I wish they'd just post the darned changes.
Let's see just how much they "have listened to the community and our valued colleagues and have taken their concerns and recommendations to heart."
I wish they'd just post the damn changes.
No need to swear.
EDIT: I should have used "damned," huh...
There will also be an updated SRD and FAQ.
We had hoped to have the documents complete by GenCon.
There will also be an updated SRD and FAQ.
And just to be clear, these will be ready *sometime* after GenCon, not before. GenCon starts in a couple of days and many of us are packing up and getting ready for the trip.
EDIT: I'm not seeing anything anywhere, not even an announcement. The original docs are still dated from 6/xx/08, I must be blind?
I think I am happy, but before I hurt my brain, the changes are not posted? Do we have to dig and look through out the whole document to find them?
Would it help if we put bullet points in the FAQ spelling out the changes? Can do!
Would it help if we put bullet points in the FAQ spelling out the changes? Can do!
Aye, and perhaps simply say, "check out the FAQ", and don't worry if its still "dated" 4EGSLFAQ061708.pdf
:D
Would it help if we put bullet points in the FAQ spelling out the changes? Can do!
Would help immensely.
Would it help if we put bullet points in the FAQ spelling out the changes? Can do!
Thanks. Bullets, or maybe a color change to the text to highlight the latest revisions for comparison with the older version.
Bullets, or maybe a color change to the text to highlight the latest revisions for comparison with the older version.
Bullets I can do. Colored text and highlights probably not. It's a legal doc and our lawyers aren't keen on non-standard formatting.
Oh, and just so everyone is aware: I'm not able to discuss the specific changes just yet. I'll answer the questions directly once the revised docs are posted.
It's good to see you are listening to the concerns of your fan base.
Thank you!
Almost no one actually cared.
We'll see what they do. I'm not sure how significant the changes will be. Maybe it will involve removal of the "change it whenever" language; maybe it will involve a notification thing so they can't abruptly end the GSL and have to give some amount of warning before it ends. I doubt it will be anything like the OGL though.
I wonder what they'll change in the SRD.
And if it makes (or tries to make) the "time to fix things before WoTC cuts you off" less of a sore spot?
I'll understand if you can't and obviously that you can't give out specifics.
Can you answer if it makes (or tries to make) compatability with the OGL less of a sore spot?
And if it makes (or tries to make) the "time to fix things before WoTC cuts you off" less of a sore spot?
I'll understand if you can't and obviously that you can't give out specifics.
I'm unable to discuss at this point. ;)
Can you answer if it makes (or tries to make) compatability with the OGL less of a sore spot?
Honestly, I hope they don't, as it was a good business decision. Allowing people to compete with them using their own IP without forcing them to at least do what they're supposed to do was wise.
Not that it will matter (3.x is junk), but it'd be unwise for them to just be like "Okay, whatever." as it sets a precedent for the future and the whining will be even stronger the next time around.
Bullets I can do. Colored text and highlights probably not. It's a legal doc and our lawyers aren't keen on non-standard formatting.
Oh, and just so everyone is aware: I'm not able to discuss the specific changes just yet. I'll answer the questions directly once the revised docs are posted.
The FAQ is a legal document? I thought it was the thing for the non-lawyers to get an idea what the GSL was. Am I missing something and you mean the bullets will be in the GSL itself without revision to the FAQ?I thought the FAQ was the thing the bullets were for and what I just downloaded again....hmmm.
I thought the FAQ was the thing the bullets were for and what I just downloaded again....hmmm.
My misunderstanding. I thought you meant colors/highlights to the GSL.
I thought the FAQ was the thing the bullets were for and what I just downloaded again....hmmm.
I think she thought you meant to color the parts of the license (in the license) as opposed to coloring the faq.
My misunderstanding. I thought you meant colors/highlights to the GSL.
Yeah GSL must be black or blue ink only per gov't standards.
I was meaning a text color change for the FAQ only to show what was new or changed with its revision. It's Monday afterall....
I'm not really sure why WotC cared that much. The 3pps are all take, and really, it looked like they basically fell off the edge of the world anyway.
Almost no one actually cared.
We'll see what they do. I'm not sure how significant the changes will be. Maybe it will involve removal of the "change it whenever" language; maybe it will involve a notification thing so they can't abruptly end the GSL and have to give some amount of warning before it ends. I doubt it will be anything like the OGL though.
I wonder what they'll change in the SRD.
