1. "You can't sue Wizards" - I do not beleive the license is saying that. There's a lot of stuff outlying when they can sue YOU, and that you have to help them sue OTHERS if they ask, and that if others sue them for your stuff it's your problem, and if you sue someone else for wizard's sake you can't do that, but there's nothing that blanketly says you can't sue wizards if they steal your stuff or put you out of business or whatever.
2. The 'poison pill' - the original Poison Pill was company-wide, and the new poison pill is product-line wide. I'm not a big fan of the poison pill, I can see why they did it, but I can also see that they shouldn't have - it gives people less reason to go into 4e since they can't do it safely.
3. Destroyin' my Druid: It's currently not clear whether the text of the GSL says that you can't continue to sell stuff that shares the name with a 4e reference that was added afterwards: the clause in the contract about that seems to be about 'defining' and 'creating' things, and it's not clear if you're continually re-defining druid every time you sell a copy.. We really need an answer from Wizards on this
4. Updates: I really hate update clauses, but they haven't been thoroughly tested in court yet. It's possible it's unenforcable, and it's possible it's not. See the recent Talk America ruling for more information.
5. Going without: There are possibilities to go without the GSL. But it's difficult, and a huge legal minefield
6. The GSL doesn't apply to you automatically: YOu have to agree to it. Before you do, you can't do anything it lets you do, obviously, but it doesnt mean you're all automatically forced to adhere to it
7. Stat blocks: Published adventures either have to be kludgy or have unique monsters. That's a downer... I wonder if they're talking about an allowance for that behind the scenes.
8. There needs to be something in the GSL about how it's revoked. It shouldnt be able to be done at a moment's notice, and if they choose to revoke it system-wide, there should be a promise in it that things like the mini-poison-pill no longer apply.
The GSL is pretty bad, but I dont think it's the atomic-bomb it's being made out to be. We need to focus on the things that are actually bad about it, instead of saying "OH NO WE CANT SUE THEM THEY CAN STEAL OUR STUFF"
The GSL is pretty bad, but I dont think it's the atomic-bomb it's being made out to be. We need to focus on the things that are actually bad about it, instead of saying "OH NO WE CANT SUE THEM THEY CAN STEAL OUR STUFF"
The problem is:
1. You really can't sue Wotc*
2. They really can steal your stuff**
*: A literal reading of 10.3 says that you can not sue with regard to Wizard's IP property. Literally speaking, if the suit involves in issue that wotc (not you) believe to involve their intellectual property (such as a copyright dispute or trademark dispute), you are automatically in violation of provision 10.3. So while it's wrong to say you can't sue Wotc in general, it doesn't miss the truth by much.
**: Technically Wotc can't terminate your rights to your own IP. However, if Wotc publishes a "similiar" idea in the SRD (see sections 18, 4, and 2), (and remember that ideas aren't copyrightable...only the expression of them is) then Wotc's version becomes the official and default version even if yours was first. Under the terms of use (page 2 of the SRD) and per section 4 which ties you to that, you are unable to use, publish, or otherwise profit from your own IP. Thus defacto, Wotc has stolen it.
-Polaris
While I have some serious issues with certain elements of the SRD (of which I am still awaiting official clarifications), I really don't think 3pps have a lot to worry about in terms of legal maneuvering. Let's face it, Wizards (and by extension Hasbro) may not ultimately have liked the results of the OGL, but can anyone really think of any inciident which resulted in litigation? I know I can't, and chances are most disputes will be settled out of court. We are probably blowing things way out of proportion in these early days of 4E.
Of course, I can always be proven wrong, but so far that hasn't happened.
When it comes right down to it, I think you just have to ask yourself if WotC would even WANT to go into some legal acrobatics over your product IP. Nine times out of ten the answer is probably no, so the chances of that occuring are probably pretty low.
While I have some serious issues with certain elements of the SRD (of which I am still awaiting official clarifications), I really don't think 3pps have a lot to worry about in terms of legal maneuvering. Let's face it, Wizards (and by extension Hasbro) may not ultimately have liked the results of the OGL, but can anyone really think of any inciident which resulted in litigation? I know I can't, and chances are most disputes will be settled out of court. We are probably blowing things way out of proportion in these early days of 4E.
