Eric Mona wrote:
And the GSL was dedicated to Lorrain Williams
:evillaugh
As I said in another thread, the poison pill in the GSL is alive and well. I wouldn't touch this GSL with an 11 and a half foot pole (if I wanted any control over MY IP) and IMHO no serious publisher should even consider it.
Read sections 6.1, 11.1, and 11.2. Not only can Wotc yank the GSL out from under you with no notice but they can change the GSL retroactively with no notice as well. What's worse while 6.1 does refer to OGL product and product line, the agreement to cease using the OGL applies to all related products as 'reasonably' determined by Wizards of the Coast. This is essentially letting the Fox determine how many hens he can steal. Seriously. It's a caveat big enough to pilot a Super-Tanker though and thus essentially means that the per company exclusion that we were all afraid of is alive and kicking.
-Polaris
Charles
Seriously though, I've been here since TSR and have never felt so alienated from my favorite hobby. *sigh* Well, at least I still have my towel.
Wow, is all i have to say. I think im going to stick with paizo. I'll still play 4th edition, but i think im going to stick with 3.5 for the forseeable future.
How many of the smaller publishers will feel they can afford to not take advantage of the ability to ride the coattails of WotC, I wonder? Especially if 4E continues to be successful? Paizo, Green Ronin, maybe a couple of others? Hard to say who, if anyone, this stricter license will hurt.
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=231695&page=4&pp=15
His posts cross a good 3 pages from what I've seen so far.
I am curious to see what Goodman has to say now.
I am a big fan of 3rd party AND 1st party adventures. What I hated most was buying an adventure that had nothing but page references. Sadly, if this is all they will allow...I may now be out of the 3rd party market.
Seeing how slow WotC has always been to produce material, it means I may also be out of the 1st party market.
As much as I was geared for 4E, I'm starting to question my choice.
Also, could somebody summarize what Clark has to say? I can't access EN World. A quote or two that reinforces the summary would be really spiffy. Thanks.
Hellmute -- could you provide a link to Erik's quite, please. Thanks.
Also, could somebody summarize what Clark has to say? I can't access EN World. A quote or two that reinforces the summary would be really spiffy. Thanks.
Here is a statement from Clark that he posted on his boards and reposted on ENWorld.
There seems to be a lot of speculation that I am "shaken" by the GSL and that maybe Necro will be going Pathfinder.
I am not shaken by the GSL. It is pretty much what I expected. It has a couple twists (such as the convert and cant go back provision). It has a few things I want clarified (does the "cant go back to OGL" also apply to new 4E products that werent conversions? why are the specific demons and devils in the SRD? what exactly does "redefine terms" mean?).
Most likely, because of the terms of the license, we wont be able to do a "Tome of Horrors" for 4E because that would mean having to stop selling pdfs of the Tome 3E, which I dont want to do. That was what led me to ask the "product by product" question in the first place. I was ok with what I thought the "product line" answer I got meant, but now seeing the GSL it is a bit more restrictive on that than I thought. Erik and I had already discussed doing a Tome of Horrors for pathfinder in print since we never did a print version of the Tome Revised and Pathfinder seemed like a great chance to do that. So that plan was in the works. This isnt a change to Pathfinder, it is saying that we are likely only doing Tome for Pathfinder and NOT for both Pathfinder and 4E.
There are also some singinficant unaswered questions regarding Tegel Manor. I just got off the phone with Bob Jr. Wizards is going to have to give us some very clear answers to some questions before Tegel can be a 4E product. It may well not be a 4E product. Now, that doesnt mean it will be a 3E product either. Its hard to say. That one is back up in the air, and a lot of the decision on this will be up to Bob not me. I certainly am not going to tie up JG content with a license if it means something bad for Bob.
That said, there will definately be some significant 4E products from Necro.
We anticipate the Advanced Player's Guide (with some slight modification) will be a 4E go.
We anticipate the Iron Tower Adventure Path will be a 4E go.
We anticipate several of our pending adventures will be a 4E go.
One or two of our adventures that are in the hopper will likely need some questions answered because of their use of content from prior 3E products.
So yes Necro will be doing 4E for sure. No doubt. We will also do at least one and maybe a few 3.5/Pathfinder products.
Everyone please let the dust settle on this for a few days.
Clark
That was probably the one third party book I was really looking forward to.
Hellmute -- could you provide a link to Erik's quote, please. Thanks.
I don't think a link to it would even be possible to fit in WotC forums with how big those URLs are on those "messageboards".I will try or take a screenshot.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/4thEdition/gSLPosted
Scroll down the page. or serach for "05:56 PM"
No Tome of Horrors?
That was probably the one third party book I was really looking forward to.
Well, if I understand the whole "Can't do a 3e version" part, they couldn't do a 4e product called "Tome of Horrors"...but an Advanced Tome of Horrors or Expanded Tome of Horrors or something like that should be fine. Don't quote me on that, but there are probably ways to get the same thing out with a slightly different name.
Well, if I understand the whole "Can't do a 3e version" part, they couldn't do a 4e product called "Tome of Horrors"...but an Advanced Tome of Horrors or Expanded Tome of Horrors or something like that should be fine. Don't quote me on that, but there are probably ways to get the same thing out with a slightly different name.
I don't think so. In section 6.1, it says specifically, "Liscensee explicitly agrees that it will not thereafter manufacture or publish any portion of the Converted OGL Product Line as reasonably determined by Wizards"
Emphasis mine. Basically Wotc retains the right to be the judge, jury, and executionor of what is and is not part of the product line (and any expanded book would almost certainly be considered the same). Furthermore read literally this license gives Wotc the power to consider ALL products by a company part of a product line since "reasonable" means nothing unless enforced by a Judge...and other parts of the GSL make you pay for that even if you win.
This IS a per company exclusion. They just camouflaged it.
-Polaris
Furthermore read literally this license gives Wotc the power to consider ALL products by a company part of a product
That doesn't seem to be their intention though. At least that's the impression they've given from the FAQs and such is that they want companies to be able to maintain their seperate game lines.
That doesn't seem to be their intention though. At least that's the impression they've given from the FAQs and such is that they want companies to be able to maintain their seperate game lines.
Really? Are you willing to bet your company, your own IP (which Wotc can blatently steal under this GSL and then sue you retroactively), your livihood, etc all on the basis that this might not be Wotc's intent now? (And we don't even know that). Read section 11 again in it's entirely. Wotc can change all that in five minutes (long enough to edit their web page) and do it retroactively. Because of section 11, all the non-written promises (and even written promisis) of Wotc are worth absolutely nothing.
-Polaris
The FAQ has no legal weight. The contract (GSL) is the only document one should base a decision upon.
And the GSL is a one-sided deal with all the obligations, risks and costs of litigation on the licensee, and total freedom for Wizards.
You sign that, you're handing over the content and life-cycle of your licensed products.
I can't imagine anyone making serious money out of this. Publish an exceptional product? They can steal it. Your share of the market is growing? The GSL gives them 1001 ways to shut you down.
It's a deal for suckers.
[edit: sacrebleu! ninja'd by Polaris!]
The FAQ has no legal weight. The contract (GSL) is the only document one should base a decision upon.
And the GSL is a one-sided deal with all the obligations, risks and costs of litigation on the licensee, and total freedom for Wizards.
You sign that, you're handing over the content and life-cycle of your licensed products.
I can't imagine anyone making serious money out of this. Publish an exceptional product? They can steal it. Your share of the market is growing? The GSL gives them 1001 ways to shut you down.
It's a deal for suckers.
I'm not saying the FAQ has legal weight.
I'm saying the idea that the GSL is some evil scheme to steal the IP of third party publishers is a bit extreme.
I'm not saying the FAQ has legal weight.
I'm saying the idea that the GSL is some evil scheme to steal the IP of third party publishers is a bit extreme.
I'm not calling anyone evil. I'm just telling it like it is. If a contract allows a party a certain lattitude of motion, then at some point during that contract, that lattitude will be taken at some point. Basically the only way a 3PP has to protect themselves is not to sign. Bottom line.
-Polaris
What, you think Lawyers are good, lawful good, unaligned?
Probably unaligned. Lawyers will work for anyone....if you pay them enough. Pay them really well, you can keep them on retainer.
-Polaris
So unaligned is the new chaotic evil? Gotcha.
CE would probably work against you even if you paid them. Perhaps even because you paid them.
I'm not saying the FAQ has legal weight.
I'm saying the idea that the GSL is some evil scheme to steal the IP of third party publishers is a bit extreme.
No, but you are implying that the FAQ shows enough good intentions that Wizards would never take advantage of the abusive power over the licensee's products the GSL gives them.
I'm not saying that they will screw 3rd parties. This is irrelevant. The fact that the GSL allows them to do it is enough in itself.
Let's put it another way: you hire a nice and honest guy to redo your kitchen cabinets. But he wants you to sign a contract that says that he can take as much time as he wants to do the job and you have to pay him every hour he works.
Do you sign the contract because he "seems ok to you"?
I'm saying the idea that the GSL is some evil scheme to steal the IP of third party publishers is a bit extreme.
It doesn't really matter whether they're planning to use their "if you accept this license we can immediately order you to stop publishing all OGL and GSL produced products at our whim" powers in a malicious fashion.
The point is that, by accepting the license, you're giving them those powers. And if you're actually in this business -- i.e., you've got money on the line -- then you can't afford to just ignore that. You have to take it into meaningful consideration and make an informed choice.
And if you're making that decision based on your belief that the guys down at WotC are a swell bunch of guys who would never screw you over... Well, frankly, you're being foolish. Because even if these guys are all swell, they could all be fired tomorrow.
