Emwasick Enterprises can't take Webrunner Publishing to court for misusing WotC IP that happens to also be in a book published by Emwasick Enterprises, for example. There is nothing more sinister behind this.
And that is precisely my point. Yes, anyone can come along and make a D&D ripoff that uses the 3.5 SRD and little else. But hardly anyone will buy it. It's not worth an expensive lawsuit to kill that.
The Pocket Player's Handbook called and would like to have a word with you.
-Polaris
Ah but, is the mere continued existence of your Tough Warrior "redefining" a '4e reference', or does creation/definition/redefinition only happen once?
That is a good question to put to wizards and I hope they answer. It not like the OGL came down from on high and everyone "got it". No it took months for everything to be understood. The same process will occur with the GSL.
My dollar is on that they truly want us to write our own classes, powers, and monsters and not use what in the core books which is reserved to their stuff. That if in the months to come they release a Tough Warrior after a 3rd party did they are not going to care. That like the d20 SRD a few more sections will be thrown into the SRD and once all the core 3rd edition classes core rules (psionic classes) and monsters make it over they will stop updating the SRD.
But the first step to ask Wizards these questions. Then we will know whether we can do Tough Warriors, Arcane Mages or more esoteric stuff like Immerian Pit Fighter.
Looking over the GSL more and more, I am getting more impressed its clever wording. The intent and meaning of the words should be understood. For one, I sincerely don't think WOTC will pursue a company if they terminate their 4ED agreement and return to OGL. If WOTC terminates your license, it would be petty and costly for them to pursue legal action to prevent you from developing the same franchise as a non 4ED. I think this language deals with the conversion and for adventures based within the 4ED setting. When dealing with 3P products, WOTC cannot stop the holder of the 3P IP from selling the game setting to another company or even to that same company.
I think if that was to occur that any mechanics done in 4th edition will largely be useless. Are you going to seriously convert a complete set of 4th edition style powers into 3rd edition class features and feats? Look how difficult to convert a 3rd edition.
You will be using the same cast, locales but redraft their stats and rebalance the encounters. 4th edition isn't the D&D of earlier editions unlike 3rd edition there are only a few points of intersection. Doesn't it isn't a fun game or a good game but it not the same game.
Yes, but read the rest of the GSL. Who gets to determine if that item you are suing about is your IP or Wotc's.
Answer: Wizards. The contract specifically says so.
What the License specificially says is that they have the sole right of determining if you comply with the GSL. GSL compliance and IP are two completely different things. I think you really need to look up Intellectual property in a legal dictionary, because its seems to me that you are ignorant to the actual meaning of the term.
The Pocket Player's Handbook called and would like to have a word with you.
-Polaris
How many copies did that sell? Is the company that made it rich? Did WotC sue anyone over it?
I'm new in the forum and I hope to learn much more about GSL with your help.
I have read carefully this thread but I found myself sometimes confused.
So I ask you to explain me better the situation of clause 18.
In this clause, seems that WotC could do this:
1) acquire, license and develop
2) market or distribute materials or products that contains
a) concepts
b) storylines
c) content (general, name and other things) similar or
compete with Licensed products
If I not misunderstood seems that Wotc could take an idea and its development; a storylines and its development and all the content, for its products. Take an idea means take sometimes the entire developed book or products. Take a storyline means that your adventure story could be adapted, used and developed in other ways.
And you have no ways to defend yourself and your "intellectual property".
In the OGL there was a Product identity that anybody couldn't use (name, storylines and so on) so every idea or concept or name or story were safe.
Now not.
I don't say that WotC could "steal" your ideas, but they could "acquire" without any problems of copyright. Further they could acquire the compete materials, too.
In this case, what about campaign setting that for the most are complete "original ideas or concepts, names and storylines and content?
I think it's not a good idea to publish such settings because you could loose control of your own world.
or I'm wrong, and there is something that I've missed about it?
Further, even if I include third part content, having the copyright to do so, i'm not secure that WotC could not use it, because I include that content in a licensed products that, as licensed products, remains in the hand of WotC.
So what really would happen?
Thanks for your support!
What the License specificially says is that they have the sole right of determining if you comply with the GSL. GSL compliance and IP are two completely different things. I think you really need to look up Intellectual property in a legal dictionary, because its seems to me that you are ignorant to the actual meaning of the term.
Not at all. I have read the GSL. I suggest you do the same. Consider the hypothethical situation where Licensee A comes up with the Black-Forest Nature Priest. That is not in the SRD and so this person is fine. Then a year later Wotc publishes a Black-Forest Nature Priest and puts it in the SRD. This class is similiar in flavor to "A"s but different mechanically. Has Wotc violated A's copyright? Probably not because only expressions of ideas are protected. Howeever, even if it did violate A's copyright, Wotc would take the position that it did not. So what happens:
1. A is now in violation of the GSL and can't use any of her "Black-Forest-Nature Priest" material at all. Effectively her IP is void.
2. If she sues Wotc, then by Wotc's estimatation, she is in violation of 10.3 (rather explicitly so in fact) and the entire GSL is cancelled on that basis. Wotc also uses section 11 to cancell it as well just in case they get an unfriendly judge.
Result: "A" is completely hosed and has effectively lost her IP and probably her business.
-Polaris
Edit PS: I notice that no one from Wotc is explaining and/or defending the provisions of the GSL (esp the provisions I am talking about). I wonder why? [Should be obvious]
1. A is now in violation of the GSL and can't use any of her "Black-Forest-Nature Priest" material at all. Effectively her IP is void.
When you say "at all" doesn't that mean just can't use it in GSL or OGL products? That is the significant majority of the small time publisher's options, but they still have other avenues where they can use their IP unless I have missed something pretty big.
When you say "at all" doesn't that mean just can't use it in GSL or OGL products? That is the significant majority of the small time publisher's options, but they still have other avenues where they can use their IP unless I have missed something pretty big.
I mean at all. Section 4 of the GSL binds you to the terms of use found in the SRD (page 2) for those terms referenced by the SRD. Those terms of agreement would exclude you from using your original "Black-Forest-Nature Priest" at all because it would have the same name as the SRD entry but different mechanics. Can't do that even if your creation was first. The SRD is completely retroactive (see section 2).
-Polaris
I mean at all. Section 4 of the GSL binds you to the terms of use found in the SRD (page 2) for those terms referenced by the SRD. Those terms of agreement would exclude you from using your original "Black-Forest-Nature Priest" at all because it would have the same name as the SRD entry but different mechanics. Can't do that even if your creation was first. The SRD is completely retroactive (see section 2).
-Polaris
No.
Those restrictions in section 4 apply only to a "Licensed Product" by which they mean a GSL product.
As long as you are no longer using the GSL and have the DnD logo on your stuff, your IP is yours.
Section 2 says:
Licensee’s continued use of any Licensed Materials (as defined below) after the “Last Updated” date above, including without limitation any publication or distribution of Licensed Products (as defined below), confirms Licensee’s acceptance of any changes to the License.
So if they come out with a new SRD that you don't like, you can just stop making GSL materials and your IP is safe.
I mean at all. Section 4 of the GSL binds you to the terms of use found in the SRD (page 2) for those terms referenced by the SRD. Those terms of agreement would exclude you from using your original "Black-Forest-Nature Priest" at all because it would have the same name as the SRD entry but different mechanics. Can't do that even if your creation was first. The SRD is completely retroactive (see section 2).