Of course, I can always be proven wrong, but so far that hasn't happened.
There weren't many suits under the OGL because it didn't leave Wizards much ground to base suits on. The d20 license gave Wizards a little bit more room for litigation, but the huge difference between potential D20 litigation and GSL litigation is that if you were a d20 licensee, all you had to do was strip all the d20 logos off of your product and you could still release it under the much more secure OGL. With the GSL, though, you've got nothing to fall back on. If Wizards decides to pull your license, just because you're being too competetive, or because they don't like you personally, or because Hasbro just one day decides the entire GSL was a mistake, you're compeltely screwed.
The problem is:
1. You really can't sue Wotc*
2. They really can steal your stuff**
*: A literal reading of 10.3 says that you can not sue with regard to Wizard's IP property. Literally speaking, if the suit involves in issue that wotc (not you) believe to involve their intellectual property (such as a copyright dispute or trademark dispute), you are automatically in violation of provision 10.3. So while it's wrong to say you can't sue Wotc in general, it doesn't miss the truth by much.
**: Technically Wotc can't terminate your rights to your own IP. However, if Wotc publishes a "similiar" idea in the SRD (see sections 18, 4, and 2), (and remember that ideas aren't copyrightable...only the expression of them is) then Wotc's version becomes the official and default version even if yours was first. Under the terms of use (page 2 of the SRD) and per section 4 which ties you to that, you are unable to use, publish, or otherwise profit from your own IP. Thus defacto, Wotc has stolen it.
-Polaris
WOTC does not automatically have the right to decide what is their intellectual property. They also do not give themselves that right in the GSL. In the eyes of the law, their IP is theirs and your IP is yours, and arbitration may be required to determine which is which. There is no way to apply 10.3 on suing them for taking your stuff, literal or not.
Even if WOTC's becomes the official and default version in dungeons and dragons 4th edition (which it may not, it depends on their definition of 'define' and whether it's continuous- we need an answer from Wizards on this before assuming one way or the other for any longer. All these assumptions are just hurting the issue), and that you cannot use that product line under the OGL or GSL, it still is your intellectual property and you can profit from it however you wish as long as whoever you're working with wants anything to do with it. If, for some reason, WOTC takes your stuff, and you decide not to sue them, and their terminate your GSL license, you still have a legal right to use your IP to publish a generic book, a book under your own license, a book under someone else's license, etc. All they're doing is preventing you from turning your GSL product into an OGL product, or publishing anything else under the GSL. They can prevent anybody from publishing under teh GSL for whatever reason, even if they didn't have that in their license, because the GSL is a license for Wizards intellectual property. Then there's the 'dont go back to OGL' clause, added on to that. But it doesnt give them any rights to control your IP other than that. You can go to Steve Jackson games and write it for Gurps, and Wizards can't stop you.
WOTC does not automatically have the right to decide what is their intellectual property. They also do not give themselves that right in the GSL. In the eyes of the law, their IP is theirs and your IP is yours, and arbitration may be required to determine which is which. There is no way to apply 10.3 on suing them for taking your stuff, literal or not.
This is incorrect on two counts. In the first place, any provision you agree to in a contract overrides whatever copyright law might say. If a provision in a contract says that "Wotc owns X" then they do if you've signed it even if under the law they wouldn't. Section 10.1 explicitly says that Wotc owns anything they put in their own core rule books. Thus technically under this contract, even if Wotc blatently copied your IP (most aggregious case), it becomes theirs under section 10.1 if they put it in a core book.
Even more to the point, you are wrong about IP and game systems in general. All Wotc really has to due is publish something and refer to it in the SRD under the same name but slightly different rules text. Given that game rules can not be copyrighted (and you can't copyright an idea only the expression of it), you are SOL. In both cases any suit you brought against them would be very much in violation of 10.3
Basically until a judge says otherwise, Wotc and only wotc determines what is and is not their IP. Good luck with that.