If you're making this decision, then there's really only question you need to ask: If WotC decided, at any time, to terminate my ability to publish OGL and GSL products (which they can do if I accept the GSL), would I be OK with that?
If you're OK with it, then you're golden. If you're not, then you shouldn't be using the GSL.
Personally, there's no way I could ever do business in that environment. I will not be developing under the GSL.
that being said, anyone who chooses to make product using the WotC D&D 4e SYSTEM is using their property to make profit. the dude making cabinets is nothing like what we're talking about here. people will be using property of WotC et al, to make products to sell for profit. i don't see why there's such a huge problem with WotC wanting as much say over what kind of product is made with their system and what kind of product is making profit, THE SYSTEM BELONGS TO WOTC they have every right to define what they do or do not want people to do with it. and YES, using someone else's IP to create your own IP pretty much makes it the primary IP holders IP. if 3PP want full rights to their creations then they should publish their own systems outside the WotC GSL. that's all there is to it. the OGL has gotten people spoiled like little brats and now they're all screaming and throwing tantrums. seriously, this GSL looks like it will keep all product exclusive, it will allow WotC full say on exactly what is produced, it will give them partial to full rights of said product, and thus increase quality of product across the board. it'll reduce the amount of two-bit hacks throwing together some half-arzed product and making a quick buck off of a system they had no hand in creating, but a large hand in completely bastardizing. with this, it seems that publishers may actually think smart about what they produce, make it good, and give the nod back to WotC as it should be...otherwise they can pack up and leave and take their IPs with them. seems pretty fair market to me. this ensures that the WotC and D&D 4e brand identity remain strong and pure.
okay, one more time...D&D, and the D&D 4th edition SYSTEM is property of WotC. it is their IP.
that being said, anyone who chooses to make product using the WotC D&D 4e SYSTEM is using their property to make profit. the dude making cabinets is nothing like what we're talking about here. people will be using property of WotC et al, to make products to sell for profit. i don't see why there's such a huge problem with WotC wanting as much say over what kind of product is made with their system and what kind of product is making profit, THE SYSTEM BELONGS TO WOTC they have every right to define what they do or do not want people to do with it. and YES, using someone else's IP to create your own IP pretty much makes it the primary IP holders IP. if 3PP want full rights to their creations then they should publish their own systems outside the WotC GSL. that's all there is to it. the OGL has gotten people spoiled like little brats and now they're all screaming and throwing tantrums. seriously, this GSL looks like it will keep all product exclusive, it will allow WotC full say on exactly what is produced, it will give them partial to full rights of said product, and thus increase quality of product across the board. it'll reduce the amount of two-bit hacks throwing together some half-arzed product and making a quick buck off of a system they had no hand in creating, but a large hand in completely bastardizing. with this, it seems that publishers may actually think smart about what they produce, make it good, and give the nod back to WotC as it should be...otherwise they can pack up and leave and take their IPs with them. seems pretty fair market to me. this ensures that the WotC and D&D 4e brand identity remain strong and pure.
I don't think they're going to enforce product quality though. They could, but they would look like total bastards for doing it.
I think the reason they would pull the plug on someone would be:
1) Making another Book of Erotic Fantasy or otherwise offensive product.
2) Someone trying to make a product using 4e rules that you don't need the core books for.
3) Upgrade to 5th ed.
I'm not even one hundred percent sure they'd yank the license away for the last one, but I'm sure they'll at least have another "no backwards compatability" clause for the 5th ed GSL.
EDIT: I forgot the most important reason
4) Making products that flagrantly violate the terms of the GSL
okay, one more time...D&D, and the D&D 4th edition SYSTEM is property of WotC. it is their IP.
That isn't quite true as Steerpike7 explains in another thread. Read up on US Copyright law. The D&D trademarks are property of Wotc as are the trademarks within the game no doubt. Likewise the exact expression of the 4E DnD system is unquestionably owned by Wotc.
However, under US law, game rules (and rule systems) can not be copyrighted. Therefor in a fundamental sense Wotc does NOT own the DnD 4E System. It is my considered opinion that at least part of the reason the GSL was released at all in a state where virtually no one should use it was to effectively try to dissuade 3PPs from taking this option (call it the OSRIC option).
You seem to think that the OGL has made 3PPs into spoiled brats. Actually you are forgetting your gaming history. She-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named got TSR into several litigous action and they all confirmed essentailly what I just stated above. You can't own a game-system. You can only own the expression of it. As a result the OGL was (and is) merely Wotc's admission of the obvious and an invitatin (which in hindsight was brilliant if contraversial) of saying, "Instead of arguing over who owns what, let's agree to play under these guidelines forever and put this behind us". I am oversimplifying, but in a lot of ways the OGL was an admission that the control/litigous approach that T$R had was non-viable. I wish Hasbro had learned that lesson (and they should have after they lost the Monopoly case).
-Polaris
the Monopoly case
Expoundplus, with the proper wording, a game system can be owned.
Only if you patent it. However, it's virtually impossible to patent game rules. You have to show that your game rule is unique to the history of games (in this case) and that's an extremely high burden to make and no tabletop RPG comes close to meeting that standard. Wotc did get such a patent for "tapping" in Magic-The-Gathering, and even that was highly contraversial.
-Polaris
the D&D BRAND. that's all they need to say. the brand is the catch all for EVERYTHING that falls under that brand identity...logos...trademarks...intellectual property rights...all of it. that, technically also includes the game and the game system. you want to see a legal document that shows copyright on a game system...you're lookin' at it kid. that's as close as you're gonna get to it. so yeah, publishers and such have had a LOT of leeway to make whatever they want using the D&D brand logo and brand identity...too much leeway if you ask me. not every 3pp product was even close to good...i'd much rather have a tighter restriction if it meant more meaningful and coherent product throughout the brand. that's what this is doing. at the end of the day the 3.5 OGL still stands, so people can still produce for it and that's a good thing. those who want to do 4.0 can as well, but they've gotta' play by the rules and realize that this is WotC's brand and they're basically riding on the coat tails. small time fansites and fans won't be so much on the radar, but people using the brand to make profit will. the GSL, as i said, ensures that WotC has every right and power to pull the plug if they have to, and that when that plug is pulled it's pulled immediately and irrefutably without long legal battles. that's how i'm readin' it.
From wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_board_game_Monopoly
Legal status
Although the game of Monopoly existed before the Parker Brothers edition, the company (now owned by Hasbro) has still claimed intellectual property rights over various aspects of the game, though it has not always prevailed in the courts.
The Anti-Monopoly case mentioned above, in addition to revealing some of the previously suppressed history of the game, also created a doctrine of "purchase motivation" a "test by which the trademark was valid only if consumers, when they asked for a Monopoly game, meant that they wanted Parker Brothers' version...."[104] As a result, the name "Monopoly" entered the public domain where the naming of games was concerned, and a profusion of non-Parker-Brothers variants were published. However, this doctrine was later eliminated by Congress in a revision of the trademark law,[104] and Parker Brothers/Hasbro now claims trademark rights to the name and its variants, and has asserted it against others such as the publishers of "Ghettopoly." Professor Anspach assigned the "Anti-Monopoly" trademark back to Parker Brothers, and Hasbro now owns it. Anspach's game remains in print, and is distributed and sold by University Games worldwide.[105][106][107]
Various patents have existed on the game of Monopoly and its predecessors, such as "The Landlord's Game," but all have now expired. The specific graphics of the game board, cards, and pieces are protected by copyright law and trademark law, as is the specific wording of the game's rules.
The specific case I was referring to was the Anti-Monopoly case which ultimately Hasbro lost (was forced to sub-license). Much of the case revolved around trademarks, but Hasbro (Parker Bros) tried to argue copyright infringement and got shot down in court.
Hope this helps.
-Polaris
I'm not saying the FAQ has legal weight.
I'm saying the idea that the GSL is some evil scheme to steal the IP of third party publishers is a bit extreme.
It maybe extreme, but it can be done, easily, with the current wording of the GSL.
it's not even a matter of patent on rules or rules systems or game rules or anything. it's in the brand baby.
Brand == Trademark, bottom line.
You can get around trademark and still mimic it. As I understand it, however, the product can not be confused for the trademarked product. As always, get a lawyer before even considering doing this...a GOOD lawyer.
-Polaris
then if that's the case, from a legal stand point, that's even MORE reason to be as explicit and tight fisted when it comes to writing a legal document such as the GSL. it's just covering the bases and ensuring that if they must, and are put to it, WotC has full legal right to take action against any 3rd party violations.
The GSL can not be used to take action against 3rd party publishers that have not agreed to the GSL. Period. It is not a bill, it is not a law. It does not apply to all published 4e materials by default. It is a licensing contract, it has no bearing in any way, shape, or form, on those that have not entered into that contract.
okay, one more time...D&D, and the D&D 4th edition SYSTEM is property of WotC. it is their IP.
that being said, anyone who chooses to make product using the WotC D&D 4e SYSTEM is using their property to make profit. the dude making cabinets is nothing like what we're talking about here. people will be using property of WotC et al, to make products to sell for profit. i don't see why there's such a huge problem with WotC wanting as much say over what kind of product is made with their system and what kind of product is making profit, THE SYSTEM BELONGS TO WOTC they have every right to define what they do or do not want people to do with it. and YES, using someone else's IP to create your own IP pretty much makes it the primary IP holders IP. if 3PP want full rights to their creations then they should publish their own systems outside the WotC GSL. that's all there is to it. the OGL has gotten people spoiled like little brats and now they're all screaming and throwing tantrums. seriously, this GSL looks like it will keep all product exclusive, it will allow WotC full say on exactly what is produced, it will give them partial to full rights of said product, and thus increase quality of product across the board. it'll reduce the amount of two-bit hacks throwing together some half-arzed product and making a quick buck off of a system they had no hand in creating, but a large hand in completely bastardizing. with this, it seems that publishers may actually think smart about what they produce, make it good, and give the nod back to WotC as it should be...otherwise they can pack up and leave and take their IPs with them. seems pretty fair market to me. this ensures that the WotC and D&D 4e brand identity remain strong and pure.