Actually and quite obviously lots of people cared. I know everyone I talked to interested in games at my local game shop cared a lot.
I wonder if Necromancer made the difference or if it was customers.
Still I noticed here, that WOTC did something positive. Still members acted cynical towards them. There really is nothing negative about this. It needs to be developed.
Will it change things that much?
3pp will continue to produce stuff for 3e/3.5 while testing the waters with 4e material, but if the GSL clause forbidding such a practice persists, Wotc will have shot themselves in the foot yet again.
1) They didn't say what they were they were changing.
2) They didn't set a date as to when these changes were going to be released.
I'll believe it when I see.
Simple as that.
I'm not really sure why WotC cared that much. The 3pps are all take, and really, it looked like they basically fell off the edge of the world anyway.
Almost no one actually cared.
Two things to note here.
1) They didn't say what they were they were changing.
2) They didn't set a date as to when these changes were going to be released.
I'll believe it when I see.
Geez guys, don't be so negative. TD, we know you hate the 3pps, but a lot of folks (like me) bought lots more of their product than those of WotC because they could provide things the Wizards could not (due to resources, ROI, etc.). And if it doesn't impact your life and game experience it shouldn't bother you so much. The SRD changes are what you should focus on.
And TPK, come on. That ANYTHING is changing is good, and I think we can guess that the things being modified are the things everyone has been griping about. Lidda implied a very fast turnaround, so I'll bet it will be ready sometime the week after GenCon, like Thursday or Friday (so everyone can settle back into routine after the trip).
Wotc played chicken with 3rd party publishers and lost.
Simple as that.
Lidda implied a very fast turnaround, so I'll bet it will be ready sometime the week after GenCon, like Thursday or Friday (so everyone can settle back into routine after the trip).
Don't hold me to this timeline though. I'm purposely not committing to a date. ;) I mean, I'm not trying to be wylie...it's just that I learned the oh-so-hard way that some timelines are not always under my command.
Wotc played chicken with 3rd party publishers and lost.
Simple as that.
How about: WotC made a mistake and are correcting it (allegedly). Simple as that.
Don't hold me to this timeline though. I'm purposely not committing to a date. ;)
Not a problem for me. We've waited this long, a little longer won't kill anyone (unless they're like, you know, insane.
)Don't hold me to this timeline though. I'm purposely not committing to a date. ;)
No offense but the last couple of months, we haven't been holding any one at WOTC to a timeline, it's like the boy who cried WOTC... I mean wolf. :P
On a positive side, glad some changes have been made. I'll just wait to see exactly what those changes are. Many 3pp have backed away if not all but one. D&D needs them to stay alive, I'm sure you guys know that.
Here's hoping a lot of good news comes after Gen Con.
EK
I'm not really sure why WotC cared that much. The 3pps are all take, and really, it looked like they basically fell off the edge of the world anyway.
Almost no one actually cared.
WotC obviously cared.
Apparently they have a significantly different view of things than you do. One might even hazard that they know their business a lot better than you do as the cause for that difference in opinion.
No, but it's a statement by the company, and as such, could certainly be made use of in a lawsuit, either as an indication of what WoTC intended by some unclear language, or to explain an interpretation by a 3PP.
I'm not really sure why WotC cared that much. The 3pps are all take, and really, it looked like they basically fell off the edge of the world anyway.
Almost no one actually cared.
We'll see what they do. I'm not sure how significant the changes will be. Maybe it will involve removal of the "change it whenever" language; maybe it will involve a notification thing so they can't abruptly end the GSL and have to give some amount of warning before it ends. I doubt it will be anything like the OGL though.
I wonder what they'll change in the SRD.
Let me explain why the 3pp are important.
I have been playing other games, pretty much throughout the existance of 3.5.
I have played and run in numerous other systems, i have a small fortune of books from chaosium, white wolf, Black industies and many others, but until about a year ago, i had five Wizards of the coast books in my entire collection, the three core books the erberon campaign setting and the sharn sourcebook. Why was this, wizards didn't put out adventures i wanted to play or run, it didn't put out (for the most part) campaign settings i wanted to play in.
Then to my joy, looking through dragon, in my FLGS, i saw a peice of Wayne Reynolds art work on an advert. I read the blurb and decided within 30 seconds that it was a product i wanted to perchase, a rarity really, considering that at the time, i considered most DnD not worth my time. I'd never played in a game or seen one played that was of the slightest interest to me.