Even if WOTC's becomes the official and default version in dungeons and dragons 4th edition (which it may not, it depends on their definition of 'define' and whether it's continuous- we need an answer from Wizards on this before assuming one way or the other for any longer. All these assumptions are just hurting the issue), and that you cannot use that product line under the OGL or GSL, it still is your intellectual property and you can profit from it however you wish as long as whoever you're working with wants anything to do with it. If, for some reason, WOTC takes your stuff, and you decide not to sue them, and their terminate your GSL license, you still have a legal right to use your IP to publish a generic book, a book under your own license, a book under someone else's license, etc. All they're doing is preventing you from turning your GSL product into an OGL product, or publishing anything else under the GSL. They can prevent anybody from publishing under teh GSL for whatever reason, even if they didn't have that in their license, because the GSL is a license for Wizards intellectual property. Then there's the 'dont go back to OGL' clause, added on to that. But it doesnt give them any rights to control your IP other than that. You can go to Steve Jackson games and write it for Gurps, and Wizards can't stop you.
Actually you don't. Wotc and only Wotc determines what is and is not a "related product" and a "licensed product". You give Wotc veto power over your IP forever.
-Polaris
This is incorrect on two counts. In the first place, any provision you agree to in a contract overrides whatever copyright law might say. If a provision in a contract says that "Wotc owns X" then they do if you've signed it even if under the law they wouldn't. Section 10.1 explicitly says that Wotc owns anything they put in their own core rule books. Thus technically under this contract, even if Wotc blatently copied your IP (most aggregious case), it becomes theirs under section 10.1 if they put it in a core book.
Even more to the point, you are wrong about IP and game systems in general. All Wotc really has to due is publish something and refer to it in the SRD under the same name but slightly different rules text. Given that game rules can not be copyrighted (and you can't copyright an idea only the expression of it), you are SOL. In both cases any suit you brought against them would be very much in violation of 10.3
As long as you have trademarked the name of the class/race/etc, this is not an issue (In fact, it may not be an issue regardless, but I am still waiting on specific clarification from a lawyer and someone from WotC specifically regarding this matter). Thus, under the GSL, it may not be a good idea to produce a "Druid" class. You could, however, produce a "Briarwarden" (primal controller) without fear, so long as you trademarked the term Briarwarden. Wizards of the Coast would then be unable to add Briarwarden to the SRD without violating your IP (which would take precedence to this contract). If WotC did attempt to add Briarwarden, it would be a very straightforward violation of Trademark.
So a suggestion to any aspiring publishers... trademark anything that you're afraid might get added to the SRD. If you can't trademark a particular phrase (ex: Druid) then you're going to need to rethink your strategy and be a bit more creative (it took me all of 1/2 of a second to come up with Briarwarden, so I know you can do it if you put your mind to it).
Finally, if there is any concern on your part as far as publishing is concerned, then consult a lawyer. If you're willing to go all in as far as publishing something goes, the least you can do is consult a lawyer regarding the required licensing. That's not just for the SRD... that's life. There is a time and a place for good solid legal advice.
With all due respect all that isn't quite accurate given the GSL as it's currently written. First of all I was talking about copyright not trademark. Trademarks are a whole different animal with very different precedents than copyrights. The problem is that even if you did trademark a class name "Briarwarden", that only protects the name. It does not protect the rest of your IP (the class). That's what Copyright is for and why I referred to it.
In your particular example, Wotc would indeed be excluded from using the term "Briarwarden", but they could publish "The Briarwood Druid" with extremely similiar abilities and then under section 4 and page 2 (Terms of use) of the SRD, your Briarwarden would be in violation and you would lose control over your IP. Worse if you tried to sue, you'd have to do it under copyright law and section 10.3 would smack you in the keester.
You're absolutely right that one should consult a lawyer. That said, I can't imagine anyone with any seriously viable IP even THINKING about signing this GSL.
-Polaris
In your particular example, Wotc would indeed be excluded from using the term "Briarwarden", but they could publish "The Briarwood Druid" with extremely similiar abilities and then under section 4 and page 2 (Terms of use) of the SRD, your Briarwarden would be in violation and you would lose control over your IP. Worse if you tried to sue, you'd have to do it under copyright law and section 10.3 would smack you in the keester.