Actually, it wont do that. It will likely do just the opposite.
The clear side effect of the GSL is that ONLY those who have no backstock of significant OGL products will likely adopt the GSL (except for a small few like maybe me and Goodman who will have to draw clear lines between old products and new ones). That means most of the 3Ps you have come to trust will NOT convert to the GSL because of the "never go back to OGL provision even after the termination of the GSL" which was unexpected and the rather broad and totally up to Wizards decision on what is and isnt a converted product.
So with most of the big trusted 3Ps likely out for the GSL, and with the one unexpected new provision that free stuff can be out right away, what you will likely get is a flood of newbies and free stuff that isnt done professionally because the for sale stuff cant come out until 10/1.
This, to me, is one of the surprises of the GSL--it fails to provide incentive for use by the very people you would think would be given an incentive to use it, and it fails to "screen" the early chaff that so many people have complained about and instead encourages a flood of rushed, early, free stuff.
Gonna be interesting to see how this plays out.
Clark
It maybe extreme, but it can be done, easily, with the current wording of the GSL.
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
As I said in another thread, the poison pill in the GSL is alive and well. I wouldn't touch this GSL with an 11 and a half foot pole (if I wanted any control over MY IP) and IMHO no serious publisher should even consider it.
So we shouldn't expect White Wolf to go over, but the rest of the d20 companies should be happy with it, right? :P
Seriously, people were kidding themselves if they thought this was going to be a super generous liscensing agreement. WotC did all the R&D, spent all the money, and people expected to be able to use it for free AND get highly favorable terms? Ha!
Read sections 6.1, 11.1, and 11.2. Not only can Wotc yank the GSL out from under you with no notice but they can change the GSL retroactively with no notice as well
I've seen this in numerous liscensing agreements.
Yes. Those guys who capitalized on the Nerd Rage 2008 and will sell their Pathfinder System somewhere close to the end of the year. With an "open development" and no real possibilities to remedy most of the real 3.5 problems due to the "backwards compatibility" they want to achieve.
Pretty much.
Actually, it wont do that. It will likely do just the opposite.
The clear side effect of the GSL is that ONLY those who have no backstock of significant OGL products will likely adopt the GSL (except for a small few like maybe me and Goodman who will have to draw clear lines between old products and new ones). That means most of the 3Ps you have come to trust will NOT convert to the GSL because of the "never go back to OGL provision even after the termination of the GSL" which was unexpected and the rather broad and totally up to Wizards decision on what is and isnt a converted product.
So with most of the big trusted 3Ps likely out for the GSL, and with the one unexpected new provision that free stuff can be out right away, what you will likely get is a flood of newbies and free stuff that isnt done professionally because the for sale stuff cant come out until 10/1.
This, to me, is one of the surprises of the GSL--it fails to provide incentive for use by the very people you would think would be given an incentive to use it, and it fails to "screen" the early chaff that so many people have complained about and instead encourages a flood of rushed, early, free stuff.
Gonna be interesting to see how this plays out.
Clark
This is probably an extreme interpretation, but couldn't WotC reasonably that all of your D&D products are part of your D&D product line?
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
Clark, thanks for stopping in and sharing a bit of insight with us. I had come to the same conclusion, but when I say things like this, no one believes me (I guess they think I am an evil corporate stooge)... I would imagine that they trust you a bit more, since you are one of the very people they are rallying to protect.
It's a shame that the "you can never go back" provision is scaring people away. On one hand, I completely understand the bad position it places those 3pp. On the other, I can understand why WotC would want it that way. As a freelancer looking for work... I'm a bit torn between trying to hop on someone else's train and trying to self publish.
Listen to Clark, everyone. He's a cool guy.
The significant aspect of that is that the larger publishers could negotiate with WotC to meet a middle ground that protects both parties. WotC has certain concerns that caused it to put that language in. It had to make a general enough license that it could be applied across a wide spectrum. The larger publishers probably have access to lawyers that they might be able to come up with a contract that was specific to the needs of both parties as they know how they want to use the license.
Whether or not the other publisher wants to go through that effort is hard to say as there is a cost associated with that and they may not know if they will get a return on that investment. Plus there is no way of knowing if WotC would entertain the possibility of specific contracts with other publishers.
From the outside it seems pretty heavy handed (or underhanded if you will) to require 3rd parties to immediately halt production of project and product on a whim from WoTC. But given the botched launch so far as the GSL is concerned one can't even hope notice would be given so 3PP could sell off their stock and finish off older projects, or that 3PP would be given advanced rules and the new license before termination of the old.
For people like me with little to nothing invested it's a bit of a concern, I can't imagine what people who are trying to make a living doing this might think.
This is probably an extreme interpretation, but couldn't WotC reasonably that all of your D&D products are part of your D&D product line?
No, not in my opinion.
Clark, thanks for stopping in and sharing a bit of insight with us. I had come to the same conclusion, but when I say things like this, no one believes me (I guess they think I am an evil corporate stooge)... I would imagine that they trust you a bit more, since you are one of the very people they are rallying to protect.
It's a shame that the "you can never go back" provision is scaring people away. On one hand, I completely understand the bad position it places those 3pp. On the other, I can understand why WotC would want it that way. As a freelancer looking for work... I'm a bit torn between trying to hop on someone else's train and trying to self publish.
Listen to Clark, everyone. He's a cool guy.
Thanks WizO_Tao.
I hear what you are saying. And I understand Wizards' business concerns too. But I dont understand the "never go back provision." I wouldnt mind the license so much if it was "you cant go back during the GSL", but the "you cant ever go back even after we terminate the GSL" means, effectively, that I am ceding control of the life of my content to Wizards. I think that was a term that didnt have to be there and it is causing people concern. I also dont like what it signifies--that 5E wont have a license and that they have already decided that. Because, logicially, there is no other reason for such a provision. If there was going to be a license for 5E, then why would they care if, on the expiration of 4E, publishers go back to the OGL which at that point would be a version of a game two iterations old? If Wizards cant offer content that players want to support and are worried about OGL content that far down the line, then Wizards is doing something wrong, not the third party publishers. I think the "never go back" provision was more than was needed to cover Wizards' interestes. If those restrictions terminated at the termination of the license, that would have met their objectives just fine. But the "never go back" provision is a mistake.
And the ramifications are clear: the very people who the license is giving an unneeded disincentive too should be the very people the license should be attractive to--the established, respected 3Ps who have a track record of professional products. But instead those are the very people it is scaring off becuase of this "never go back" clause. Some of those people, I concede, would still have reservations just from a "not sell OGL versions during your use of the GSL" provision, true. But it would be less of a problem and more of the larger established 3Ps would adopt the GSL. As it stands, if any of the larger 3Ps other than Goodman and Necro adopt the GSL, I'd be surprised. And that is a shame. And I'm not even going to update any of my old products for 4E, which is allegedly what Wizards was hoping would happen.
But back to the initial point I was posting for which drew your comment, for those of us who understand the GSL and who also understand the history of the development of the OGL and d20 STL, there is nothing in the GSL that lets Wizards take your content.
Clark
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
I wonder where in the OGL it says that. I have the book in front of me and I don't know which one says that. It seems to me that even if WotC steals it, you can still Use Your own copy. Tell me if I am wrong.
Anyways, that is why I prefer the GNU GPL. Other people can sell it but they too have to license it under the GNU GPL. The GNU GPL is more communist than any other licenses, and that is why GNU GPL is good.
I also dont like what it signifies--that 5E wont have a license and that they have already decided that. Because, logicially, there is no other reason for such a provision. If there was going to be a license for 5E, then why would they care if, on the expiration of 4E, publishers go back to the OGL which at that point would be a version of a game two iterations old?
I am not a lawyer (and my lawyer is not a gamer) but my interpretation of that particular section was insurance against a product line found in violation of the GSL going back and printing through the OGL. I had thought of its usefulness of continuing against an individual publisher who had their license terminated, though I can see what you are talking about should the GSL be terminated across the board. I honestly hadn't thought that it was indicative of plans for 5e licensing, and don't know whether it is or not, though I agree that it would be a shame if that were the implication.
This is why WotC wants this in there, so people will support the GSL and 4th only.
From a gamer point of view this is very bad. Yes WotC wants its new game to succeed, but you don't have to do it at the expense of throwing everything that existed prior out. WotC chose to change everything so should shoulder the largest burden of the new edition themselves, not ask 3PP and gamers to help them.
It would be like MGM or WB blaming the fans because it made a movie that didn't do well. They made their bed so its time for them to lie in it.
WotC should embrace both editions to not only allow 3PP to have the freedom of choice in what they create, but also the gamers themselves. WotC just wants to give no one a choice because they do NOT want people playing anything but the latest edition.
Sad, because WotC used to understand gamers better. the "can't go back" only hurts the entire hobby: WotC, 3PP, gamers, retailers, etc.
Actually, it wont do that. It will likely do just the opposite.
The clear side effect of the GSL is that ONLY those who have no backstock of significant OGL products will likely adopt the GSL (except for a small few like maybe me and Goodman who will have to draw clear lines between old products and new ones). That means most of the 3Ps you have come to trust will NOT convert to the GSL because of the "never go back to OGL provision even after the termination of the GSL" which was unexpected and the rather broad and totally up to Wizards decision on what is and isnt a converted product.