-Polaris
Sigh. This is probably pointless, but I'll try one last time. Polaris, you do not give up ownership of your IP by partaking in the GSL. Entering an item into the GSL, you cannot produce that under the GSL if the license is revoked and you cannot go back to the OGL. Wizards owns both these licenses and is perfectly within their right to bar your use of them. Nothing in the GSL grants WotC ownership of your IP. Nothing in the GSL prevents you from moving over to a non-WotC owned license.
It rises over the cusp to shine as a beacon of hope to a new generation of 3P developers willing to follow in the wake of the big blue whale that has recently emerged from an ocean of OGL. Amidst this deluge of product, we have an opportunity to create something original and interesting. It can be done... freely... legally.
It is not about what cool rules you can add. A campaign setting has always been about ideas. Amethyst was not written because we had some unique slant to the rules. I had a concept. I teamed with some friends to develop said project. It was based on an idea, not a mechanic. All further products, games, novels I put my mind to will always be based on that statement.
If I just released the setting with no rules, then that would be OK to. Why did any of you buy Midnight? Dragonlance? Was it because of the prestige classes or the variety of magic swords...or the setting you wanted to wrap yourself in? OGL is great and I loved it...but we have an opportunity to ride the surf of this goliath.
For those interested in ideas, in the setting and story of a game more than mechanics, exit with me stage left, under the sign that says GSL.
Thank You.
So if they come out with a new SRD that you don't like, you can just stop making GSL materials and your IP is safe.
False. The GSL gives Wotc the explicit right to determine whether or not any product you ever make is a licensed product (read 6.1 carefully). This effectively means you can't use your IP at all without Wotc's permission.
Sigh. This is probably pointless, but I'll try one last time. Polaris, you do not give up ownership of your IP by partaking in the GSL. Entering an item into the GSL, you cannot produce that under the GSL if the license is revoked and you cannot go back to the OGL. Wizards owns both these licenses and is perfectly within their right to bar your use of them. Nothing in the GSL grants WotC ownership of your IP. Nothing in the GSL prevents you from moving over to a non-WotC owned license.
If I can't use my IP, profit from my IP, and have to ask permission just to make sure that the product my IP isn't a "licensed" GSL product, then I don't own my IP.
It's like "owning" a car that you aren't allowed to drive, aren't allowed to lease, have to get permission to use the keys, etc.
You may call that ownership. I do not.
-Polaris
For those interested in ideas, in the setting and story of a game more than mechanics, exit with me stage left, under the sign that says GSL.
And please understand that it wouldn't be the best decision for some people to join the GSL despite being interested in those things as well.
To say otherwise, makes me feel the same way as when people call those who sign onto the GSL stupid. It makes me irritated at the person making those statements and makes me not want to consider following you.
False. The GSL gives Wotc the explicit right to determine whether or not any product you ever make is a licensed product (read 6.1 carefully). This effectively means you can't use your IP at all without Wotc's permission.
6.1 Only applies to OGL products.
And please understand that it wouldn't be the best decision for some people to join the GSL despite being interested in those things as well.
To say otherwise, makes me feel the same way as when people call those who sign onto the GSL stupid. It makes me irritated at the person making those statements and makes me not want to consider following you.
Thankfully, I never said GSL was stupid, nor did I say OGL was. I love OGL. In some ways, I like it more because of its absolute freedom. We could do our game without any fear of reprisal or compromise. Following WOTC in 4ED is a financial decision first and foremost. The fact its mechanics have a positive angle is a bonus.
What I am saying is that you don't have to give up your uniqueness or livelyhood by going GSL.
Is it possible for WotC to pull the rug out from under you by the GSL?? Yes.
Is it probable that they will do that?? No.
Of course, that is from my point of view. Others will have very different points of view. Only time will tell which is correct.
Thankfully, I never said GSL was stupid, nor did I say OGL was. I love OGL. In some ways, I like it more because of its absolute freedom. We could do our game without any fear of reprisal or compromise. Following WOTC in 4ED is a financial decision first and foremost. The fact its mechanics have a positive angle is a bonus.
What I am saying is that you don't have to give up your uniqueness or livelyhood by going GSL.
It was just that I was getting a sense of "If you believe in all that is good, follow me to the GSL!" from that part of your post. It kinda gave me the feeling that you were taking a shot at companies that don't go with the GSL (because it is not a good decision for them) as if they weren't "interested in ideas, in the setting and story of a game more than mechanics."
I wasn't sure if it was intended, I just wanted to say that it felt mildly insulting to me.
I was implying that it shouldn't matter what rules you use if you have an interesting setting. What I am saying is that if you have an interesting idea, you shouldn't be afraid of the GSL...and for those of us without the clout to carry a 3.5 game on their name, it is a great opportunity.
Good luck to you!
[for what it's worth, SerenaDawn's website kicks ass!]
Hi everybody.
I'm new in the forum and I hope to learn much more about GSL with your help.
I have read carefully this thread but I found myself sometimes confused.
So I ask you to explain me better the situation of clause 18.
In this clause, seems that WotC could do this:
1) acquire, license and develop
2) market or distribute materials or products that contains
a) concepts
b) storylines
c) content (general, name and other things) similar or
compete with Licensed products
If I not misunderstood seems that Wotc could take an idea and its development; a storylines and its development and all the content, for its products. Take an idea means take sometimes the entire developed book or products. Take a storyline means that your adventure story could be adapted, used and developed in other ways.
And you have no ways to defend yourself and your "intellectual property".
These are common questions and there is a lot of misinformation flying around, but I'm pretty sure that the GSL doesn't say those things.
Section 18 simply says that WotC is not guaranteeing any sort of exclusive license to anyone. Someone who signs the GSL is allowed to make things, but is *not* allowed to claim exclusive right to make those things.
For example, let's say I publish an alternate class, the Summoner, under the GSL. Then, a year later, someone else makes a Summoner class under the GSL. I can't go suing the other guy simply for using that name. I can't complain to WotC about it and act like I was the only one allowed to call a class by that name. On the other hand, if that other guy broke some laws, he's in trouble. Anyone can *independently* develop things, but no one can copy my work. Basically, section 18 simply means that the GSL doesn't offer any additional protections. It does not void copyright law though!
In the OGL there was a Product identity that anybody couldn't use (name, storylines and so on) so every idea or concept or name or story were safe.
Now not.
I don't say that WotC could "steal" your ideas, but they could "acquire" without any problems of copyright. Further they could acquire the compete materials, too.
In this case, what about campaign setting that for the most are complete "original ideas or concepts, names and storylines and content?
I think it's not a good idea to publish such settings because you could loose control of your own world.
or I'm wrong, and there is something that I've missed about it?
Further, even if I include third part content, having the copyright to do so, i'm not secure that WotC could not use it, because I include that content in a licensed products that, as licensed products, remains in the hand of WotC.
So what really would happen?
Thanks for your support!
Last thing first! Section 10.2 deals with third party IP and licenses. It says:
10.2 Third Party IP. To the extent any Licensed Product contains third party content or any content that is otherwise subject to the intellectual property rights of any third party, including without limitation any patents, copyrights, trademarks, rights of privacy or publicity (“Third Party IP”), then, as between Licensee and Wizards, Licensee is the licensee of all Third Party IP contained in such Licensed Product. Licensee will obtain all required licenses and permissions for its use of Third Party IP in the Licensed Products.