In that particular case, your Briarwarden would have nothing linking it to the Briarwood druid and neither Section 4 nor the SRD would apply in any way. Section 4 would only come into effect if they added "Briarwarden" to the SRD, which they couldn't do because of trademarking. Furthermore, it would be a waste of WotC resources to attempt to reprint something so strikingly similar when they could (more than likely) simply request permission to print it in exchange for a token amount of money (less than would likely be required to pay a writer to plagiarize... errr... rewrite it, since the footwork has already been done). In fact, I would almost like to see this done in the future, since putting good ideas back into the original (or Core) source is what MAKES THE OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT WORK TO BEGIN WITH and is the primary thing that was missing from the 3.5 open source movement. Provided permission was requested (and granted), this is genuinely the best way to move forward with open source gaming for D&D.
Section 10.3 would only come into effect if it was decided that the IP was theirs. If you had previously taken out a trademark and copyright on the same thing, then 10.3 would never come into play, because their addition of the item into their core rulebook and SRD would be violating your copyright and trademark to begin with.
I understand where you would get that idea based on the last sentence of 10.1, but your assumption is, quite frankly, based on a very incorrect understanding of copyright laws and the assumption that the exploitation of a contractual loophole would have more weight (legally) than hundreds of years in copyright precedent. Heck... by your definition of 10.3, it even extends as far as to overturn your fifth amendment rights. You seem to be giving contracts far more weight than they actually carry within the legal framework. Either side could potentially break the contract, though there are certain (and not entirely unreasonable) penalties for doing so.
According to my lawyers, neither Section 10.1 nor Section 10.3 would protect Wizards from copyright lawsuit should they attempt to republish another individual's IP without expressed written consent. Mind you, this was after only a brief perusal, and I am awaiting further word. However, the GSL really isn't as scary as it seems. The absolute worst case scenario is if you were to file a lawsuit against them, you lose the right to publish books for 4e... which puts you no worse off than if you hadn't decided to sign on to begin with.
The GSL cant steal the IP of third parties. It just cant. Period. In fact, the OGL had more danger of your content being taken than the GSL. Serioiusly, that was a huge concern of the early OGL days when Ryan circulated the first draft. Everyone worried that we would all publish stuff and Wizards would just take the good stuff and republish it and drive us out of business. The OGL actually would have allowed that, the GSL doesnt. I asked Ryan to declare on behalf of Wizards that though the OGL allowed it they wouldnt do it and he said they wouldnt and they havent. In fact the only OGC they ever used was some of mine from the Creature Collection which they put in MM2 (kind of a funny story actually, since they messed up their section 15 designation; but they even asked permission before they did that). So it is hillarious to hear people say the GSL lets Wizards steal their content when there is actually no such provision in teh GSL, but there was in the OGL. And now everyone loves the OGL.
Funny how rose tinted glasses changes how the world looks
If there was no stealing of ideas even when the OGL made it easy, I find it rather weird to believe that there will be now.
You seem to be giving contracts far more weight than they actually carry within the legal framework. Either side could potentially break the contract, though there are certain (and not entirely unreasonable) penalties for doing so.
According to my lawyers, neither Section 10.1 nor Section 10.3 would protect Wizards from copyright lawsuit should they attempt to republish another individual's IP without expressed written consent.
If the lawyers say that a licensee can indeed make a lawsuit against Wizards, why did the lawyers who wrote it add the contract clause that the licensee cannot institute any suit or take any action relating to Wizards Intellectual Property? It seems to me like it is solely there to intimidate licensees, even though they have a legal right to sue.
Another important question: has anyone ever heard of WotC stealing ideas? I certainly haven't.
People have brought lawsuits against Wizards of the Coast over IP. That doesn't mean Wizards was in the wrong, though. I don't know enough to judge the cases. Offhand I recall a patent dispute with WizKids, and a recent claim that their virtual tabletop took from Fantasy Grounds II.
If there was no stealing of ideas even when the OGL made it easy, I find it rather weird to believe that there will be now.
The OGL makes sharing of ideas easy among those who published under the OGL. There was indeed a lot of sharing of ideas under the OGL, both with and without explicit approval. (I do not use the term "stealing" since I don't think it is theft to use someone else's declared open content.) However, Wizards never published any commercial product under the OGL, so they never had any opportunity to use other people's open content. Thus it didn't make anything easier, for WotC at least.