So with most of the big trusted 3Ps likely out for the GSL, and with the one unexpected new provision that free stuff can be out right away, what you will likely get is a flood of newbies and free stuff that isnt done professionally because the for sale stuff cant come out until 10/1.
This, to me, is one of the surprises of the GSL--it fails to provide incentive for use by the very people you would think would be given an incentive to use it, and it fails to "screen" the early chaff that so many people have complained about and instead encourages a flood of rushed, early, free stuff.
Gonna be interesting to see how this plays out.
Clark
That was what I was thinking earlier this week, but it sounded just a bit too wild, as well as way too premature with none of the big 3PP having made any statements of their intentions.
I agree, it is going to be very interesting seeing how that plays out.
I believe you. What you didn't address and what I'd like answer to is this:
Can Wotc by using the retroactive changes allowed by the SRD, make your IP unusable?
When I say "take" your IP, I am not using that like a lawyer would. I aknowledge that Wotc can't terminate ownership of your IP. However, even a casual reading seems to confirm that they can by redefining the SRD make it so that you can never use your own IP.
What in the GSL stops Wotc from doing just that?
As for the "can't go back forever" provisions, I am inclinded to agree with your take on this one. It seems to me that the only 3PPs that can afford to take the risk that the GSL wants are the fly-by-night, one-shot pdf publishers with little to no backstock, and therefor nothing to lose. Seems to me that these are the last sorts of 3PP products (because of quality) are the last sort you'd want to carry your brand.
-Polaris
What may put 3P companies who stick with the OGL in a bind is whether the D&D communities gradual switch from 3.5E to 4E cuts the playerbase away. If games based on the 3E SRD stop selling like they used to, the GSL becomes a different animal.
And 3P companies who go with the GSL would be in a bind if WotC shuts down it's D&D division.
Although the OGL company would still be fine, since they still would be able to sign up for the GSL. The GSL company might have more trouble though.
However, under US law, game rules (and rule systems) can not be copyrighted.
WOTC did patent the rules for Magic: The Gathering. It basically said that they own the rules mechanic of spinning a card to bring other cards into play. If anyone else came out with a game that had that, WOTC could take the game and put it out themshelves, and all money would go to them.
see bottom of the page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering#Product_and_marketing
Just saving you some hassle, bro.
WOTC did patent the rules for Magic: The Gathering. It basically said that they own the rules mechanic of spinning a card to bring other cards into play. If anyone else came out with a game that had that, WOTC could take the game and put it out themshelves, and all money would go to them.
see bottom of the page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering#Product_and_marketing
I'm not quite sure patents work like that...
I'm not quite sure patents work like that...
I'm not sure they do either. But WOTC was able to do it. it was approved by the US patent office.
I'm not sure they do either. But WOTC was able to do it. it was approved by the US patent office.
Sort of. The patent was approved without challenge. Basically the office works in that someone can file a patent (and this one was VERY questionable), and someone ELSE has to challenge the patent's legitimacy. WotC seemed pretty confident that no one that had already used similar mechanics (such as, say, Wyvern or Galactic Empries) would feel confident of such a challenge.
The company most likely to put up a challenge then, TSR, really couldn't because they had ALSO staked a claim that vague patents to declare rules were enforceable. If they went after WotC's patent, they were given a pretty tacit admission of their own malfescence. It's called 'Karma', folks.
In the end, both Hasbro and Nintendo did, in fact, challenge the patent for other games - which likely is one reason how Hasbro ended up just buying WotC outright, though terms were never made public.
At any rate, the patent expires in 2017, though it seems unlikely that anyone left will care by then. The patent, and WotC's handling of it, is a bit of a lesson of 'over-lawyering', and ensured the rapid decline of the hobby, since games would be limited, and WotC ensured itself only of having the lion's share of an ever-dwindling market that cannot expand.
WOTC did patent the rules for Magic: The Gathering. It basically said that they own the rules mechanic of spinning a card to bring other cards into play. If anyone else came out with a game that had that, WOTC could take the game and put it out themshelves, and all money would go to them.
see bottom of the page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering#Product_and_marketing
Umm, Patents do not work like that at all.
A patent is an exclusive right to an invention. It provides the inventor the exclusive[1] right to decide, for the life of the patent, what s/he wants to do with their invention. It does *not* give the patent holder the right to take control/ownership of products that use the invention without permission. The patent-holder can take the infringer to court to get production stopped. They can take them to court to get $$$ for not getting a license, but it does notnotnot give them the right to "take the game".
[1] Barring very rare cases where the government overrules the rights of the patent-holder.
WOTC did patent the rules for Magic: The Gathering. It basically said that they own the rules mechanic of spinning a card to bring other cards into play. If anyone else came out with a game that had that, WOTC could take the game and put it out themshelves, and all money would go to them.
see bottom of the page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering#Product_and_marketing
Yes, a particular game mechanic (tapping) was patented by Wotc for Magic the Gathering. As others have pointed out, however, Patents are not Copyrights. To get a patent on something, you have to show that it's a new and unique idea (and Wotc's patent on tapping in MtG was very contraversial on those grounds).
Given that almost all RPGs are based on interactive theatre and rolling dice, and both concepts have been around since nearly the beginning of civilization, it's basically impossible to get any sort of patent for an RPG (and it wouldn't protect the entire RPG anyway as Mudbunny pointed out).
So what I said goes: You can not copyright game mechanics.
However, what the GSL does do is (IMHO but I think it's reasonable opinion) act as a giant "Cease and Desist" letter to anyone that even thinks about using copyright law along with the OGL to make 4E compatible products. It's my personal opinion that such is allowed, but most 3PPs don't have the legal warchests to prove it in court.
-Polaris
Having read that patent when it was brought up in another thread about copyright, it should be noted that it is not merely for tapping, which is not merely turning a card sideways.
The patent says the game is a completely new and distinct "invention" as it combines several factors, including:
1. Collectible cards
2. Building a deck
3. Rarity of cards
4. Distinguishing cards used during play (tapping, but it includes any method of marking or noting which cards have been played
5. A few other things I am probably missing
That patent is not just about turning a card sideways, but the overall effect of all of those elements appearing in a card game.
A bit of a side note:
Having read that patent when it was brought up in another thread about copyright, it should be noted that it is not merely for tapping, which is not merely turning a card sideways.
The patent says the game is a completely new and distinct "invention" as it combines several factors, including:
1. Collectible cards
2. Building a deck
3. Rarity of cards
4. Distinguishing cards used during play (tapping, but it includes any method of marking or noting which cards have been played
5. A few other things I am probably missing
That patent is not just about turning a card sideways, but the overall effect of all of those elements appearing in a card game.
Correction noted, however, it was this combination that was ruled to be 'new and unique' thus allowing Wotc to be awarded the patent (which was very contraversial as I remember). RPGs don't have patenable mechanics (unless there is a really oddball RPG mechanic I've never heard of).
-Polaris
I'm not sure they do either. But WOTC was able to do it. it was approved by the US patent office.
Noooo. I was not talking about that.
I meant that I didn't think that WotC could take the game and make themselves.
Pretty much what mudbunny said.
In fact, I believe that doing that would get them sued and cause them to lose in a devastating and, frankly, idiotic way.
I'm not quite sure patents work like that...
They don't.
Sort of. The patent was approved without challenge. Basically the office works in that someone can file a patent (and this one was VERY questionable), and someone ELSE has to challenge the patent's legitimacy.
No, that's not how it works.
When you file a patent application, the Examiner does a prior art search and issues rejections of your application based on what he finds in the prior art. You then have to make arguments and/or amend the claims of your patent application in order to overcome the Examiner's rejections. If you are successful you get a patent that then has a presumption of validity under U.S. statute when another party later tries to attack it. If you aren't successful in your arguments or amendments with the Examiner you do not get a patent.
A patent is an exclusive right to an invention. It provides the inventor the exclusive[1] right to decide, for the life of the patent, what s/he wants to do with their invention.
That's not exactly true either. A patent is a right to EXCLUDE someone else from making, using, selling, etc. the invention. A patent does not give the inventor any affirmative right to make, use, sell, etc. You could get a patent on something and not have the right to make or use it. But you would have the right to exclude others from using your patented invention. That is what a patent gives you.
No, that's not how it works.
They're supposed to do all that work, but they don't. A lot of patents in the past few years have been given out without proper research (there are many horror stories in the technical industry), and an assumption that it'll be settled in challange. That's why there's been a record number of patent turnovers and cancellations in recent years - a culture of 'give the patent FIRST, then confirm it in court.
I got my 4e books and was immediately annoyed at the cloying, whitewashed nature of the assumed world. No racism? No social injustice? No gore? No sex? Sorry, that sort of unpleasantness is what my games are based on; people at their worst. So in response, I made the darkest world imaginable. Maybe second to the midnight campaign setting.
It's a really brutal and unhappy setting in a lot of ways, and it's just going to get worse as I flesh more and more of it out. But I'll never publish it because I can't work within a system that censors me. ****ing GSL. This post'll probably get edited.
So we shouldn't expect White Wolf to go over, but the rest of the d20 companies should be happy with it, right? :P
Seriously, people were kidding themselves if they thought this was going to be a super generous liscensing agreement. WotC did all the R&D, spent all the money, and people expected to be able to use it for free AND get highly favorable terms? Ha!.
They spent as much, if not more, on 3E. And basically gave it away in the SRD and the OGL. I'm not sure what your point is. It certainly isnt consistent with history. The fact they spent money on R&D doesnt mean they wont have good licensing terms.
And, as a matter of fact, though I dont like a bit here or there, as a general matter this are GREAT license terms--find another IP license that doesnt have pre-release content review and approval, for instance. And, if you havent noticed, its FREE. Those are some pretty great terms. Dont let my complaints about how they could have done things better suggest that this isnt a good license, it is.