This means the licensee of third party IP remains the licensee and has full responsibility for obtaining license. It's actually another "everything is normal" clause. It says that to use anyone else's IP, you have to get permission. WotC won't do it for you. It does not grant WotC the license that you have. Usually licenses are not transferable, so even if the GSL said that, it probably wouldn't matter.
As to your first point, copyright law still applies. If someone writes something that is clearly derivative of your work, it doesn't matter whether or not you signed the GSL. I hope this answers some of your questions.
Yes there is a lot of misinformation around and not all (or even most) of it is anti-GSL. Frankly a lot of it (IMHO most) is from the 'pro'-GSL side.
1. Does section 18 mean you give up your copyrights when you sign the GSL?
No. Section 18 by itself is fairly standard boilerplate which amounts to, "If we come up with a similiar idea to yours, you can't hold us responsible for that." In this Emwasick is correct.
However, when this section is combined with sections 4 and 2 and with the fact that in the GSL Wotc and only Wotc determines what is and is not a product under this license, you stand real risk of losing control over your own IP. Yes, technically Wotc can't take that away from you, but this GSL when enforced in the most draconian way possible (and that's the way you have to read contracts), can prevent you from using it which amounts to the same thing.
2. It's true that section 10.2 deals with third party rights. It only deals with third party IP rights (i.e. IP that is owned by neither you nor Wotc). It does not indicate nor promise that Wotc will left a finger to defend or even respect your own IP rights. However the subsection following, 10.3 does prohibit you from suing wotc over any issue relating to Wotc IP and IP rights (and that would be most copyright and IP related disputes).
3. If you sign the GSL, it supercedes any copyright protections and rights you may have had because it's a voluntary agreement. This is why companies (not just Wotc) prefer Licensing agreements since contract disputes are generally straitforward and easy to prove in court. IP cases involving copyright (especially with RPGs) are anything but.
-Polaris
Not at all. I have read the GSL. I suggest you do the same. Consider the hypothethical situation where Licensee A comes up with the Black-Forest Nature Priest. That is not in the SRD and so this person is fine. Then a year later Wotc publishes a Black-Forest Nature Priest and puts it in the SRD. This class is similiar in flavor to "A"s but different mechanically. Has Wotc violated A's copyright? Probably not because only expressions of ideas are protected. Howeever, even if it did violate A's copyright, Wotc would take the position that it did not. So what happens:
1. A is now in violation of the GSL and can't use any of her "Black-Forest-Nature Priest" material at all. Effectively her IP is void.
Whoa, horsey. A lot of people want to know what happens to something published under the GSL that is later defined by WotC in a subsequent version of the GSL. This is one of the biggest- possibly the biggest- question of the GSL. And we don't have an answer, so don't pretend we do.
The answer depends on (1) Can WotC legally hold people to a retroactive limitation? (2) Will WotC deem people in violation of the GSL if existing works are found to contain redefinitions of defined terms in the GSL?
These are big questions, and we shouldn't expect answers any time soon.
2. If she sues Wotc, then by Wotc's estimatation, she is in violation of 10.3 (rather explicitly so in fact) and the entire GSL is cancelled on that basis. Wotc also uses section 11 to cancell it as well just in case they get an unfriendly judge.
Again, read Section 10.3's title. It is "Protection of Wizards’ Rights." It deals with bringing suit against parties that infringe on WotC IP. It just does NOT mean you are not allowed to sue WotC over IP issues. It means you cannot sue anyone ON BEHALF OF WotC and attempt to collect damages. It doesn't mean that WotC can break copyright law and get away with it.
Is it possible for WotC to pull the rug out from under you by the GSL?? Yes.
Is it probable that they will do that?? No.
Mudbunny,
How can you be so sure? The GSL gives Wotc the right to change the terms retroactively with effectively no notice. Just because Wotc might not intend to apply the GSL in a draconian fashion now in no way assures anyone that they won't three years from now....or even three days from now. In any corporation there is a significant amount of turnover, and Wotc is no exception.
However, if you sign the GSL, you are stuck with the terms forever because even though Wotc can change it at will, many of the terms last in perpetuity (the nastiest ones I am sorry to say) long after the license itself is terminated.
-Polaris
Realistically, small publishers may have nothing to lose and eveything to gain. Even if in the end the GSL kills one idea, diversification is the key to survival, just as it is in almost any line of business.
[for what it's worth, SerenaDawn's website kicks ass!]
Thanks for that. We tried to do the best we could and...well...we weren't thinking of profit when the planned out such things as artwork and presentation. We are a small group that loves what it does and likes sharing it. From my personal end, I never, ever get bored of hearing these comments and thank you. If we do end up going 4.0, this belief will not change.
Again, read Section 10.3's title. It is "Protection of Wizards’ Rights." It deals with bringing suit against parties that infringe on WotC IP. It just does NOT mean you are not allowed to sue WotC over IP issues. It means you cannot sue anyone ON BEHALF OF WotC and attempt to collect damages. It doesn't mean that WotC can break copyright law and get away with it.
The title doesn't mean anything. The exact terms in the section do. Here is the sentence in question and I quote:
Licensee will not institute any suit or take any action on account of any such infringements and limitations, or otherwise institute any suit or take any action relating to Wizard's Intellectual Property
(emphasis mine)
Yes, the first part of that sentence does indeed relate back to what you said. The second independant claus does not. It is far more comprehensive. Read literally (and you have to), it does indeed mean you give up the right to issue an IP suit or take any IP related action against Wotc.
-Polaris
Vivienne,
Yes there is a lot of misinformation around and not all (or even most) of it is anti-GSL. Frankly a lot of it (IMHO most) is from the 'pro'-GSL side.
1. Does section 18 mean you give up your copyrights when you sign the GSL?
No. Section 18 by itself is fairly standard boilerplate which amounts to, "If we come up with a similiar idea to yours, you can't hold us responsible for that." In this Emwasick is correct.
However, when this section is combined with sections 4 and 2 and with the fact that in the GSL Wotc and only Wotc determines what is and is not a product under this license, you stand real risk of losing control over your own IP. Yes, technically Wotc can't take that away from you, but this GSL when enforced in the most draconian way possible (and that's the way you have to read contracts), can prevent you from using it which amounts to the same thing.
Again, you are assuming. You don't have any information on what happens when an existing product contains terms that are defined under a new version of the GSL. This is what I mean when I say "misinformation." You don't really know, but you answer questions anyway.
2. It's true that section 10.2 deals with third party rights. It only deals with third party IP rights (i.e. IP that is owned by neither you nor Wotc). It does not indicate nor promise that Wotc will left a finger to defend or even respect your own IP rights. However the subsection following, 10.3 does prohibit you from suing wotc over any issue relating to Wotc IP and IP rights (and that would be most copyright and IP related disputes).
First, why would the GSL (or any license) contain provisions to protect the licensee's IP? You act like WotC should be doing that, even though it would be totally bizarre. Again, your eagerness to portray WotC as unlimited villains puts everything you say in doubt.
Again, Section 10.3 does not actually say that you cannot sue WotC for infringing on your IP. It says "Licensee will not institute any suit or take any action on account of any such infringements or imitations, or otherwise institute any suit or take any action relating to Wizards Intellectual Property."