Over two or three months, i actually started buying dragon again. I discovered paizo, and became increasingly convinced that pathfinder, as i learned this new product was called, was something i wanted to give a try.
Well i did, its about a year later now. And i have a bunch of DnD books on my shelf, from complete books to the moster maneal series, i also have a bunch of paizo products...my obsessive collecting of Mage: the Awakening, has slacked of, with almost nine months worth of releases unperchased and Wizards, have been the benificiaries.
Now, i also have the core set of DnD 4e. I like the combat but think much of the rest of the game is a little flat. I'll probably get the Erberon campaign setting and players guide, unless they kill it, but thats a while off.
I'll be able to write, and enjoy playing in a little 4e, but to be honest, i cant see my self spending money on it. My mage collection might start to heal.
That is unless, some enterprising 3pp brings out something that catchs my attention the way that Pathfinder has, at which point, Adventurer’s Vault, martial power, Manual of the Planes and a million other future products start to look interesting.
I am not alone in this sort of behaviour, wizards benifits from the 3rd party relationship. While it may have been stung a little two on occation, over all, the GSL was a terrible move.
Obviously we'll have to see the true extent of the changes, but any change toward a more third-party supportive role can only help the hobby.
Just as long as you guys do not go too far overboard and make it the OGL 2.0. As far as I'm concerned OGL was very very bad for the hobby.
Yeah it sucks something awful that settings like Midnight, Iron Kingdoms, Nyambe, Dawnforge along with tons of excellent material from folks like Monte Cook, Green Ronin, Necromancer Games, Fantasy Flight Games, Penumbra, and others added to the richness of D&D and offered options that WoTC could or would not.
Wyrmshadows
Yeah it sucks something awful that settings like Midnight, Iron Kingdoms, Nyambe along with tons of excellent material from folks like Monte Cook, Green Ronin, Necromancer Games added to the richness of D&D and offered options that WoTC could or would not.
Wyrmshadows
And how many shameless knock offs of 3e were there in the meantime? That[s what the GSL is made to prevent. We don't need second rate half witted knock off material that was even worse than the parent material was to start with (3e and the OGL) which happened more often than not while simultaneously claiming to be their own system. Those products you listed do not necessarily violate the new licensing. Most of the GSL issues that supposedly exist are a great deal like the 3e whiner's club reaction to 4e in general anyway. It's knee jerk of "oh my god we can't have it like we used to! it's the end of the world!!!!"
And how many shameless knock offs of 3e were there in the meantime? That[s what the GSL is made to prevent. We don't need second rate half witted knock off material that was even worse than the parent material was to start with (3e and the OGL) which happened more often than not while simultaneously claiming to be their own system. Those products you listed do not necessarily violate the new licensing. Most of the GSL issues that supposedly exist are a great deal like the 3e whiner's club reaction to 4e in general anyway. It's knee jerk of "oh my god we can't have it like we used to! it's the end of the world!!!!"
Supposedly exist? Doesn't the fact that 90+ percent of the 3pp community have chosen not to produce anything under the GSL clue you in to the fact that there is definitely something wrong with it?
Supposedly exist? Doesn't the fact that 90+ percent of the 3pp community have chosen not to produce anything under the GSL clue you in to the fact that there is definitely something wrong with it?
I doubt it's 90 percent. Does anyone actually have a list of -all- the third party publishers? Furthermore also having a list of their respective stances on the GSL?
I doubt it's 90 percent. Does anyone actually have a list of -all- the third party publishers? Furthermore also having a list of their respective stances on the GSL?
Come on Cpt Micha. If you want a list of third party publishers making OGL product go to one of the OBS sites or YourGamesNow. Then see how many of them have announced anything for 4E. You can count them on one hand. The point is that he vast majority of publishers who are making OGL products and might have supported 4E--especially the big guns like Green Ronin--have backed away from it due to the draconian (pun intended
) rules of the GSL.Come on Cpt Micha. If you want a list of third party publishers making OGL product go to one of the OBS sites or YourGamesNow. Then see how many of them have announced anything for 4E. You can count them on one hand. The point is that he vast majority of publishers who are making OGL products and might have supported 4E--especially the big guns like Green Ronin--have backed away from it due to the draconian (pun intended
You win the crown of worst pun of the night by the way :D
Also I think it might be 'assumed' that someone is going to be making material for fourth edition. Remember people say "no" and complain more than they say yes in an open fashion I think this is a case of a vocal minority and a silent majority. Coincidentally much like the so called edition war. Usually they'll just go with the flow in general.