I would say we got it for free and got highly favorable terms. So your position, IMHO, is flat out wrong. Are there terms that I think dont meet their stated objectives? Yes. Are there terms that I think are not that smart and that provide a disincentive where they dont have to? Yes. But in the end, this is not a bad license.
Necro-Clark,
I believe you. What you didn't address and what I'd like answer to is this:
Can Wotc by using the retroactive changes allowed by the SRD, make your IP unusable?
When I say "take" your IP, I am not using that like a lawyer would. I aknowledge that Wotc can't terminate ownership of your IP. However, even a casual reading seems to confirm that they can by redefining the SRD make it so that you can never use your own IP.
What in the GSL stops Wotc from doing just that?
As for the "can't go back forever" provisions, I am inclinded to agree with your take on this one. It seems to me that the only 3PPs that can afford to take the risk that the GSL wants are the fly-by-night, one-shot pdf publishers with little to no backstock, and therefor nothing to lose. Seems to me that these are the last sorts of 3PP products (because of quality) are the last sort you'd want to carry your brand.
-Polaris
Can they make our stuff unusable? Maybe. If they add content they develop to the SRD, sure. But then I would have to be silly enough to make something that they would be replacing soon. (I dont want to be arrogant enough to say that concept was targeted at our APG and providing missing classes, but certainly it fits that bill nicely). So now our barbarian becomes a "berserker" and our monk a "martial artist." If Wizards does those classes, I might have some problems. Do I see that happening? No. But yes, Wizards could simply create similar content, add it to the SRD and then not only make my book obsolete but also make it in violation of the licnese and my license subject to immediate termination if I dont pulp all the copies I have. It is a risk you run.
As for the "never go back," I dont think it will be all fly by night. I mean, heck, we know that Goodman is going to go 4E and Joe is awesome and his stuff is great. If you dont have a DCC, go buy one now!
What may put 3P companies who stick with the OGL in a bind is whether the D&D communities gradual switch from 3.5E to 4E cuts the playerbase away. If games based on the 3E SRD stop selling like they used to, the GSL becomes a different animal.
Aint that the truth
But the mistake this concept makes (or perhaps overlooks) is that people will go from 3E to 4E. I dont think that is true.
The real value of the OGL and open gaming is that it basically made D&D the default option for all gamers. It provided all the needed alternatives. People stuck with D&D longer as a result.
Now, its Wizards' 4E, with not as much support. Certainly NOTHING like 3E. I think you will see people play other games. Not just D&D.
Heck, look at the genius of the OGL--it got White Wolf, Chaosium and others to make d20/D&D products! That is genius! Wizards got its main competitors to make products supporting its game! That was truly amazing. You wont see that from 4E.
So instead, D&D will lose players as some dont go from 3E to 4E. Some will go to C&C or other games. Some will go to Pathfinder (which isnt strictly 3E). Some will drift off to other systems. And that is the sad part. If the GSL was friendlier to the existing publishers, we could help keep people playing D&D.
Will a ton of people buy the books? Of course. But that isnt how you measure things. The question is how long can they keep people playing D&D.
Clark
Can they make our stuff unusable? Maybe. If they add content they develop to the SRD, sure. But then I would have to be silly enough to make something that they would be replacing soon. (I dont want to be arrogant enough to say that concept was targeted at our APG and providing missing classes, but certainly it fits that bill nicely). So now our barbarian becomes a "berserker" and our monk a "martial artist." If Wizards does those classes, I might have some problems. Do I see that happening? No. But yes, Wizards could simply create similar content, add it to the SRD and then not only make my book obsolete but also make it in violation of the licnese and my license subject to immediate termination if I dont pulp all the copies I have. It is a risk you run.
I was more curious what would happen if WotC accidently used a power name that was in a 3rd party book when creating a new book and added it to the SRD.
I assumed with the number of powers that there would be some chance of this happening at random and I thought that would cause similar problems with continuing to sell that book.
Or I could be wrong.
So now our barbarian becomes a "berserker"
I really hope that isn't what you're calling your barbarian and if it is the plan I hope you wait until you know the 4e name for it before you publish any books. Because there's quite a bit of speculation going on that Barbarian will be renamed, with beserker being everyone's favorite guess. I think at this stage a safer name for barbarian would be a non B name.
I was more curious what would happen if WotC accidently used a power name that was in a 3rd party book when creating a new book and added it to the SRD.
I assumed with the number of powers that there would be some chance of this happening at random and I thought that would cause similar problems with continuing to sell that book.
Or I could be wrong.
It is possible that there would be some overlap, but I think small overlaps will likely not result in any action. I realize you can't gamble a lot on such things though.
Still, consider the following scenario. Publisher X writes a Druid-like class with a power called Feral Frenzy. Later, WotC creates a Druid or Barbarian or whatever with an identically named power. Will WotC even be aware of this? It takes a lot of policing to actually catch on to such things. Next, what course of action is likely even someone notices? I'd expect something like an email or letter pointing out the duplication and asking that the next printing and any electronic version change the reference. Asking people to destroy their stock or informing them that they are no longer allowed to publish under the GSL is kind of a big deal. It's all allowed, but there is no good reason to actually use this term in most cases.
This isn't legal advice, but it's just common sense. I'm operating under the assumption that WotC wants people to publish stuff under the GSL. Punishing publishers to the maximum allowable extent doesn't accomplish this.
That doesn't mean I expect WotC to be totally lax or that I don't advise publishers to come up with creative names. But I don't think WotC will stick it to everyone who guesses wrong.
It is possible that there would be some overlap, but I think small overlaps will likely not result in any action. I realize you can't gamble a lot on such things though.
Still, consider the following scenario. Publisher X writes a Druid-like class with a power called Feral Frenzy. Later, WotC creates a Druid or Barbarian or whatever with an identically named power. Will WotC even be aware of this? It takes a lot of policing to actually catch on to such things. Next, what course of action is likely even someone notices? I'd expect something like an email or letter pointing out the duplication and asking that the next printing and any electronic version change the reference. Asking people to destroy their stock or informing them that they are no longer allowed to publish under the GSL is kind of a big deal. It's all allowed, but there is no good reason to actually use this term in most cases.
This isn't legal advice, but it's just common sense. I'm operating under the assumption that WotC wants people to publish stuff under the GSL. Punishing publishers to the maximum allowable extent doesn't accomplish this.
That doesn't mean I expect WotC to be totally lax or that I don't advise publishers to come up with creative names. But I don't think WotC will stick it to everyone who guesses wrong.
I was more interested about how the 3rd party would handle the change and less how WotC would handle it. Whether WotC tells you to burn your old books or just not reprint the book without editing it first, you would still have to deal with different editions of the same book. I would see be interested to see how it turns out if a 3rd party happens to something they used in multiple books (or had made open and other people used it). (Conversion texts listing changes between each version?)
Also, the first thing to come to mind as to how they would find out was "helpful" players sending e-mails to WotC informing them of the violation.
So the choices are to sell 4th edition product under WoTC's rules or not sell it at all. At least WoTC is giving people options to make money off of their IP. I cant think of any otehr game company that does that, that isnt made using a d20 variation.
d6 is now an open game.
FUDGE has been open for awhile.
There's a few others as well.. mostly minor, but they do exist.
Lastly, keep in mind that the people who made d20 an open system in the first place are largely no longer with the company.
This isn't legal advice, but it's just common sense. I'm operating under the assumption that WotC wants people to publish stuff under the GSL. Punishing publishers to the maximum allowable extent doesn't accomplish this.
But, again, here's the question, and it's not a snarky one. Why would you make that assumption? The current management at WotC views other game publishers as hostile competitors.. why do you think they closed the OGL in the first place? It wasn't like Mongoose's PHB ever even came close to supplanting theirs...
The GSL is plainly an anti-competition move. It absolutely makes sense from a business point of view. Why would you ever assume otherwise?
The GSL is plainly an anti-competition move. It absolutely makes sense from a business point of view. Why would you ever assume otherwise?
No license at all is an anti-competitive move.
The GSL is a "Play with our stuff, by our rules" move.
No license at all is an anti-competitive move.
The GSL is a "Play with our stuff, by our rules" move.
It's still an anti-competition move, in that any IP that you make with it is effectively WotC's, since they get to control if it ever sees the light of day... you sign away most of your rights to the IP. Sure, it's still 'your' IP, but that's small comfort when you can't actually release it.
The GSL is actually a bit more effective in curbing competition than no-license-at-all would be. With the GSL, WotC is in control of your work. It says so explicitly.
The way the GSL is worded right now, it makes more sense to release '4E compatible material' while completely ignoring the GSL than it does to actually sign onto it. And, of course, that too is already being done.
No license at all is an anti-competitive move.
The GSL is a "Play with our stuff, by our rules" move.
I disagree. Without a GSL, companies would be free to use the OGL to make 4E compatible material since almost all the 4E concepts can be reasonably derived from OGC content. With the GSL, it acts like a 'cease and desist' letter to all companies that might think about doing so.
Without a GSL, a company could make private arrangements with Wotc without putting their OGL products and danger. With it, Wotc has far less incentive to negotiate.
Wotc has put out a licenses that gives Wotc and only Wotc the power to veto all future OGL products from that company FOREVER. No license is better than this.
Finally, Wotc's GSL is terminate at-will and change at-will both with no effective notice. Anyone that signs a contract the other person can change at will and still have it binding (and retroactively binding at that!) needs to have his head examined.
It's a terrible deal.
-Polaris
I disagree. Without a GSL, companies would be free to use the OGL to make 4E compatible material since almost all the 4E concepts can be reasonably derived from OGC content.