If the lawyers say that a licensee can indeed make a lawsuit against Wizards, why did the lawyers who wrote it add the contract clause that the licensee cannot institute any suit or take any action relating to Wizards Intellectual Property? It seems to me like it is solely there to intimidate licensees, even though they have a legal right to sue.
You can file a lawsuit. If you file a lawsuit, you break section 10.3 of the contract. If you break your end of the contract, you lose the right to use the GSL in the future.
To my understanding, it's intent is to encourage people who might consider a lawsuit to instead negotiate some sort of licensing deal rather than going right to court in the event that this ever comes up. Again... IANAL, nor do I speak for Wizards of the Coast in this matter. That is simply my own (probably overly simplified) take on it.
The absolute worst case scenario is if you were to file a lawsuit against them, you lose the right to publish books for 4e... which puts you no worse off than if you hadn't decided to sign on to begin with.
Actually it can put you MUCH worse off. You could still have outstanding debts for the product in question, and the license being revoked from you would eman you can't even sell your existing stock to cover the publishing debts, nor for the court costs. Unless by some freak chance you were able to get the amount from winning against HASBRO to pay for those debts. Either way you have lost the time for the unreleased material you were working on, you can't ever use the OGL to product that material. You cannot do anything else while you are at court to earn money...
You are far worse off after having the GSL pulled from you for suing WotC than if you never accepted it.
Actually it can put you MUCH worse off. You could still have outstanding debts for the product in question, and the license being revoked from you would eman you can't even sell your existing stock to cover the publishing debts, nor for the court costs. Unless by some freak chance you were able to get the amount from winning against HASBRO to pay for those debts. Either way you have lost the time for the unreleased material you were working on, you can't ever use the OGL to product that material. You cannot do anything else while you are at court to earn money...
You are far worse off after having the GSL pulled from you for suing WotC than if you never accepted it.
What you are saying is akin to a car manufacturer saying, "Well, I shouldn't use tires because there's a chance they'll blow out and I'll get sued for it." Even if you do lose the right to sell future GSL products, you have still made a name for yourselves and bankrolled your business off of WotC's product. That's not exactly a raw deal... even if you do end up losing some backstock. And in the case that it goes into litigation, that lost backstock is something you'll want to take into account when you file charges. Again... in the unlikely event of it happening, there is legal recourse and things aren't as bad as a lot of people are making it out to be.
Could WotC attempt to steal your IP? Yes. They could try. Is there a legal recourse? Yes. There is. Is it likely to happen, if the publisher realizes the risks and plans ahead of time? No. It is not. Is the license more favorable to WotC than the licensee? Of course it is. If you decide that it's not worth the risk, then there are other options. Stick with the OGL or develop a new system. Publishers with large existing product lines are (perhaps wisely in light of the "no going back" clause) doing this. But if you are starting a new line now under the GSL, it really isn't that great a risk, comparable to other licensing terms.
People are forgetting in all of this that the GSL still 1) grants almost full usage rights to another persons IP 2) without the need to request and verify every product 3) for free. That's not a bad license, by any means. If that's not worth the risk, then you are within your rights not to sign up.
People are forgetting in all of this that the GSL still 1) grants almost full usage rights to another persons IP 2) without the need to request and verify every product 3) for free. That's not a bad license, by any means. If that's not worth the risk, then you are within your rights not to sign up.
I'm not forgetting it. What I am saying is that any contract that permits one party to retroactively change the terms on you without notice and bind you to things you might not have initially agreed to is by definition a bad contract. I can't imagine anything that is worth putting yourself in that position.
-Polaris
People are forgetting in all of this that the GSL still 1) grants almost full usage rights to another persons IP 2) without the need to request and verify every product 3) for free. That's not a bad license, by any means. If that's not worth the risk, then you are within your rights not to sign up.
1- No it doesn't. First not all things in 4th edition are the creation of WotC. I ses many house rules that have been discussed over the year and WotC just happened to publish and copyright them. This does not make the IP theirs. Also you have very little access to the IP. The SRD claims many public domain terms and restricts your usage of them.