Also material takes time to develop. It's like a Final Fantasy. Square Enix (Can I really just call them Squaresoft? Seriously) -is- making a FF game. They don't need to advertise it. You know it's coming. Just a matter of when.
I still hold that most companies have chosen not to produce for 4E because of the GSL as it is written today. Under whatever changes we see inthe coming weeks that may change shortly.
Full disclosure: I am not a fan of 4e, I am sticking with 3.5. However, I am not a "3E whiner" as you described folks who don't like the new edition. It's just not my cup of tea, doesn't feel like the D&D I know and love anymore. That being said, I don't rail against the world or denigrate people who have made the jump over to 4E. More power to them; anything that keeps players in the market and (hopefully!) attracts new people can only be goo for the industry as a whole.
I will assume you are referring to the vocal extremists and ignore the slander. We leaders of the Gamilon Empire are not usually so magnanimous.
Well sure some of them are going to make stuff for 4E. Some already are, just not using the GSL (Adamant Entertainment and Kenzer, for example). There will be a few others that will go under GSL; to clarify, I mean the GSL as we know it today. I don't dispute that. I have no special insider knowledge about who will create product without advanced notice to the public, but it seems silly to me not to market yourself ahead of a release in this particular scenario.
I still hold that most companies have chosen not to produce for 4E because of the GSL as it is written today. Under whatever changes we see inthe coming weeks that may change shortly.
Full disclosure: I am not a fan of 4e, I am sticking with 3.5. However, I am not a "3E whiner" as you described folks who don't like the new edition. It's just not my cup of tea, doesn't feel like the D&D I know and love anymore. That being said, I don't rail against the world or denigrate people who have made the jump over to 4E. More power to them; anything that keeps players in the market and (hopefully!) attracts new people can only be goo for the industry as a whole.
I will assume you are referring to the vocal extremists and ignore the slander. We leaders of the Gamilon Empire are not usually so magnanimous.
Nothing against you. Since you 1 have a brain in your skull. And 2 haven't railed against 4e in mindless tirades in a vain attempt to stop 4e from coming. I don't describe people that do not like the new edition as 3e whiners. No that's a ehem... Special Badge that I apply only to those deserving such a dubious honor. So yes that would be in reference to vocal and nine times out of ten mindless extremists.
Every time a new edition comes out some percentage of gamers choose to stick with the older version of the game. This will happen again when 5th edition comes out in 5 years (oh yeah, I went there
)The problem with the extremists--on both sides--is that we gamers are a quirky and obsessive lot. We often forget that games are also a business, and without change the industry will die. Sometimes that change is good, sometimes bad, and sometimes both depending on the viewpont of the players, as is the case with 4E. We went through the same growing pains when 3e came out, we'll adjust to this change as well.
Every time a new edition comes out some percentage of gamers choose to stick with the older version of the game. This will happen again when 5th edition comes out in 5 years (oh yeah, I went there
You are betting only five? I'm betting 8 myself. Ten if the system holds up well and is continued to be supported in the fashion it currently is by the company in question. What will I do when 5e comes? I dunno. It depends. What do I know that I won't do? Mindless hate on it. I will approach it logically, analyze the system as best I can once I have enough information play it a few times and determine if it's right for my play style or not. And agreed, new editions bring more new blood, which is desperately needed no matter what. Else you become Warhammer 40k. Stagnate, near inbred and insipidly designed.
And how many shameless knock offs of 3e were there in the meantime? That[s what the GSL is made to prevent. We don't need second rate half witted knock off material that was even worse than the parent material was to start with (3e and the OGL) which happened more often than not while simultaneously claiming to be their own system. Those products you listed do not necessarily violate the new licensing. Most of the GSL issues that supposedly exist are a great deal like the 3e whiner's club reaction to 4e in general anyway. It's knee jerk of "oh my god we can't have it like we used to! it's the end of the world!!!!"
2nd rate knock offs like Arcana Unearthed perhaps? Or True20? Or Conan D20? None of these are second rate and stand up just fine when compared to D&D depending upon the type of game you want to run.
And you are mistaken. The products I listed do violate the GSL because the GSL allows no redefinition of terms which means that an elf, dwarf, halfling, etc. must be exactly like those from the 4e PHB. It goes without saying that a setting meant to have a given feel must redefine, to one degree or another, many terms to make them in keeping with the thematic elements of the setting...oh yeah, classes cannot be redefined either....bad for everything but bland ol' vanilla D&D.