A reasonable reading of this is that a licensee cannot go after someone else who infringes on WotC IP for damages. Only WotC can do that. This isn't weird at all. It absolutely does not say that the licensee forfeits IP rights.
3. If you sign the GSL, it supercedes any copyright protections and rights you may have had because it's a voluntary agreement. This is why companies (not just Wotc) prefer Licensing agreements since contract disputes are generally straitforward and easy to prove in court. IP cases involving copyright (especially with RPGs) are anything but.
-Polaris
How about you tell me about a few copyright cases involving RPGs that wasn't straightforward. Name a few, please. Prove you didn't pull that out of thin air.
The GSL would supersede your copyright *if it mentioned doing so.* But it does not say this anywhere in the document. If you think it does, find a direct statement that says this. If you think 10.3 implies this (instead of implying a far more reasonable protection) then find a lawyer that supports this incredibly extreme reading. I simply cannot take your word for it.
Mudbunny,
How can you be so sure?
I'm not Mudbunny, but- the same exact charge was made when the 3e OGL came out. "They're going to steal all our IP!!!"
That didn't happen.
Again, you are assuming. You don't have any information on what happens when an existing product contains terms that are defined under a new version of the GSL. This is what I mean when I say "misinformation." You don't really know, but you answer questions anyway.
I can read english. A plain language read of the GSL DOES support what I have said and I note that no one from Wotc has denied it. Even if they did, it would be meaningless because Wotc could change their mind in the time it takes to alter a web page (about five minutes).
First, why would the GSL (or any license) contain provisions to protect the licensee's IP? You act like WotC should be doing that, even though it would be totally bizarre. Again, your eagerness to portray WotC as unlimited villains puts everything you say in doubt.
Bollocks. The GSL goes way beyond trying to protect Wotc's IP rights. It's main purpose is to destroy the OGL or haven't you figured that out yet?
I hate to say it,. but given the GSL the way it's written (and it did NOT have to be written this way), Wotc does deserve to wear the black-hat.
Again, Section 10.3 does not actually say that you cannot sue WotC for infringing on your IP. It says "Licensee will not institute any suit or take any action on account of any such infringements or imitations, or otherwise institute any suit or take any action relating to Wizards Intellectual Property."
A reasonable reading of this is that a licensee cannot go after someone else who infringes on WotC IP for damages. Only WotC can do that. This isn't weird at all. It absolutely does not say that the licensee forfeits IP rights.
There is no such thing as a "reasonable" reading in a contract unless it's being done by a judge. Seriously. Before you sign a contract, you have to account for the most draconian and even paranoid way it can be abused by the other party. It's called caveat emptor.
How about you tell me about a few copyright cases involving RPGs that wasn't straightforward. Name a few, please. Prove you didn't pull that out of thin air.
TSR vs Mayfair game just for starts. Not at all as straightforward as many believe. On the C-and-C Arc-tan of all people was pointing out that tabletop RPGs could arguably be considered published works of art rather than simple games. While Steerpike7 disagreed with this (as did I), he did note that it was a viable argument...and that means the issue is hardly settled.
The GSL would supersede your copyright *if it mentioned doing so.* But it does not say this anywhere in the document. If you think it does, find a direct statement that says this. If you think 10.3 implies this (instead of implying a far more reasonable protection) then find a lawyer that supports this incredibly extreme reading. I simply cannot take your word for it.
False. In the event of any conflict between a contract provision and your rights under copyright law, the contract povision wins. That's because the contract provison assumes informed consent and that means you knew you were signing away some rights under copyright law when entering into the agreement. It does not have to be explicit.
-Polaris
I'm not Mudbunny, but- the same exact charge was made when the 3e OGL came out. "They're going to steal all our IP!!!"
That didn't happen.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China. Wotc today is completely different than Wotc of 2000. Wotc of 2000 had just recently been bought by Hasbro and still had the pre-Hasbro management. That meant that Wotc still had the mentality of a privately owned company by gamers for gamers (a position they had all throughout the 1980s and 1990s).
Wotc today is nothing like Wotc of eight years ago. This argument fails.
-Polaris
The title doesn't mean anything. The exact terms in the section do. Here is the sentence in question and I quote:
(emphasis mine)
Yes, the first part of that sentence does indeed relate back to what you said. The second independant claus does not. It is far more comprehensive. Read literally (and you have to), it does indeed mean you give up the right to issue an IP suit or take any IP related action against Wotc.
-Polaris
Your interpretation is, as usual, really extreme. I'm not going to say that there is no chance in the universe that you are reading this as intended, but if you are, then the license effectively has a trap. In your reading, it has a section that claims to pertain to lawsuits regarding WotC IP, but which actually contains terms that prevent licensees from protecting themselves from copyright infringements by WotC.
If this reading is correct, it means that the GSL was written to trick people into surrendering the protections of copyright law. Lawyers do some sneaky things, but isn't this a bit much? For one thing, what would WotC hope to gain by this? Yes, they could steal the ideas of any GSL licensee and not get sued, assuming the courts upheld the license. Then they could order the licensee to destroy all of his books, stop selling PDFs, and cease publication of GSL products.
But this is ridiculous. For one thing, there would be an absolute deluge of bad press and ill will. No one would want to keep writing under the GSL once it became clear that the license allowed WotC to freely steal whatever ideas they wanted.
If WotC wanted no one to write 4e supplements, they simply wouldn't have a GSL. If WotC wanted someone's ideas, they would frickin' *HIRE* the person. It's a lot simpler than having your legal team make a trap license that suckers everyone into surrendering the right to defend their IP. I'm sorry, but your reading simply fails because of Occam's Razor. There is an easy way to scare off everyone from publishing for 4e: NO GSL AT ALL.
And before you say that the OGL would let people write 4e-compatible supplements, no, it wouldn't. If you want to write something for 4e, using the OGL means you need a lawyer so you can tiptoe around WotC's copyrights. And for what? The privilege of making a supplement that cannot mention anything about D&D or contain any game mechanics- even original creations- that look too much like 4e stats and mechanics. Again, I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks he can be successful that way is not really with it. Most third-party supplements that *are* specifically advertised as for D&D only sell a few hundred or perhaps, if they are really awesome, a few thousand copies. Take away the D&D name and there is no hope of successfully selling something for 4e.
If your company, your livihood (and that of those that work for you) are all on the line, then you have a moral obligation to read any contract in the most disadvantagous (to you) and draconian way possible. That's especially true if said contract contains terms that restrict your freedom of action forever (and the GSL indeed has such terms). To do anything less puts not only you at risk but those that work for you at risk. That's irresponsible.
As for the rest, quite honestly I did predict there would be no GSL becaue I knew (and it was no great secret) that Wotc as it exists now loaths and despises the OGL and would like nothing better than to go back in time and make sure it never happened. Obviously that's not possible. They are stuck with it.
However, no GSL would be far better than the GSL they've presented. With No GSL, the 3PPs would have been dissapointed but either would have tried to make private (conventional) paid licensing agreements with Wotc or simply went about their merry way...and yes you can write 4E compatible material with the OGL becuase almost all 4E concepts can be traced to OGC content. I don't think many 3PPs would take the risk, but with No GSL, it would probably be a risk worth taking (after all why would Wotc nuke a misquito?)