If this were actually the case, then all you have to do is not sign the GSL and make 4e compatible products anyway.
With the GSL, it acts like a 'cease and desist' letter to all companies that might think about doing so.
Big deal. Without the GSL, WotC could actually send a cease and desist letter to those companies anyway. The end result is the same -- you'd have to defend it in court.
Without a GSL, a company could make private arrangements with Wotc without putting their OGL products and danger. With it, Wotc has far less incentive to negotiate.
If WotC didn't put out a GSL, it would be *because* they didn't want to negotiate. Negotiating case-by-case terms isn't in their interest anyway.
Wotc has put out a licenses that gives Wotc and only Wotc the power to veto all future OGL products from that company FOREVER. No license is better than this.
Okay, in what sense is this different from George Lucas having the power to veto all future Star Wars novels by me FOREVER?
Finally, Wotc's GSL is terminate at-will and change at-will both with no effective notice. Anyone that signs a contract the other person can change at will and still have it binding (and retroactively binding at that!) needs to have his head examined.
You seem to be under the impression that contracts in real life work like the spell wish in D&D -- that is, that any twisting of the wording you can use to get yourself infinite wishes (or whatever) *must* work because it's what the contract "really" says.
This isn't how contracts or laws work in real life, where they really do have to pass the test of being "reasonable" as declared by a judge. Many contracts in real life have been rejected because the terms were simply unreasonable -- see various tenant-landlord lawsuits (where putting in a clause saying the landlord can change things retroactively doesn't actually allow them to do so).
So no, however you're reading the clause here, it would not magically grant WotC the power to claim that GURPS is based on D&D and declare that they own all GURPS products past and present. This is just more Chicken Little speculation by people determined to make WotC the Devil and accuse them of suicidally self-destructive behavior (because *they* see WotC as suicidally self-destructively arrogant for something as simple as releasing a new edition of D&D, and interpret all future decisions in that light).
It's a terrible deal.
It looks to be a far more lenient and unrestrictive deal than the deal for making Star Wars products WotC had to sign with Lucasfilm to make d20 Star Wars.
Again, people who accuse the GSL of being some kind of devil contract seem to have zero experience with how licensing generally works in the world at large.
It's still an anti-competition move, in that any IP that you make with it is effectively WotC's, since they get to control if it ever sees the light of day... you sign away most of your rights to the IP. Sure, it's still 'your' IP, but that's small comfort when you can't actually release it.
The GSL is actually a bit more effective in curbing competition than no-license-at-all would be. With the GSL, WotC is in control of your work. It says so explicitly.
Only if you use it. You can always not use it.
The way the GSL is worded right now, it makes more sense to release '4E compatible material' while completely ignoring the GSL than it does to actually sign onto it. And, of course, that too is already being done.
See, if it actually *were* legal to make as much 4e material as you wanted outside the GSL, then WotC would have no reason to release it. If the GSL is as self-evidently horrible as you claim, then no one would have any reason to sign onto it.
I fail to understand why you think WotC benefits by making a contract for the sole purpose of discouraging people from signing that contract.
Big deal. Without the GSL, WotC could actually send a cease and desist letter to those companies anyway. The end result is the same -- you'd have to defend it in court.
You do realize that WotC cannot protect mechanics. They can't. I can make a game fully compatible with 4E and, so long as I use neither their trademark or copy any of their verbage (copyright), I'm perfectly okay. TSR's case record from the late 1980s up until their death is proof of this.
Now, I argue, personally, that it's not really worth it. But that's a relative judgement call. Seems to me that it would be less of a hassle to unhitch from WotC now, while it's likely a very good time to unhitch, and have done with it.
Again, people who accuse the GSL of being some kind of devil contract seem to have zero experience with how licensing generally works in the world at large.
I would have to put you in this boat. I defy you to show me any license agreement that even remotely gives the power to one party that GSL does, while offering so very little in return.
See, if it actually *were* legal to make as much 4e material as you wanted outside the GSL, then WotC would have no reason to release it. If the GSL is as self-evidently horrible as you claim, then no one would have any reason to sign onto it.
It is absolutely legal to release material with compatible mechanics. And it looks like it's already being done. Again, TSR's case history proves this. The OGL tacitly admitted it.
The GSL, as written, is nothing more than a control grab written by marketing.
d6 is now an open game.
FUDGE has been open for awhile.
There's a few others as well.. mostly minor, but they do exist.
Lastly, keep in mind that the people who made d20 an open system in the first place are largely no longer with the company.
Do those companies alow you to publush compatible books to their "Settings" or are they just open for use of the system to create you own setting and game?
You do realize that WotC cannot protect mechanics. They can't.
They can still send you a cease and desist and, when you don't comply, file a suit in federal court that you'll have to defend.
Do those companies alow you to publush compatible books to their "Settings" or are they just open for use of the system to create you own setting and game?
As far as I know, it's all 'free use of the system'. I haven't seen an open-setting project from anyone, largely 'cause that's the sort of IP you really want to KEEP.
They can still send you a cease and desist and, when you don't comply, file a suit in federal court that you'll have to defend.
The GSL doesn't provide any additional protection from that, and, in fact, worsens your case 'cause you agreed to their terms in the first place. Really, 4E seems like lose-lose to me to develop for under either scenario, with the 'screw the GSL route' a lot safer... but that's just me.
The GSL doesn't provide any additional protection from that...
Sure it does. Under GSL you are licensed to use some of WotC's IP. They aren't going to be able to mount an infringement suit against you for something you're licensed to do. You definitely get more protection, but you also take a risk.
Sure it does. Under GSL you are licensed to use some of WotC's IP. They aren't going to be able to mount an infringement suit against you for something you're licensed to do. You definitely get more protection, but you also take a risk.
Aren't they? Remember a company called 'Mayfair'? (Granted, that was TSR, but the point still stands.) How about Gary Gygax himself?
Again, you cannot and should not assume automatic unassailable good will from a person you're entering a contract with, particularly a contract like this one. The GSL does not explicitly offer the licensor any protections, whatsoever. In fact, the GSL goes out of its way to make sure that you don't get any, including your own copyright.
Okay, in what sense is this different from George Lucas having the power to veto all future Star Wars novels by me FOREVER?
I actually think that it is closer to George Lucas having the power to veto all future Sci Fi novels by me forever.
I actually think that it is closer to George Lucas having the power to veto all future Sci Fi novels by me forever.
The GSL doesn't work that way though. If they pull your license they can only stop you from making your product line as either GSL or OGL. That's it. You arn't prevented from ever making your product line under a different rules set. And you can still make other product lines under the OGL.
The GSL doesn't work that way though. If they pull your license they can only stop you from making your product line as either GSL or OGL. That's it. You arn't prevented from ever making your product line under a different rules set. And you can still make other product lines under the OGL.
I didn't say anything about other types of novels (other rules sets) or not letting them make sci-fi games (other product lines).
I didn't say it was the same, I just felt it was closer. I do think my example was simplistic and inaccurate though.
You do realize that WotC cannot protect mechanics. They can't. I can make a game fully compatible with 4E and, so long as I use neither their trademark or copy any of their verbage (copyright), I'm perfectly okay. TSR's case record from the late 1980s up until their death is proof of this.
Would you please stop lieing to everyone? Its really causing problems when you are citing a legal ruling that you appear to be misconstruing its ramifications on purpose.
The nature of the lawsuit you're referring to prevents them from copyrighting concepts such as "rolling dice", "using 6 ability scores to define the base of a character's abilities" and "initiative", yes those are all mechanics, but they are not IP identity mechanics. Whereas for 4E, the experience chart, level progression table, the page on applying experience are IP identity mechanics and are copyrightable.
Turning a resource card to generate imaginary resources to play a card from your hand cannot be copyrighted. But Tapping a mountain get one red mana that use use to summon a goblin sapper can be. Because Land types as a resource, color coded imaginary resources linked to lands and color coded card structure with a specific format, symbolism and naming style are IP identity.
Turning a resource card to generate imaginary resources to play a card from your hand cannot be copyrighted. But Tapping a mountain get one red mana that use use to summon a goblin sapper can be. Because Land types as a resource, color coded imaginary resources linked to lands and color coded card structure with a specific format, symbolism and naming style are IP identity.
And, ya know what, you're so wrong in what I was talking about it's not even funny. The gamer world existed BEFORE Magic, and TSR had sod-all to do with it.
The suits I'm referring to predate Magic, and refer to the 'clone' games that competed with AD&D back in the 1980s. As I said, the suits pretty definitively came out AGAINST TSR's assertion that mechanics ALONE were protected.
Would you please stop lieing to everyone? Its really causing problems when you are citing a legal ruling that you appear to be misconstruing its ramifications on purpose.
The nature of the lawsuit you're referring to prevents them from copyrighting concepts such as "rolling dice", "using 6 ability scores to define the base of a character's abilities" and "initiative", yes those are all mechanics, but they are not IP identity mechanics. Whereas for 4E, the experience chart, level progression table, the page on applying experience are IP identity mechanics and are copyrightable.
Turning a resource card to generate imaginary resources to play a card from your hand cannot be copyrighted. But Tapping a mountain get one red mana that use use to summon a goblin sapper can be. Because Land types as a resource, color coded imaginary resources linked to lands and color coded card structure with a specific format, symbolism and naming style are IP identity.
Actually Steveman from what I am reading in copyright law and in Nimmer (hat-tip to Stearpike7), you are wrong. All those things you mention are instructions and from many precedents (such as Selden v. Baker) they can not be copyrighted. Under current copyright law TVF is dead right. You should review at the very least the FAQ put out by the US Copyright office.