And lets not forget, with the GSL as it stands now, any setting using it would have to be mothballed with a change of direction. If the OGL were like the GSL then all the current 3.5 3pp materials would have to be sold off and never be sold again. Sounds pretty great.
Wyrmshadows
Actually and quite obviously lots of people cared. I know everyone I talked to interested in games at my local game shop cared a lot.
Actually and quite obviously no one cared, because not a single person I know IRL cared at all.
3pp will continue to produce stuff for 3e/3.5 while testing the waters with 4e material, but if the GSL clause forbidding such a practice persists, Wotc will have shot themselves in the foot yet again.
No they won't have. Why would they have?
You think they should give their IP away for free.
Wotc played chicken with 3rd party publishers and lost.
Not really.
Square Enix (Can I really just call them Squaresoft? Seriously) -is- making a FF game.
I like calling them Squeenix
Actually and quite obviously no one cared, because not a single person I know IRL cared at all.
Actually and quite obviously no one cared, because not a single person I know IRL cared at all.
Actually and quite obviously no one has bought any 4th Edition books because not a single person I know IRL has bought one.
WAFI...
Actually and quite obviously no one cared, because not a single person I know IRL cared at all.
THe fact that WOTC is willing to change the GSL shows quite the contrary from what you are saying.
So obviously, since WOTC is changing the policy, many people do care, or at least enough to make the bean counters worry
I can also falsify the statement just by the fact many people I know cared. Maybe I just know more gamers I guess.
Given Wotc's past history with the GSL, I'd hold off celebrating (or saying anything) until we actually know for a fact what the changes are (i.e. we have the revised doc in our hot little hands and can directly compare to GSL 1.0).
Until then, I think it's just as likely (given Wotc's past histroy) that they've made things worse rather than better.
-Polaris
Actually and quite obviously no one cared, because not a single person I know IRL cared at all.
No they won't have. Why would they have?
You think they should give their IP away for free.
Not really.
Worse debater ever.
Wotc played chicken with 3rd party publishers and lost.
Simple as that.
I have to take exception with this, especially since it seems to be a common sentiment. There is no "playing chicken" here because WotC has nothing to lose by crafting a tight, restrictive GSL. There's this idea floating around that unless WotC "capitulates" to the 3PP, 4e will dry up and blow away. Nothing could be farther from the truth. WotC could just as easily have declined to make any changes to the GSL and people would have adapted, meaning that we'd only have a different group of 3PP. I'd be willing to bet rather a lot that the changes won't ease any of the restrictions, but will instead address the "bait and switch" fears of some of the publishers. Either that or they'll be more lenient with regard to parallel product, meaning that you can have 3.5 and 4e versions of a product, but that they can't exist in the same publication.
Some people are also perpetuating the myth that the OGL was an unqualified benefit to WotC, when rather the opposite was true. For every Arcana Unearthed, there were two terrible products souring people on the brand. For a long time, I had a policy that I wouldn't bring in more than one copy of a third-party product until I had an opportunity to look over it myself. I made exceptions for a small number of high quality lines - Mongoose's Quintessential series being an excellent example - but those were few and far between.
Actually, if you want an excellent measure of the impact of those third-party products, check out the books that get brought to the table next time you see a game of 3.5. Chances are that the vast majority of the books people are touting as "crucial to the ongoing success of D&D" are actually moldering in the back of a closet somewhere. At least that's my experience.
I doubt it will be anything like the OGL though.
Yup that's because it's the GSL who's meant to replace the d20 STL... The OGL and D20 STL lived together in peace so until we have (if it ever happens) the equivalent of the OGL for the 4E stop comparing the two please.
Now about this idea that WotC benefited from all the OGL release like Conan, M&M or True20, i think it's just a matter of opinion...
I like the IK but the most important difference between these books and Conan OGL is that you still need the WotC corebooks to play IK while Conan is a standalone game... And I won't even speak of the websites and PDFs and books copy-pasting whole section of the SRD and selling them (Pocket PHB anyone).
I have to take exception with this, especially since it seems to be a common sentiment. There is no "playing chicken" here because WotC has nothing to lose by crafting a tight, restrictive GSL. There's this idea floating around that unless WotC "capitulates" to the 3PP, 4e will dry up and blow away. Nothing could be farther from the truth. WotC could just as easily have declined to make any changes to the GSL and people would have adapted, meaning that we'd only have a different group of 3PP. I'd be willing to bet rather a lot that the changes won't ease any of the restrictions, but will instead address the "bait and switch" fears of some of the publishers. Either that or they'll be more lenient with regard to parallel product, meaning that you can have 3.5 and 4e versions of a product, but that they can't exist in the same publication.