2- Who? WotC can request your product at ANY time during its existance. Once you sign the GSL you can be ordered to hand over a copy of the finished or unfinished work at any time. Prior to actual publication and having an unfinished portion in their hands WotC could publish any of your material before you get done and then have it copyrighted within their books. While copyright law grants that once written it is the writer who has a copyright on it, it gets tricky proving you wrote something prior to a major company that has already released said product or portions thereof.
3- Not free. Your cost is that you can no longer use the OGL. You are giving up a lot in order to publish under the GSL. Mainly your ability to use any current D&D, associated material or connection.
Look at this form a fan-based perspective rather than the major coprs and you will see what I mean. Fans have always wanted to publish their own adventures, etc and earn some money at it. Hell that is what D&D is about...taking an adventure and gaining your treasures along the way. But in the real world the dangers are much more for the "little guy" than the big ones.
The OGL opened up a lot of room for the fans to publish things and the STL allowed larger publishers to make higher end products.
This GSL folds them all together and hurts the fans.
I will never look at these things an think Necromancer might get screwed, Paizo got screwed, etc. I really don't care about those companies, nor WotC. I care about the game and the gamers.
Tell me exactly how a DM could publish his groups adventures under the GSL? Could it be a novel telling the stories of his party and what they came across? Could it be a module that would allow other players to play through their exploits? While most would not care to publish their escapades through D&D, there are plenty that would want to. Just look at the one big fan created D&D material Eberron. This person just got lucky to win a contest. What about other fans, not companies trying to share their D&D with other people?
This GSL doesn't provide as much as you would think when the security of the indivudual is at risk just for being a fan of the game when wanting to try to share their own stuff.
People are forgetting in all of this that the GSL still 1) grants almost full usage rights to another persons IP 2) without the need to request and verify every product 3) for free. That's not a bad license, by any means. If that's not worth the risk, then you are within your rights not to sign up.
I don't agree that the GSL is anywhere close to "almost full usage" rights. You are not allowed to reproduce any of the rules text or even stat blocks from D&D. You can say things like "There are 5 orcs in this room" -- but you can't quote their text about orcs, or redefine what orcs are for yourself.
You had those rights anyway. WotC does not own the term "orcs" and it is not their IP. Their IP is only the specific expression of orcs in their text and stat block, which you aren't allowed to reproduce. The handful of truly distinctive elements to D&D as opposed to other fantasy, like Beholders or Mind Flayers are for the most not included in the new SRD.
2. The 'poison pill' - the original Poison Pill was company-wide, and the new poison pill is product-line wide. I'm not a big fan of the poison pill, I can see why they did it, but I can also see that they shouldn't have - it gives people less reason to go into 4e since they can't do it safely.
Actually the poison pill in the GSL is company wide. Read section 6.1 carefully. While it's true the first couple of sentences refer to OGL products and product lines, it then says that you forgo the right to make related OGL products or product lines from GSL material as determined by Wizards.
What this means when the legal smoke clears is that Wotc forevermore has veto power over any OGL material you might want to produce once you've made a single GSL product.
This is very much a per-company poison pill. It's just been disguised a little better than it initially was, and instead of it being an outright exclusion, it's the more insidious (but just as effective) OGL veto power.
-Polaris
I'm gonna have to tend to agree with Polaris on many accounts. I've consulted an attorney, who is also a gamer. He said to stay away from it. It's not that the GSL has to screw you over, it's that it could. To me that's enough reason to steer clear. If I drove blindfolded to work I might make it there alive, then again I might not.
Let's try that last sentence again, minus one word:
If I drove to work I might make it there alive, then again I might not.
See what a difference that makes? Still a true statement, but rather a different picture.
Actually the poison pill in the GSL is company wide. Read section 6.1 carefully. While it's true the first couple of sentences refer to OGL products and product lines, it then says that you forgo the right to make related OGL products or product lines from GSL material as determined by Wizards.
What this means when the legal smoke clears is that Wotc forevermore has veto power over any OGL material you might want to produce once you've made a single GSL product.