As it is now, with this highly restrictive and aggressively anti-OGL GSL, no company (that's sane) would dare support 4E in any fashion becuase the risks are too high nor are they likely to go the OGL route to support 4E becuase the very existance of the GSL serves as a notice of intent that Wotc will go after said misquitos...and indeed would have to in order to maintain the GSL as a viable "option".
Oh no, Wotc with this GSL has made their position very plain. They don't want anyone playing in the 4E sandbox other than themselves and they want to poison the OGL out of existance.
-Polaris
Emwasick,
If your company, your livihood (and that of those that work for you) are all on the line, then you have a moral obligation to read any contract in the most disadvantagous (to you) and draconian way possible. That's especially true if said contract contains terms that restrict your freedom of action forever (and the GSL indeed has such terms). To do anything less puts not only you at risk but those that work for you at risk. That's irresponsible.
I'm just about done trying, but come on. Stop the silliness. What's next- "Think of the children, emwasick!"
As for the rest, quite honestly I did predict there would be no GSL becaue I knew (and it was no great secret) that Wotc as it exists now loaths and despises the OGL and would like nothing better than to go back in time and make sure it never happened. Obviously that's not possible. They are stuck with it.
Oh yeah, the OGL is killing them. 4e is going to fail because of Conan, True20, and Pathfinder. I can only muster sarcasm.
However, no GSL would be far better than the GSL they've presented. With No GSL, the 3PPs would have been dissapointed but either would have tried to make private (conventional) paid licensing agreements with Wotc or simply went about their merry way...and yes you can write 4E compatible material with the OGL becuase almost all 4E concepts can be traced to OGC content. I don't think many 3PPs would take the risk, but with No GSL, it would probably be a risk worth taking (after all why would Wotc nuke a misquito?)
OK, so you think a conventional license would be better? What happens to the thousands of creative people who want to publish things and wouldn't mind polishing up their work and making a little money off of it? Answer: They can't, because they can't hire IP lawyers to advise them and they can't afford to sign conventional licenses with WotC. This is a terrible solution.
Oh, and it's funny that you would ask why WotC would "nuke a misquito[sic]" and then accuse them of doing so at every turn.
As it is now, with this highly restrictive and aggressively anti-OGL GSL, no company (that's sane) would dare support 4E in any fashion becuase the risks are too high nor are they likely to go the OGL route to support 4E becuase the very existance of the GSL serves as a notice of intent that Wotc will go after said misquitos...and indeed would have to in order to maintain the GSL as a viable "option".
Oh no, Wotc with this GSL has made their position very plain. They don't want anyone playing in the 4E sandbox other than themselves and they want to poison the OGL out of existance.
-Polaris
Thank you for putting your cards on the table, at least. I'll let your conspiracy theory speak for itself.
This clash is becoming the dismembered knight is Monty Python's Holy Grail. We have to accept that some will not be convinced. It won't change my opinion. My worries are alleviated. The positive comments and the circle that has developed with those that support 4ED has been established and I very much enjoy that has happened... I hope WOTC appreciates that there are those in defence of their franchise and are willing to step on board despite the controversy.
Well, I'm glad you're cool with things. I'm gonna go have more Kool-Aid now ;)
Well, I'm glad you're cool with things. I'm gonna go have more Kool-Aid now ;)
Whoaw, whoaw! Kool-Aid? Don't go all Heaven's Gate on me, Emwasick. We need ya here, buddy.
Whoaw, whoaw! Kool-Aid? Don't go all Heaven's Gate on me, Emwasick. We need ya here, buddy.
There's a few of us that have looked at the GSL, and have had IP lawyers look at the GSL and all systems are go, although these discussions have brought to light the true colors of a few of our forum members
Thank you for putting your cards on the table, at least. I'll let your conspiracy theory speak for itself.
Holy crap he's nuts.
Holy crap he's nuts.
Now, now.
Lets play nice.
Dias Ex Machina has a podcast planned for this Monday (to be posted Tuesday the 24th). The announcement will be official for us then.
One thing I found interesting is that the SRD is actually helping my as a writer create something MORE original that what we had before, allowing me to strip away the compromises we had to make to follow the 3.5 STL and forge a new game. Yes, we will make a few compromises for 4ED but I think it will closer to the actual novel than the previous version.
I just hope the fans we have gathered with the 3.5 edition won't abandon us. Its a risk we must also discuss.
I should also point out (and I think I am safe when I say you feel this way) that you are cognizant of the risk that you (and Dias Ex Machina Games) are taking by signing onto the GSL. You have looked at it, and have determined that it is a risk that you are willing to take.
Is it possible for WotC to pull the rug out from under you by the GSL?? Yes.
Is it probable that they will do that?? No.
Of course, that is from my point of view. Others will have very different points of view. Only time will tell which is correct.
Barring some massive change in how WotC does business, it is absolutely certain that they will.
Why?
Because there will be a 5E.
No, not tomorrow, or next week, and maybe not even on an absolute schedule in five years. But there will be a 5E as surely as there will be a tomorrow, a next week, an in five years, an in ten years, and many other future dates.
And unless another massive change occurs, that 5E will have a completely different GSL.
Why?
To prevent anyone from using material made for it from being backwards compatible.
And yes, the announcement of 5E will come just as suddenly as the announcement of 4E did. And sure, WotC will likely let publishers sell off any stock in their warehouses instead of destroying it. They will still require that e-copies be destroyed, and it will still be the end of the GSL.
Of course, that does assume there will be a 5E GSL of some sort. No matter other blithe assurances are given by people who are not Hasbro executives or lawyers to assure other people who are not Hasbro executives or lawyers that nothing outrageous will be done with the GSL, that remains a big leap to make, and doubly so when half the time such support of the GSL comes with casual sneering about how "lucky" all the IP leeches are that WotC even lets them have a GSL in the first place. Yes, such a cynical view really does wonders to convince me that WotC will bother letting people transfer all their 4E GSL material to a 5E license.
And no, I do not consider that an evil conspiracy on the part of WotC at all.
I consider it nothing more and nothing less than them doing what all the GSL supporters are assuring us what WotC is doing with the GSL - protecting their IP.
So if we are going to parse concepts like this, let us consider the whole situation, and understand that the GSL is absolutely going to terminate at a very specific business point, albeit not a precise date.
If for some odd reason someone from WotC would like to make a legally binding statement that such a thing would never happen, I would accept it without the least doubt.
Barring such, I would simply consider any statements on the basis of their full and specific content, limited by such statements not having any legal standing, and by the very simple reality that they have no obligation whatsoever to inform me or anyone else of their plans.
Overall, my view of the GSL is this:
I am not a publisher. I am not even an established freelancer that anyone is pursuing. I have absolutely no vested interest in the GSL at this point other than what it might provide in way of general product availability. My purchase of OGL material was miniscule until Paizo started producing Pathfinder, at which time I switched more for personal than practical reasons. (I like Paizo's customer service, and felt it had earned the remainder of my Dragon and Dungeon subscriptions as a conversion. I had also harangued Erik Mona about numerous things related to the magazines and printing Greyhawk based materials for years, and felt he deserved some support in publishing his own setting.) For me, the whole thing is more of an excuse to stop spending money on game stuff rather than a reason to rant and demand more stuff to spend money on.
Whether I think the GSL is overkill is pretty near irrelevant.