Some people are also perpetuating the myth that the OGL was an unqualified benefit to WotC, when rather the opposite was true. For every Arcana Unearthed, there were two terrible products souring people on the brand. For a long time, I had a policy that I wouldn't bring in more than one copy of a third-party product until I had an opportunity to look over it myself. I made exceptions for a small number of high quality lines - Mongoose's Quintessential series being an excellent example - but those were few and far between.
Actually, if you want an excellent measure of the impact of those third-party products, check out the books that get brought to the table next time you see a game of 3.5. Chances are that the vast majority of the books people are touting as "crucial to the ongoing success of D&D" are actually moldering in the back of a closet somewhere. At least that's my experience.
Maybe, maybe not. As many bad products as there were at the start, fans (and stores) quickly learned which brands to trust and which companies to buy from.
I guess WotC decided that if they had the choice between all those trusting companies supporting them, or working against them it was better to choose the former.
Maybe, maybe not. As many bad products as there were at the start, fans (and stores) quickly learned which brands to trust and which companies to buy from.
I guess WotC decided that if they had the choice between all those trusting companies supporting them, or working against them it was better to choose the former.
That's a mindset I can't understand. WotC just said that they'd revise their GSL license and you're still pointing the finger at them ? Some days I just wish we have had no OGL to start with so we'd not have those pointless debates...
Actually and quite obviously no one cared, because not a single person I know IRL cared at all.
My god...its the Chewbacca defense!
Actually and quite obviously lots of people cared. I know everyone I talked to interested in games at my local game shop cared a lot.
Actually and quite obviously no one cared, because not a single person I know IRL cared at all.
Did anyone mocking TD's statement actually read the post where he quoted someone else, then made his statement to point out the fallacy. Obviously, it might be nicer to say, "While you may know some people who cared, anecdotal evidence does not provide conclusive proof that a large number cared," but I think his meaning was clear from context. Can we please discuss the upcoming changes to the GSL (which will hopefully get some of the big 3pp who are holding out on board with 4e) without quoting people out of context for the sole purpose of ridiculing them?
But, really, TD wants to say the 'no one cared', which is easily refuted by ANYONE saying that they did. And, when done, TD's 'defense' is that no one he knew voted for Nixon... erm.. no one he knew cared?
Sorry, but that's a good scarecrow to laugh at.
Really, I'm just annoyed that everyone quoted him out of context to try to discredit him when it's possible to counter much of what he says through reasoned discourse. I'll let him speak for himself from here- I just wanted to head off what I saw as people completely missing the point of his comment, so we can get back to actual discussion of the pending GSL changes
I agree that his posts tend to be abrasive, and it's certainly not how I would go about making points, but I'm fairly sure he's not seriously making the argument that because he doesn't know anyone who cares, no one cares.
Have you not READ his posts? I can easily see him making such a statement, particularly if it's to be both contrary and pro-WotC.
...so we can get back to actual discussion of the pending GSL changes
Not much to say. If they're just NOW getting to revisit the GSL (or even admitting that they need to), we're months away from another version. Anyone holding their breath STILL for the new GSL would have to be an idiot.
WildWalker
Not much to say. If they're just NOW getting to revisit the GSL (or even admitting that they need to), we're months away from another version. Anyone holding their breath STILL for the new GSL would have to be an idiot.
Months? While they've certainly had several delays, we've had official word that the document should be ready post GenCon. I wouldn't be surprised if it took until a month from today, but to imply it will be several months is basically calling Lidda a liar - and if that's your position, I'm not sure there's grounds for a reasonable discussion here
I see this as great news. The drop of Gleemax..awesome. I couldn't stand that name in the first place. The renewed updates on the DDi. Good deal. I am interested in the final outcome of the DDI and I really appreciate some communication back and forth. The continued support of the Forgotten Realms for fourth edition. Great job. That is one of the settings I always enjoyed.
It sounds like there has been a course change at the helm and some work to listen to the feedback of fans like myself who have been such staunch customers and supporters of the D&D product for the last twenty five plus years.
Is everything perfect? Of course not. I just appreciate the course change back to what seems to be sailing the ship in a direction more or less in support of the customers and fans. That bodes well for the future.