This is very much a per-company poison pill. It's just been disguised a little better than it initially was, and instead of it being an outright exclusion, it's the more insidious (but just as effective) OGL veto power.
-Polaris
Let's look at the "WotC decides what constitutes a product line" clause rationally for a moment. Who else should be allowed to decide what is or isn't a product line? The other company? That would be painfully stupid. Should it be decided in court? That would be expensive AND stupid. Should an online poll decide? A panel of RPG sages? There is no better answer than WotC.
See what a difference that makes? Still a true statement, but rather a different picture.
You are being disengenous. You are implying with that example that signing the GSL puts a 3PP at no greater risk than normal business. That emphatically is not the case. The GSL is change-at-will, terminate-at-will and that's a huge risk to ask any reasonable 3PP to take. Driving blindfolded is a very apt analogy.
Let's look at the "WotC decides what constitutes a product line" clause rationally for a moment. Who else should be allowed to decide what is or isn't a product line? The other company? That would be painfully stupid. Should it be decided in court? That would be expensive AND stupid. Should an online poll decide? A panel of RPG sages? There is no better answer than WotC.
You forgot the other most common option in such contracts. Wotc could spell out specifically what is meant by a product-line and related product line in a contract addendum. That's the normal procedure. Instead Wotc is deliberately and with aforethough giving themselves sole veto power over all OGL products by the signee.
-Polaris
You are being disengenous. You are implying with that example that signing the GSL puts a 3PP at no greater risk than normal business. That emphatically is not the case. The GSL is change-at-will, terminate-at-will and that's a huge risk to ask any reasonable 3PP to take. Driving blindfolded is a very apt analogy.
I was showing the other side of things, not showing the perfect metaphor. Every decision has risks.
The GSL can be changed at will. OK, but what changes will be made that are (1) capable of harming a business and (2) legal? You are taking every clause that exists for WotC's protection and claiming that it could be used to hurt someone else's business. How and why? There is nothing that should make a reasonable person think WotC will just start shooting people in the back one day.
You forgot the other most common option in such contracts. Wotc could spell out specifically what is meant by a product-line and related product line in a contract addendum. That's the normal procedure. Instead Wotc is deliberately and with aforethough giving themselves sole veto power over all OGL products by the signee.
-Polaris
*Is* that a common option? How do you know what is common in contracts and licenses? And how would it work with a general license like this, which does not contain provisions for specific licensees? How can WotC, or anyone, give a general definition of "product line" that would meaningfully apply to all cases? Despite that, I think the intent of things is quite clear: WotC does not want the same book or series to be made for 4e and for a GSL system. This much is a reasonable claim, but anything more than this needs a lot of evidence.
Contracts need to be based on trust, not just the words on the page. Since WotC does not have a reputation for beating smaller game companies into the ground, I think that trust is deserved in this case.
However, I don't think anyone who wants to make a living in the gaming industry should depend solely on selling GSL products. There is some uncertainty in the duration and terms GSL, but not to the degree that you claim. It's still a license designed to let people write 4e stuff, not a vicious trap designed to lure innocent non-corporate game designers to their financial doom.
The GSL can be changed at will. OK, but what changes will be made that are (1) capable of harming a business and (2) legal? You are taking every clause that exists for WotC's protection and claiming that it could be used to hurt someone else's business. How and why? There is nothing that should make a reasonable person think WotC will just start shooting people in the back one day.
There are lots of changes that can hurt businesses, given that the GSL is quite explicit that any material in violation of the new license must immediately be pulled and existing stock destroyed. If you suggest that WotC wouldn't possibly do that, then why did they explicitly state that? They could have followed the older D20STL and given publishers a 30 day "cure period" to adjust to the new license, but they deliberately said that any changes are immediate and that any violating material must be destroyed.
As for whether it is legal for them to demand this, I agree that the instant update is on shaky ground.
I can easily picture two scenarios for an adverse change:
1) WotC -- perhaps quite innocently and coincidentally -- comes up with a new product with material that comes close to what a third party is doing, like the same monster name or class name. The new material gets put in the SRD, and the third party is now in violation.