What I find distressing are the extreme statements made in support of it that contain either the same non-professional guarantees of the security of the GSL they insist opponents cannot make of its insecurity, along with the constant sneering at the creativity and integrity of third party publishers who have used the OGL and who choose not to use the GSL. Neither reflects well on either WotC or the third party publishers who choose to use the GSL. Perhaps nobody at WotC feels it is appropriate to stand up for OGL companies when "supporters" of WotC and the GSL call them pathetic IP leeches with no creativity who can only survive on the efforts of WotC to create a game system they can use. That it tars those companies who will use the GSL with the same brush seems to be passing unnoticed. And that it inspires a particular confidence (or lack thereof) in WotC's decision to let those companies use the Dungeons & Dragons logo seems equally overlooked.
But right, I have no background in marketing either. So other than an anecdotal expression of how I feel, what does it really matter that I disapprove?
Oh well.
I'm waiting for some official clarification myself- I have no personal interest, but I am curious. I've written to Scott Rouse to point out some of the issues that are under discussion. Some parts of the GSL are unclear, but there is no basis to claim that it is intended to do the precise opposite of what WotC says it does.
The idea that Wotc wants to get rid of the OGL is not a conspiracy theory. Wotc clearly thinks the OGL was a bad idea and would like it gone. Did you miss Mike Mearl's podcast? Listen to it. Really, this much is common knowledge. Furthuremore this GSL is clearly designed to kill off the OGL for those that sign on with it. If it weren't, then section 6 would have been written completely differently and definately would not have survived the termination of the license as it currently does.
Finally a lot of you continually say, "Wotc is a good company. They wouldn't do anything evil and nasty to us. If you say otherwise, you are being a shrill conspriacy theorist that thinks that all corporations are eviiil."
For the record I have never called Wotc evil. However, in this case, I think they are coming dangerously close to that category. I think that Wotc is a corporation that's interested in it's shareholder's bottomline like any other.
However, when before you sign a contract, you have a moral obligation not just to yourself but those that work for you, to know exactly what the implications are assuming the most draconian interpretation possible. It doesn't matter if Wotc would never do that now. The operative point is that you have no protection if they do so in the future...other than not opting into the contract in the first place.
Not a conspiracy theory. Just freaking common sense which IMHO too few on this thread have shown.
-Polaris
However, when before you sign a contract, you have a moral obligation not just to yourself but those that work for you
And their children and your own children.
You've stated your opinion, loudly, consistently and vehemently. Others have gained legal counsel and have an opinion that differs. Is there anything more you can say to convince these people they're wrong? because repeating the same thing isn't going to cut it.
However, when before you sign a contract, you have a moral obligation not just to yourself but those that work for you, to know exactly what the implications are assuming the most draconian interpretation possible. It doesn't matter if Wotc would never do that now. The operative point is that you have no protection if they do so in the future...other than not opting into the contract in the first place.
-Polaris
You also have a moral obligation to not make assumptions that aren't in the license, that aren't granted by the license, because they draw attention away from the sections that actually are major problems. Making up stuff like "you cant sue them" and trumpeting around is immoral when you should be talking about "they can change the license at any time"
First we have the obvious - this lasts forever section:
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
Pretty obvious what this is saying - this license is good forever so long as you follow the rules.
Now we look at the following section:
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
Now this section, much like section 2 allows WOTC to change the original OGL license at any time they wish. There is no limit on what they can change. It goes on to say that a licensee may use any version of this license to "copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License".
When I read this I read it as follows - We can change this license anytime we want. If you have product currently published under the OGL license you may continue to do so under the version of the license you previously published it under or any version of the license since the publication date. However, it does not seem to say that you may publish new product under the old version of the license. I.E we won't let changes to the license adversely affect your existing products.
I see no reason why WOTC could not make changes to the original OGL license in such a way as to kill new product. They could, for example, add a termination date for the license in lieu of its current 'perpetual' term if falls under.
Maybe I'm reading too much into the wording (a lot of the going around at the moment) but I don't see the original OGL being this invulnerable document that people seem to think it is. Perhaps WOTC has clarified this a bit in such a way as to make it invulnerable. In that case I am reading too much into it.
Tell me I'm wrong if I am and explain to my why I am. Until someone does though I just don't see how the GSL is really needed to kill the OGL - the mechanics to do so are already in place.
I can read english. A plain language read of the GSL DOES support what I have said and I note that no one from Wotc has denied it. Even if they did, it would be meaningless because Wotc could change their mind in the time it takes to alter a web page (about five minutes).
The thing is, no one from WotC has confirmed it either. I created a thread a couple days ago specifically requesting official clarification regarding the SRD and retroactive breaches, but haven't got an answer yet.
I think we'll see a compiled set of answers next week. It will come from a Wizards legal person, not Scott or Linae (although they might post up legal's answers).
We've pretty much done this argument to death on the forums. I think we ought to just let it go for now until some response comes from the Powers That Be.
I see no reason why WOTC could not make changes to the original OGL license in such a way as to kill new product. They could, for example, add a termination date for the license in lieu of its current 'perpetual' term if falls under.
That wouldn't kill the OGL.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
If they were to change the OGL by adding a termination date, all that does is terminate tat particular version of the OGL. Section 9 tells me I can ignore the version of the OGL with the termination clause and use an earlier version that does not contain it.
The only realistic way to to kill the OGL is to let it die of old age, so to speak. Eventually enough time will have passed and new versions of D&D come out that OGL material will fade away.
Now you could take the stance that you could initially release the product under the new license then shift the license to an older version and get around it that way. However, there is nothing legally that I know of that would stop WOTC from de-authorizing old versions of the OGL. They own the OGL - they've even copyrighted it. They do have the power to say that the old version of the copyright are not valid for products released after 'x' date. They can't revoke the ability to sell existing product but they can make it difficult to release new if they really want to.
Of course, given their track record I don't think they have any intention of doing so either for OGL or GSL.
But that clause is exactly why I believe, if they want to push it they can. It says "...originally distributed under..." which indicates product that has already been produced and inserted into the market. A product that is not yet in the market has not been 'originally distributed' and in fact has not yet been distributed. Thus, if would fall under the new version of the OGL. It does not say you can distribute new product under any old version of the OGL.
Of course, given their track record I don't think they have any intention of doing so either for OGL or GSL.
Point taken. I don't think they'd ever change or kill the OGL though, as it would do irreparable harm to their image; no amount of goodwill could ever fix the PR nightmare it would cause.
Samwise, there's a difference between, "I'm no lawyer, but I think the GSL was written to prevent people from publishing for 4e," and, "I'm no lawyer, but I think the GSL was written to allow people to publish for 4e." One position reads considerable malice into the document, while the other does not. The GSL might say some of the things that detractors claim it does, but it certainly should not be seen as some trap designed to lure in fools and crush them for daring to "compete" with WotC by writing supplements for WotC games.
There is also a difference between "Third party publishers should consider their rights under the GSL" and "Third party publishers are just a bunch of IP leeches who should suck up that they cannot steal stuff by misusing the OGL and have to play by the real intent of the GSL now." One position reads considerable malice into the motives of people using the document while the other does not.
I'm waiting for some official clarification myself- I have no personal interest, but I am curious. I've written to Scott Rouse to point out some of the issues that are under discussion. Some parts of the GSL are unclear, but there is no basis to claim that it is intended to do the precise opposite of what WotC says it does.