With the revision of the GSL I may try and put out afew little dungeons and adventure modules of my own on RPGnow for D&D.
Arthnek
I'm not really sure why WotC cared that much. The 3pps are all take, and really, it looked like they basically fell off the edge of the world anyway.
Almost no one actually cared.
We'll see what they do. I'm not sure how significant the changes will be. Maybe it will involve removal of the "change it whenever" language; maybe it will involve a notification thing so they can't abruptly end the GSL and have to give some amount of warning before it ends. I doubt it will be anything like the OGL though.
I wonder what they'll change in the SRD.
You're awfully bitter about something that does not matter at all to you. 3PPs are not 'all take', as you put it. They publish adventures and add-ons which directly increase the value of the base system with which they operate. Even with the merest portion of the market share, 3PPs increase the sales of core books. Even ones that don't agree to the GSL. At very worst, it's free advertising for core books, or the allegedly "superior" products WotC releases.
acumen.
The word that the GSL is being altered is good news. While I don't expect the change to be a complete overhaul, I doubt that it'll be in the wrong direction.
Months? While they've certainly had several delays, we've had official word that the document should be ready post GenCon. I wouldn't be surprised if it took until a month from today, but to imply it will be several months is basically calling Lidda a liar - and if that's your position, I'm not sure there's grounds for a reasonable discussion here
Several months is still post GenCon.
I'm not calling Lidda a liar, but I am saying that she can only realistically promise what's under her direct control. The actual date of release for the new GSL, as I'm sure she'll openly admit, is not within her hands alone.
It's possible that a GSL could come within a couple of weeks, but it's much more likely that it has to go through all the hoops and hurdles that it did the first time out. Next June seems far, far more likely than next week.
Several months is still post GenCon.
I'm not calling Lidda a liar, but I am saying that she can only realistically promise what's under her direct control. The actual date of release for the new GSL, as I'm sure she'll openly admit, is not within her hands alone.
That is why she said that she would not even attempt to give a date.
Don't hold me to this timeline though. I'm purposely not committing to a date. ;) I mean, I'm not trying to be wylie...it's just that I learned the oh-so-hard way that some timelines are not always under my command.
It's possible that a GSL could come within a couple of weeks, but it's much more likely that it has to go through all the hoops and hurdles that it did the first time out. Next June seems far, far more likely than next week.
My prediction - The FAQ on what changes are being made to the document will come out in the week or two after GenCon. The actual revised text of the GSL will come out a couple of weeks after that.
That's a mindset I can't understand. WotC just said that they'd revise their GSL license and you're still pointing the finger at them ? Some days I just wish we have had no OGL to start with so we'd not have those pointless debates...
I was more responding to the poster I quoted than gesturing at Wizards.
I'm happy WotC is revising the GSL. It takes alot of stones to admit you screwed up.
While the GSL likely cost them alot of supporters, driving more people to the competition or encouraging them to stick with 3.5, admitting you were maybe too restrictive is hard. Especially since going to the expensive, hundreds-per-hour legal team and asking them to spend a couple days re-writing is not something done lightly. This is going to be a substantial financial hit.
So kudos to them for taking the hit. True, honest kudos!
Yeah, yeah. If they'd have done it right the first time they wouldn't have alienated fan & co-operative companies, driven people to stretch copyright law, and generally saved themselves a headache and tonne of money. But live and learn.
But of all the embarrassing, money-costing, fan-alienating mistakes surrounding 4e, this one is well below the shame that is D&D Insider.
Can we please discuss the upcoming changes to the GSL (which will hopefully get some of the big 3pp who are holding out on board with 4e) without quoting people out of context for the sole purpose of ridiculing them?
It'd be easier if he didn't come into the 3PP forum when he quite clearly hates 3PPs.
Also I completely support the changes coming to the GSL and think they will put everyone's fears at ease. I have no idea WHAT those changes are, but we're suppose to discuss them, so....... ;)
I fail to see the point about discussing any purported changes in the GSL and/or SRD that we haven't seen yet (and aren't even published yet). I certainly would not believe (given Wotc's past history) that such changes (if any!) are for the better!
Basically, this announcement is a lot of hooey. Wait until the GSL/SRD is actually changed and we can see the changes for ourselves in the actual docs, and then we'll have something to discuss.