2) A year down the line, WotC does a study or hires some contractors to assess how the third party commercial companies as a whole are affecting the D&D brand line -- and the answer comes back that they are hurting the brand's profitability. So they pull the plug on the GSL entirely in favor of pulling developers in-house like the setting contest that created Eberron.
Let's look at the "WotC decides what constitutes a product line" clause rationally for a moment. Who else should be allowed to decide what is or isn't a product line? The other company? That would be painfully stupid. Should it be decided in court? That would be expensive AND stupid. Should an online poll decide? A panel of RPG sages? There is no better answer than WotC.
Actually, a court is exactly who will decide it if it ever goes that far. If Wizards says "We think that's part of the same product line and you can't publish it" and the 3PP says "We don't think it's part of the same product line and we're publishing it" then it goes to court. Smart 3PPs can develop their product lines ahead of time in such a manner as to provide them with arguments if they ever end up in court on that issue. Assuming they have the money/desire to take it that far.
Actually, a court is exactly who will decide it if it ever goes that far. If Wizards says "We think that's part of the same product line and you can't publish it" and the 3PP says "We don't think it's part of the same product line and we're publishing it" then it goes to court. Smart 3PPs can develop their product lines ahead of time in such a manner as to provide them with arguments if they ever end up in court on that issue. Assuming they have the money/desire to take it that far.
Well, sure. Any third party can feel free to disregard the terms of the GSL in whatever way they want, put out their books, and have WotC sue them. This is no different than ignoring any other part of the license -- like putting the logo on the front cover instead of the back, or publishing a web-based commercial product. The license says that WotC gets to decide. If the third party ignores that, then they are disregarding the terms of the license.
A court judgement may find the terms of the license illegal, but it would be a considerable expense for the third party company to make it through. By agreeing to the license in the first place, they were giving it power.
Let's look at the "WotC decides what constitutes a product line" clause rationally for a moment. Who else should be allowed to decide what is or isn't a product line? The other company? That would be painfully stupid. Should it be decided in court? That would be expensive AND stupid. Should an online poll decide? A panel of RPG sages? There is no better answer than WotC.
As another alternative the option offered by Polaris, I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to say that such a decision would be a joint determination by both parties, and if such an agreement couldn't be reached that the matter would be handled by an arbiter.
*shrug*
Wizards takes some liberties in what their rights are with regards to creating products. It's my opinion that some of what they claim in the GSL is not theirs to claim. For example, if I don't sign the GSL, I am within my rights to redefine some of the previous-art terms in my product. If I do sign it, I am NOT, because I agreed not to.
So I don't believe the opinion "If you don't sign it, you can't use some things they claim" to be a valid opinion. That would require the things they claim to be theirs, and you CANNOT trademark or copyright CONCEPTS.
So I don't believe the opinion "If you don't sign it, you can't use some things they claim" to be a valid opinion. That would require the things they claim to be theirs, and you CANNOT trademark or copyright CONCEPTS.
Agreed completely. Anyone curious should look at the U.S. Copyright Office's factsheet on games. That starts:
The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.
Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.
As another alternative the option offered by Polaris, I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to say that such a decision would be a joint determination by both parties, and if such an agreement couldn't be reached that the matter would be handled by an arbiter.
*shrug*
A joint determination with two votes will generally end in a tie. If a publisher makes "World of Awesome" books for 4e, it can't do so for OGL stuff. If the publisher makes "World of Cool" books that are startlingly similar, it's pretty clear that publisher is trying to get around the letter of the GSL. Having a joint decision makes it a pointless "Did not! Did too!" argument. If the publisher is determined to wriggle around the license, then they go to court. In the end, it's about the same as what you suggested, except that 3rd party arbitration is not suggested- it's a last resort, as always.
Actually, a court is exactly who will decide it if it ever goes that far. If Wizards says "We think that's part of the same product line and you can't publish it" and the 3PP says "We don't think it's part of the same product line and we're publishing it" then it goes to court. Smart 3PPs can develop their product lines ahead of time in such a manner as to provide them with arguments if they ever end up in court on that issue. Assuming they have the money/desire to take it that far.
Sure, I think being smart is the name of the game. My point was that the GSL aims to prevent obvious or thinly veiled double-dipping. Well-defined product lines and distinct campaign settings are encouraged.