And what exactly does it do?
Seriously, what legally binding statement of intent has WotC said the GSL has?
Yes, of course they said it is to let people sell books. That it has a very specific section relating to one single other license means it also haas a very specific purpose relating to that other license as well. That is also notes a very clear termination means it also has a very specific scope of what books should be published, when, and for what purpose.
I am not saying there is anything at all evil or whatever other loaded adjective someone might want to assign to that. I am just saying that people should not pretend that the GSL has an intention other than letting people publish books to support 4E, with an advertising banner for 4E, and that it also looks to cut off support for a specific competitor to 4E, being the OGL.
TANSTAAFL
Anyone who thinks WotC is not expecting to get something out of the GSL, with that something almost certainly being of greater value than the total of what all the companies using the GSL are getting out it, then I submit that they are seriously underestimating the business savvy of the people at WotC.
You also have a moral obligation to not make assumptions that aren't in the license, that aren't granted by the license, because they draw attention away from the sections that actually are major problems. Making up stuff like "you cant sue them" and trumpeting around is immoral when you should be talking about "they can change the license at any time"
I am talking about how they can change or terminate the license at any time with effectively no notice to boot. I've railed on this many times because it means that nothing Wotc says about the GSL has any meaning because if they don't like it they can change it in five minutes and those changes apply retroactively.
However a literal reading of 10.3 does say that you can't sue Wotc over IP matters. It's very sneakily stuck in a section that deals with a related, different but innocuous matter (i.e. you can't sue on Wotc's behalf), but it's there and I've pointed it out, and others have noticed the same independantly. As for taking your stuff away, it's there too (and others have noticed this as well independantly). Now by taking your stuff away, what they (wotc) can really do is making your own IP unusable by you, but I consider that the same thing.
So I am not railing against stuff the license doesn't grant. It does grant Wotc the rights I've said in large part because the license and SRD can be changed at any time with no notice.
-Polaris
There is also a difference between "Third party publishers should consider their rights under the GSL" and "Third party publishers are just a bunch of IP leeches who should suck up that they cannot steal stuff by misusing the OGL and have to play by the real intent of the GSL now." One position reads considerable malice into the motives of people using the document while the other does not.
Yes, people have said such things. It's unfortunate. I'm not saying any of this stuff though.
I wouldn't mind a less hyperbolic discussion of the pros and cons of this new license. I'm just tired of some people's insistence that it is the exact opposite of what it claims to be.
And what exactly does it do?
Seriously, what legally binding statement of intent has WotC said the GSL has?
Yes, of course they said it is to let people sell books. That it has a very specific section relating to one single other license means it also haas a very specific purpose relating to that other license as well. That is also notes a very clear termination means it also has a very specific scope of what books should be published, when, and for what purpose.
I'm not sure if there is such a thing in this case as a "legally binding statement of intent." Still, there have been some statements. Scott Rouse has said that if they didn't want 4e support, they simply wouldn't have a GSL. He could be a liar or a fellow victim of higher-up liars, but I doubt it.
Any time you sign a contract, you should take into account the past history of the other party. In this case, I think we should look at WotC and ask ourselves what reasons we have to trust or distrust them. WotC does not have a reputation for suing people or plagiarizing ideas. They have not made a habit of screwing anyone over, especially not any fans. Some people construe things like delays in DDI or the GSL as huge acts of incompetence or dishonesty, but they are just exaggerating. Some people represent the expiration of WotC's magazine license with Paizo as a knife in the back, but this is an outright lie. Some people view the failure to announce 4e in 2005 as a grand deception, but they are expecting too much. Some people view the creation of 4e itself as a betrayal, but they are mistaking tastes for morals. In general, WotC has established itself as trustworthy, and that is important when it comes to signing contracts.
That said, the GSL cannot be used to do certain things. A lot of stand-alone games that may be played for year to come were created under the OGL. The GSL clearly isn't meant to do that, so anyone who is planning a stand-alone game should not try to publish it under the GSL. But anyone who is planning on supporting 4e and realizes that it won't be the current edition forever can make reasonable plans to use this license.
I am not saying there is anything at all evil or whatever other loaded adjective someone might want to assign to that. [highlight]I am just saying that people should not pretend that the GSL has an intention other than letting people publish books to support 4E, with an advertising banner for 4E, and that it also looks to cut off support for a specific competitor to 4E, being the OGL.[/highlight]
TANSTAAFL
Oh, I agree with you so much- especially the highlighted part. I really don't know what to add
Anyone who thinks WotC is not expecting to get something out of the GSL, with that something almost certainly being of greater value than the total of what all the companies using the GSL are getting out it, then I submit that they are seriously underestimating the business savvy of the people at WotC.
Again, I agree. I'm not calling the GSL charity. It certainly has some cost to the licensee and some benefit to WotC. I don't think it has to be charity to be good.
I'm not sure if there is such a thing in this case as a "legally binding statement of intent."
Actually that would just be a contract with most of these questions answered. ;)
Still, there have been some statements. Scott Rouse has said that if they didn't want 4e support, they simply wouldn't have a GSL. He could be a liar or a fellow victim of higher-up liars, but I doubt it
Any time you sign a contract, you should take into account the past history of the other party. In this case, I think we should look at WotC and ask ourselves what reasons we have to trust or distrust them. WotC does not have a reputation for suing people or plagiarizing ideas. They have not made a habit of screwing anyone over, especially not any fans. Some people construe things like delays in DDI or the GSL as huge acts of incompetence or dishonesty, but they are just exaggerating.
I agree.
The only history of WotC that I would really consider in this case is the turnover rate of employees.
Oh, I agree with you so much- especially the highlighted part. I really don't know what to add
and,
Again, I agree. I'm not calling the GSL charity. It certainly has some cost to the licensee and some benefit to WotC. I don't think it has to be charity to be good.
Actually . . .
I know.
I figured if we pretended to be arguing about it, we could both keep saying it repeatedly, and maybe drown out the over-reacters on both sides, as well as get more people to read our posts because they look "juicy".
Actually that would just be a contract with most of these questions answered. ;)
Yeah, there will be a few weeks/months of clarifications on this stuff.
I agree.
The only history of WotC that I would really consider in this case is the turnover rate of employees.
Sure, the update clause leaves room for a new batch of people to change things. There's a chance someone down the line will take a very different look at things. I can't really see why, but maybe if WotC has a slow quarter or something, the GSL will be the scapegoat. Still, revoking the license is a pretty big deal- I don't think any one person could just kill it without listening to a lot of other perspectives.
Actually . . .
I know.
I figured if we pretended to be arguing about it, we could both keep saying it repeatedly, and maybe drown out the over-reacters on both sides, as well as get more people to read our posts because they look "juicy".
NO U!
is that better?
NO U!
is that better?
It should do. :D
Again though, what you laid out is rather what I expect, though leaning a bit more to that as a forecast and not just a possibility.
It should do. :D
Again though, what you laid out is rather what I expect, though leaning a bit more to that as a forecast and not just a possibility.
I understand your concern, but I have to wonder who will be heading up WotC in the first place. Yanking the license is a significant move with meaningful PR ramifications. I don't think one person could do it casually with no consensus.