You also can't copyright 'tapping'. What Wotc did (and it was contraversial) was patent the process and that's a completely different animal and not germane to RPGs because RPGs are based on ideas and mechanics that have been around for most of civilization (and thus are not new and unique).
However, what Stearpike7 mentions greatly concerns me. You can be in the complete right as far as copyright law goes and STILL get a C&D letter and you'd STILL have to defend that in court. The fact that Wotc has put out a GSL (no matter how restrictive) and you failed to use it, would be construed as evidence against your position.
Quite honestly if I didn't know any better (and I am not sure I don't) the entire GSL reads as though Wotc (or more likely Habro legal) wants to take this to court.
-Polaris
The only succesful game related patent I know of is those Clix dials on Mage Knight figs. That's why pretty much every non WizKids miniatures game uses seperate stat cards.
So the choices are to sell 4th edition product under WoTC's rules or not sell it at all.
Maybe. Goodman Games is apparently shipping 4e material in August, which means they aren't shipping under the GSL. What they are doing, nobody's sure.At least WoTC is giving people options to make money off of their IP. I cant think of any otehr game company that does that, that isnt made using a d20 variation.
Mongoose/RuneQuest, WEG/D6, Grey Ghost/FUDGE.
Maybe. Goodman Games is apparently shipping 4e material in August, which means they aren't shipping under the GSL. What they are doing, nobody's sure.
I guess they've either negotiated a separate license or they are moving forward without GSL (or, I suppose, they could be giving the product away free, which I doubt).
I would have to put you in this boat. I defy you to show me any license agreement that even remotely gives the power to one party that GSL does, while offering so very little in return.
That is tough to do because the OGL and GSL are pretty unique licensing agreements.
The GSL basically sets out conditions that lets WOTC direct competitors use the Dungeons & Dragons brand. Can anyone imagine Marvel setting out conditions that would let any comic book publisher use the Marvel logo? Or Lucas Arts giving other movie makers conditional permission to use Darth Vader?
I think once cooler heads prevail over the absolutists people will be able to accurately weigh the costs of using the GSL with the benefits of using the brand. Additionally, WOTC will be able to weigh the benefits of a more restrictive license against the cost of fewer third parties using it (assuming that fewer users of the license is a cost).
If the GSL is as self-evidently horrible as you claim, then no one would have any reason to sign onto it.
I think you might lose this argument. Not many are signing on to the GSL. I'm not sure what Goodman and Adamant are doing, they may be "going copyright" and simply trying to make 4E compatible products without using the logo and the GSL. I dont know yet if they are or not. I will dabble in 4E, but we wont be converting over old content under the GSL. That means a whole batch of the biggest arent going to adopt. So, if you are arguing it is good 'cause people are using it, you might want to wait to see who actually uses it. That list is looking pretty freaking short.
Maybe. Goodman Games is apparently shipping 4e material in August, which means they aren't shipping under the GSL. What they are doing, nobody's sure.
True. I have to wonder what Wotc's incentive would be to do a private deal given the reaction the GSL is getting. That means just as a speculation there isn't private deal between Goodman Games and Wotc.
I think Goodman games may well be doing their 4E stuff "copyright" and avoiding Wotc's trademarks and specific verbage.
-Polaris
No license at all is an anti-competitive move.
That would just encourage people to continue with the OGL. This is a move to discourage people from using the OGL so they can eventually yank the GSL and leave the person unable to use the most popular systems.
I am of the opinion that we are lucky to have any sort of licensing at all. We are lucky that WotC decided to keep any sort of license agreement, as I'm sure that the anything goes policy of the old OGL was a legal nightmare. Heaven forbid that WotC would have some say over what kind of products are made for THEIR game.
I am of the opinion that we are lucky to have any sort of licensing at all. We are lucky that WotC decided to keep any sort of license agreement, as I'm sure that the anything goes policy of the old OGL was a legal nightmare. Heaven forbid that WotC would have some say over what kind of products are made for THEIR game.
Actually, I am of the strong opinion that no license would be much better for the gaming community than the GSL as it's currently written. If Wotc has simply put out no license, then it would be a neutral signal that Wotc was no longer interested in open licensing/gaming. Wotc would go their way and 3PPs (with the OGL) would go theirs. Consider it a divorce more or less.
What's happening here is worse. Wotc is attempting to use the power of it's brand to blackmail 3PPs into giving up the OGL. If a 3PP uses the GSL in any way, Wotc veto rights over ALL future OGL material that company puts out forever since 6.1 lasts beyond the termination of the GSL. (Read section 6.1 carefully). What's worse the very tone of the letter is not a neutral act. It puts out notice to all 3PPs that Wotc will aggressively defend what it regards as it's game system (4E) in case a non-GSL company even things about using OGL and/or copyright to make 4E material.
This is a highly aggressive and anti-competative license designed to ultimately do one thing: It's designed to translate the market dominance of DnD (and specifically DnD 4E) into a way to poison the otherwise perpetual OGL out of existance.
-Polaris
If a third party doesn't like it, maybe they should come up with their own game, instead of biting the hand that feeds them.
And of course WotC wants 3e dead forever, why would any company want to compete with it's own product?
This isn't exactly different flavors of Doritos here.
Do the majority of players (casuals, not us forum nerds) give a rat's ass about this?, is it an issue for them?
The answer is almost certainly NO. 4e will continue to be successful, 3e will die as 1/2e did-maybe slower, but it will die( and thus the OGL will wither too).
It's designed to translate the market dominance of DnD (and specifically DnD 4E) into a way to poison the otherwise perpetual OGL out of existance.
Good. I am sick of having players bring poorly written, poorly balanced, 3rd party crap to my table. I have yet to see a 3rd party book that I thought was any good.
Good. I am sick of having players bring poorly written, poorly balanced, 3rd party crap to my table. I have yet to see a 3rd party book that I thought was any good.
Mutants and Masterminds, Spycraft, Conan, Midnight, Blue Rose, and Serenity just called and would like to have a short word with you. Quite honestly all these releases and several more recent ones have been of better quality both mechanically (in terms of structure and playtesting) and artistically than most of Wotc's late-end 3e stuff. Wotc has not been putting out top notch product of late. Perhaps it was because of 4e. We'll see.
-Polaris
Mutants and Masterminds, Spycraft, Conan, Midnight, Blue Rose, and Serenity just called and would like to have a short word with you. Quite honestly all these releases and several more recent ones have been of better quality both mechanically (in terms of structure and playtesting) and artistically than most of Wotc's late-end 3e stuff. Wotc has not been putting out top notch product of late. Perhaps it was because of 4e. We'll see.
-Polaris
Serenity wasn't a d20 game, and all the others were independent d20 systems that didn't even try to be compatible with D&D. Many of them were so wildly different from core d20 that it is almost questionable as to why they bothered to be d20 at all.
They're all great systems though.
As far as books made to be DnD compatible, most of them were honestly crap and or outright unbalanced.
I can't believe the number of people that seem to think that 3PP's have an innate "right" to make a profit off of WotC's property.
They don't have an innate right, but they do have rights under copyright law whether there is a GSL or not.
I hear what you are saying. And I understand Wizards' business concerns too. But I dont understand the "never go back provision." I wouldnt mind the license so much if it was "you cant go back during the GSL", but the "you cant ever go back even after we terminate the GSL" means, effectively, that I am ceding control of the life of my content to Wizards. I think that was a term that didnt have to be there and it is causing people concern. I also dont like what it signifies--that 5E wont have a license and that they have already decided that. Because, logicially, there is no other reason for such a provision. If there was going to be a license for 5E, then why would they care if, on the expiration of 4E, publishers go back to the OGL which at that point would be a version of a game two iterations old?
If 5e wasn't going to have a license, why would 4e? There's no reason they'd have to put out a liscense for 4e in the first place, and it would drive the OGL market out of business anyway, just maybe a year later than it would have otherwise.
The reason for the clause is, most likely, simply to force people to switch over to 4e or force them out of business. Basically, if you are still producing OGL stuff, you're trying to compete with WotC (as 4e is not compatible with 3.x) and WotC doesn't want their own IP used against them in competition. I'm sure the loss in sales would be pretty insubstantial, but every little bit helps, as they say.
The purpose of the GSL isn't to help out third party publishers, it is to sell D&D. People seem to have this backwards, though I know you understand this. I think if you think about it in the light of what the purpose of the GSL is, it makes sense.
They want the third party publishers to be essentially subservient to them, which most of them have to be as, if they're having to use WotC's IP to make their games, they clearly aren't going to do so well on their own. But if they can use WotC's past IP to make games, they could potentially steal sales from WotC, slow down conversion to new editions, or otherwise not be with the program.
WotC wants all third party publishers for D&D to be on the same edition of D&D - the present one. And that's exactly what that clause is for, methinks.
They spent as much, if not more, on 3E. And basically gave it away in the SRD and the OGL. I'm not sure what your point is. It certainly isnt consistent with history. The fact they spent money on R&D doesnt mean they wont have good licensing terms.
I think they saw that as a mistake, and I'd tend to agree with them. The idea, after all, was to get people to purchase more D&D products from WotC, and the thinking was basically that the third party companies would produce stuff and keep people interested and wanting to go back and buy more real D&D products in a nice synergistic loop that made WotC lots of money. The fact that it made other people money, from WotC's standpoint, was incidental. It also gave them a free labor pool to hire from, and some premade, pretrained talent they could buy.
The problem was that it didn't really work out that way. I suspect things didn't work out as WotC planned, and certainly PHBs printed pretty much whole cloth by other companies and posted online certainly weren't what WotC had in mind to drive sales.