There are a lot of things that would go wrong for WotC if the GSL died. There would be no more third party support. There would be a lot of bad PR among the hardcore types on message boards. There might even be lawsuits- even though WotC has the right to pull the GSL, that wouldn't necessarily stop someone who had just printed a few thousand books from suing. There would suddenly be a lot of game designers eager to compete with WotC, and instead of filling stores with D&D supplements, they'd be filling stores with directly competitive products. And finally, there would be, in my opinion, no financial benefit for WotC in the short or long term.
I just don't see the scenario in which everyone is saying, "Yes, boss, the GSL is our enemy. We should axe it- that's what a smart person would choose." It would take someone really arbitrary, really ignorant, and really stubborn to pull the license.
- Raventiger
Realistically, small publishers may have nothing to lose and eveything to gain. Even if in the end the GSL kills one idea, diversification is the key to survival, just as it is in almost any line of business.
[for what it's worth, SerenaDawn's website kicks ass!]
Sensible.
"Nothing to lose" may be going a bit too far. But, after sober legal review, a small publisher may well have enough to gain. Particularly, if that small publisher is only interested in pursuing 4E (at any rate, those parts of it ceded by WOTC).
It's just a license, folks. Not a trap.
Admittedly, my business is NOT publishing, but this license is nothing to get upset about. A few will publish under it and many, likely, will not.
And the world will continue to spin.
Now, now.
Lets play nice.
Dias Ex Machina has a podcast planned for this Monday (to be posted Tuesday the 24th). The announcement will be official for us then.
One thing I found interesting is that the SRD is actually helping my as a writer create something MORE original that what we had before, allowing me to strip away the compromises we had to make to follow the 3.5 STL and forge a new game. Yes, we will make a few compromises for 4ED but I think it will closer to the actual novel than the previous version.
I just hope the fans we have gathered with the 3.5 edition won't abandon us. Its a risk we must also discuss.
As long as you can continue to produce good 3.5E content ... why would they?
Heck, I'm still a fan of 3.5 ... and I'm working hard to grokk 4E. Even if I decide I don't like 4E, I wouldn't abandon you for playing in WOTC's sandbox. I really don't think very many role-players are that immature ...
As long as you can continue to produce good 3.5E content ... why would they?
Heck, I'm still a fan of 3.5 ... and I'm working hard to grokk 4E. Even if I decide I don't like 4E, I wouldn't abandon you for playing in WOTC's sandbox. I really don't think very many role-players are that immature ...
easy, when you have a small design team spreading yourself between two editions will show itself in your work, it also slows down progress as you have designers that never truely stay in the mindset of the edition they're working with
I understand your concern, but I have to wonder who will be heading up WotC in the first place. Yanking the license is a significant move with meaningful PR ramifications. I don't think one person could do it casually with no consensus.
If someone at Hasbro decides to eliminate the GSL and sends someone to WotC to implement that decision, then it is effectively done "casually with no consensus" at the WotC level.
That is the worst case scenario I would worry about.
There are a lot of things that would go wrong for WotC if the GSL died. There would be no more third party support. There would be a lot of bad PR among the hardcore types on message boards. There might even be lawsuits- even though WotC has the right to pull the GSL, that wouldn't necessarily stop someone who had just printed a few thousand books from suing. There would suddenly be a lot of game designers eager to compete with WotC, and instead of filling stores with D&D supplements, they'd be filling stores with directly competitive products. And finally, there would be, in my opinion, no financial benefit for WotC in the short or long term.
Several things here:
First, there are quite a few hardcore anti-OGL/GSL types on message boards who would speak up for WotC.
Second, a lawsuit under the GSL would be very difficult. Most 3PP will not have the cash reserves to even start.
Third, they might be eager to compete, but how would they? Unless someone suddenly volunteers a rules system for them to use, they would have to spend 2+ years building one. Even if someone volunteered a non-OGl system for them to use, it would still take at least 6 months for a decent system conversion to be done.
Finally, not to play into those claiming the 3PP market is irrelevant, a big "So what?" does have to be thrown out there at the thought of however many of them suddenly competing with WotC. They simply are not that big a market share to matter.
What it will cut into, and why I see it not being to WotC's long term financial benefit is what I alluded to previously. Never mind the "tips" that the 3PPs get from selling their product in "competition" with WotC. That is small beans on the WotC side of ledger. What is being lost is the free advertising WotC will be giving up from each and every one of those products, as well as the general advertising provided by each of those companies. I agree, that would be:
I just don't see the scenario in which everyone is saying, "Yes, boss, the GSL is our enemy. We should axe it- that's what a smart person would choose." It would take someone really arbitrary, really ignorant, and really stubborn to pull the license.
Actually, I would use a worse term to describe it, but it would be a CoC violation. ;)
As long as you can continue to produce good 3.5E content ... why would they?
Heck, I'm still a fan of 3.5 ... and I'm working hard to grokk 4E. Even if I decide I don't like 4E, I wouldn't abandon you for playing in WOTC's sandbox. I really don't think very many role-players are that immature ...
Also it should be noted that if those fans *really* like that campaign setting that company is putting out, they might be more ... aggressive if the believe that if that CS goes with 4e means that they will never, ever, ever see official products for that CS created for 3.5 again. They might even increase their arguments against pro-4e players because when those players say things like "I would love to see your campaign setting for 4e" the 3.5 supporters effectively see "I would love to never see 3.5 support for campaign setting again."
As long as you can continue to produce good 3.5E content ... why would they?
Heck, I'm still a fan of 3.5 ... and I'm working hard to grokk 4E. Even if I decide I don't like 4E, I wouldn't abandon you for playing in WOTC's sandbox. I really don't think very many role-players are that immature ...
Check our selection. We only HAVE one game.
Check our selection. We only HAVE one game.
Hmmm...then your situation is simple. Left or right, up or down.
Your choice. :D
Several things here:
First, there are quite a few hardcore anti-OGL/GSL types on message boards who would speak up for WotC.
True, there are those who will defend anything. Still, I think any smart calculation of a wholesale GSL revocation would include a significant number of people dropping D&D.
Second, a lawsuit under the GSL would be very difficult. Most 3PP will not have the cash reserves to even start.
There are lawyers who would be glad to give it a shot. Not only that, such a case may qualify as a class action.
Third, they might be eager to compete, but how would they? Unless someone suddenly volunteers a rules system for them to use, they would have to spend 2+ years building one. Even if someone volunteered a non-OGl system for them to use, it would still take at least 6 months for a decent system conversion to be done.
Very true, which is part of why I think anyone who does this thing for a living will not be (or at least, should not be) just working on 4e stuff.
Finally, not to play into those claiming the 3PP market is irrelevant, a big "So what?" does have to be thrown out there at the thought of however many of them suddenly competing with WotC. They simply are not that big a market share to matter.
The irony there is that if they are so small a market share, giving them some IP/PI for free can't really hurt WotC's bottom line. But the fact that we think this doesn't help anyone.
What it will cut into, and why I see it not being to WotC's long term financial benefit is what I alluded to previously. Never mind the "tips" that the 3PPs get from selling their product in "competition" with WotC. That is small beans on the WotC side of ledger. What is being lost is the free advertising WotC will be giving up from each and every one of those products, as well as the general advertising provided by each of those companies.
Indeed, it would be a boneheaded move. There's already a quid-pro-quo here, and I hope that is apparent to the executives of the future.