Now, its Wizards' 4E, with not as much support. Certainly NOTHING like 3E. I think you will see people play other games. Not just D&D.
I disagree. From what I've seen in terms of market share, everyone whose name doesn't start with a "W" (in the North American market, at least) is pretty meaningless. And frankly, I think you're suffering somewhat from wishful thinking - people simply won't stick with 3.x D&D. Yeah, there's a few people ranting on forums, but the numbers are dropping, 4e is selling rediculously well, and it really is just generally a massively superior product to 3.x, which is an inherently flawed system.
Basically, WotC could have not put out a GSL at all and crushed you all under the heel of their marketing dollar, and in five years no one would remember most of the companies, and the few which survived would have done so by making their own IP.
I disagree. Without a GSL, companies would be free to use the OGL to make 4E compatible material since almost all the 4E concepts can be reasonably derived from OGC content.
This would not fly in court. You would die a painful, messy, horrible death at the hands of WotC's lawyers.
Of course, given your prior proclaimations, you seem to have no clue what is going on at all.
You do realize that WotC cannot protect mechanics. They can't. I can make a game fully compatible with 4E and, so long as I use neither their trademark or copy any of their verbage (copyright), I'm perfectly okay. TSR's case record from the late 1980s up until their death is proof of this.
Uh, no. You cannot protect mechanics, but the problem is not that. The problem is that you'd probably infringe their copyrights anyway because it is still a derivative work which doesn't fall under fair use provisions.
Yeah, Polaris, you are right on the tapping. "Tapping a mountain get one red mana that use use to summon a goblin sapper" cannot be protected by copyright. The specific expression of such a rule, the artwork on the card (or anywhere else) etc. can be protected by copyright, but the mechanic itself cannot. It can, however, be patented (assuming it meets the requirements for patentability of course). Whether the patent can withstand a challenge in court is another issue, although it enjoys a presumption of validity.
Not necessarily true. It is possible to copyright something like that, but it isn't the mechanic you're copyrighting, but rather a presentation of an idea. You cannot copyright ideas, but you can copyright expressions thereof, and if something is too close to yours, you can probably sue them and win.
I can't believe the number of people that seem to think that 3PP's have an innate "right" to make a profit off of WotC's property. Regardless of whether it's good for the "gaming community" or not, it's WotC's product and their right to license it however they like.
People believe this because it is convenient for them to do so, not because it has any bearing on reality. They want to believe in the lie rather than face the reality.
The reality is that if you don't make your own IP from scratch, the person you're licensing the IP from has every right to jerk you around because you're using their IP. They may force you to pay them, or promote their products in various ways, or whatever. You may whine and yell and kick your feet, but in reality, in the end, it all comes down to this:
You put yourself into that situation by not coming up with your own IP, and have no right to our sympathy.
I actually think that it is closer to George Lucas having the power to veto all future Sci Fi novels by me forever.
The most apt analogy would be George Lucas allowing you to write either Star Wars novels or Indiana Jones novels (without any associated licensing fees), but having the power to veto all future Star Wars and Indiana Jones novels by you forever, at any point he chooses.
Applied to Wizards of the Coast it sounds EVIL and ANTI-COMPETITIVE, but compared to the way the rest of the world works it would be a darn good deal. Is it a risky proposition to build an entire business on? Maybe. Depends on the business partner, and depends on how much you can leverage out of it. Since we're talking about them, Paizo built their entire business on a contract that could (and would) expire and it seems to have worked out alright for them. In fact, they seem to be doing even better now that the license has expired. Yes, people were in a tizzy about it then, but the fact remains that Wizards of the Coast did nothing unethical or unscrupulous at any point in time. Things like this happen in the rest of the world seventeen times a day. We're just so insulated in the gaming industry that we forget how good we've got it. You're getting a free open license to build an entire business on, if you so choose. The licensee, however, is maintaining a moderate amount of control on their product. If that's too much of a risk, there are, of course, other avenues you are welcome to explore.
One of the things people are forgetting is that this isn't a blow against open gaming. This is, in essence, a non-compete clause. Its a very minor non-compete clause at that, simply saying that you can't use their product to compete with their new product. They're asking for a little bit of a commitment from the people who want to use their license. If you're not willing to commit, then you have other options to explore. If you don't feel that you can trust Wizards of the Coast, then you probably shouldn't be trying to leverage their product as the cornerstone of your entire company. There are plenty of other ways to build an RPG, whether through an open roleplaying system (one of which they gave you... you're welcome) or otherwise.
The most apt analogy would be George Lucas allowing you to write either Star Wars novels or Indiana Jones novels (without any associated licensing fees), but having the power to veto all future Star Wars and Indiana Jones novels by you forever, at any point he chooses.
Not quite. You would be forbidden to write any science-fiction or adventure novels for all time, even if Lucas folded tommorow and went out of business. It's an inherent non-compete clause. You are expressly FORBIDDEN to work with the competition.
It most certainly is a non-compete clause, because of that whole 'forever and ever and ever' phrasing.
Not quite. You would be forbidden to write any science-fiction or adventure novels for all time, even if Lucas folded tommorow and went out of business. It's an inherent non-compete clause. You are expressly FORBIDDEN to work with the competition.
It most certainly is a non-compete clause, because of that whole 'forever and ever and ever' phrasing.
Again, you're not stopped from writing an RPG ever again. You're stopped from using two specific licenses ever again.
Again, you're not stopped from writing an RPG ever again. You're stopped from using two specific licenses ever again.
Again, except that they can, at their leisure, define 'similar work', 'affiliates', etc, against you and apply it retroactively. I think that if they said 'another role-playing game system' at some point in the future, rather than just OGL, a court would see that as a reasonable, logical, and expected extension.
Again, except that they can, at their leisure, define 'similar work', 'affiliates', etc, against you and apply it retroactively. I think that if they said 'another role-playing game system' at some point in the future, rather than just OGL, a court would see that as a reasonable, logical, and expected extension.
That's not a logical extension though because the GSL doesn't say anything about that.
Again, all that only applies to OGL and GSL products.
And you're only stopped from using the OGL for the same product line.
That's not a logical extension though because the GSL doesn't say anything about that.
Yeah, missing some very important paragraphs, aren't you? The "We can change these specifics at any time and make it retroactive" ones, perhaps?
Really, if you think you're going to convince me that the GSL is this wonderful playland that WotC is bestowing on us out of the kindness of their hearts, please do yourself a favor and give up now.
Yeah, missing some very important paragraphs, aren't you? The "We can change these specifics at any time and make it retroactive" ones, perhaps?
It's only retroactive if you keep publishing GSL products after they make a change.
2. Updates or Revisions to License. Wizards may update or revise the License at any time in its sole discretion by posting the updated License on its website page located at http://www.wizards.com/d20. Wizards will indicate on the License the date it was last updated. Licensee is responsible for checking the License regularly for changes, and waives any right to receive specific notice of changes. 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.
Plus making a change like that would not be in good faith and very easy to challenge in court.
I mean in theory they could change the license after the fact to say they get your first born child, but that's not going to go over well if it actually went to court.
No, but you are implying that the FAQ shows enough good intentions that Wizards would never take advantage of the abusive power over the licensee's products the GSL gives them.
I'm not saying that they will screw 3rd parties. This is irrelevant. The fact that the GSL allows them to do it is enough in itself.
Let's put it another way: you hire a nice and honest guy to redo your kitchen cabinets. But he wants you to sign a contract that says that he can take as much time as he wants to do the job and you have to pay him every hour he works.
Do you sign the contract because he "seems ok to you"?
Lets turn that around.
The major 3rd party publishers have done a good job of turning the OGL's spirit of openess into a spirit of "Your IP is mine now, and you can't take it away, you bully!". Given how cold Chris Pramas and Erik Mona are towards WotC, a company both made money off of, why should WotC trust these people to play fair?
If anyone's going to find loopholes and screw the other party, I'm predicting it will be the 3rd party publishers.
I disagree. From what I've seen in terms of market share, everyone whose name doesn't start with a "W" (in the North American market, at least) is pretty meaningless. And frankly, I think you're suffering somewhat from wishful thinking - people simply won't stick with 3.x D&D. Yeah, there's a few people ranting on forums, but the numbers are dropping, 4e is selling rediculously well, and it really is just generally a massively superior product to 3.x, which is an inherently flawed system.
Basically, WotC could have not put out a GSL at all and crushed you all under the heel of their marketing dollar, and in five years no one would remember most of the companies, and the few which survived would have done so by making their own IP.
I would be interested in the source of your numbers on market shares.
Lets turn that around.
The major 3rd party publishers have done a good job of turning the OGL's spirit of openess into a spirit of "Your IP is mine now, and you can't take it away, you bully!". Given how cold Chris Pramas and Erik Mona are towards WotC, a company both made money off of, why should WotC trust these people to play fair?
If anyone's going to find loopholes and screw the other party, I'm predicting it will be the 3rd party publishers.
I made this post (and the previous ones also) before I read the comments of people with actual IP law expertise. I was surprised that they said "oh, that's pretty normal", but hey, they know what they're talking about way more than I do, so I'll take their word for it.
I'd be less critical of the GSL now.
I guess they've either negotiated a separate license or they are moving forward without GSL (or, I suppose, they could be giving the product away free, which I doubt).
Maybe they have a license from Wizards. Maybe they're depending on the limits of copyright law. Maybe they're using the OGL and stretching the 3.x SRDs to support 4e material. Maybe they've . . done something else, which nobody else has thought of.
But, they're charging $10.99/each and shipping for retail sale in August, so it's certain they're not using the GSL as written. It's also a numbered part of their existing Dungeon Crawl Classics line, and is seems unlikely they're planning to pulp backstock, as the GSL would pretty much demand.