-Polaris
What I have read of the current GSL seems pretty draconian and one-sided. In order for the GSL to be a viable framework for 3pp, it needs to be a little more even-handed. But there also needs to be a way for WotC to safeguard their IP rights without going overboard. Might I suggest something similar to how Green Ronin handles their Superlink license program? It allows 3pp without giving them free reign over GR's IP. You can find the info here:
http://www.mutantsandmasterminds.com/superlink/
Everyone,
I fail to see the point about discussing any purported changes in the GSL and/or SRD that we haven't seen yet (and aren't even published yet). I certainly would not believe (given Wotc's past history) that such changes (if any!) are for the better!
Basically, this announcement is a lot of hooey. Wait until the GSL/SRD is actually changed and we can see the changes for ourselves in the actual docs, and then we'll have something to discuss.
-Polaris
What he said
Basically, this announcement is a lot of hooey.
It's not "hooey". It's an announcement that says, "Yeah, okay, we hear you; we're revising, tell you when we're done."
The alternative is to continue to get bad press and bad sentiment for a full month until it's actually ready and released. This press release is in the way of damping the complaints until that time.
I think we all appreciate knowing they're working on a new revision. Whether it'll be better or not, at least we know the lawyers are hard at work.
That said, I pretty much expected a lot of 3pps to drop out in the wake of the GSL before I even saw it. That was the intended effect. Remember what was said about it before it was even released? That WOTC felt a lot of 3pps were releasing products that were of substandard quality and sometimes downright offensive, and the GSL was being written to give WOTC a certain amount of influence over what's being released with their stamp on it.
I don't think that was intended to alienate Green Ronin or Necromancer or some of those companies, so there's some "collateral damage" going on that they're obviously trying to remedy without gutting the part that puts the stops to certain product lines -- for example, I'm guessing they were looking straight at the Book of Erotic Fantasy and its ilk when they wrote the GSL.
I certainly would not believe (given Wotc's past history) that such changes (if any!) are for the better!
Some would say the GSL is so bad it could not be any worse. By saying you do not believe any changes would be for the better, are you implying there are parts of the GSL that are acceptable? If so, please let me know what parts I should not change.
Basically, this announcement is a lot of hooey. Wait until the GSL/SRD is actually changed and we can see the changes for ourselves in the actual docs, and then we'll have something to discuss.
I wouldn't go so far as to call the announcement "hooey" though. After all it is communication, which is good, right? We felt it was best to tell the community and 3PPs something.
Some would say the GSL is so bad it could not be any worse. By saying you do not believe any changes would be for the better, are you implying there are parts of the GSL that are acceptable? If so, please let me know what parts I should not change.
I wouldn't go so far as to call the announcement "hooey" though. After all it is communication, which is good, right? We felt it was best to tell the community and 3PPs something.
Oh crap, now you've done it. Now we're gonna get 30 pages of how padded loophole makes the GSL suck.
;) (just kidding, P, couldn't resist)
Some would say the GSL is so bad it could not be any worse. By saying you do not believe any changes would be for the better, are you implying there are parts of the GSL that are acceptable? If so, please let me know what parts I should not change.
I rather like the Logo. ;)
Some would say the GSL is so bad it could not be any worse. By saying you do not believe any changes would be for the better, are you implying there are parts of the GSL that are acceptable? If so, please let me know what parts I should not change.
I am implying no such thing. Any license can always be made worse. I am sure you know that even better than I do (or most here do). The GSL is free (at least monetarily) and does allow the use of the 4e trademark (which is a lot less than it seems at first glance...just ask Kenzer Games). Fair use covers a lot of territory. Enough said.
I wouldn't go so far as to call the announcement "hooey" though. After all it is communication, which is good, right? We felt it was best to tell the community and 3PPs something.
No it isn't communication. Communication implies the transmission of information. Your annoucement is entirely content free. You say nothing and you promise nothing. IMHO this is nothing more than a publicity stunt just before Gencon to get people to tallk about (speculate) about what changes there may be to the GSL/SRD (if any) rather than complain (and justifiably so) about what the GSL/SRD currently is.
That means Hooey is a completely fair and accurate description of this annoucement.
-Polaris
Edit PS: For the record I believe (and I think the facts thus far support this belief) the only reason Wotc is doing the GSL at all is to entice/force 3PPs into giving up their OGL rights, i.e. to kill the OGL once and for all. If there are changes in the pike (a big if), I can only conclude that Wotc determined that not enough 3PPs (and more importantly not enough important 3PPs) have decided to swallow the bait.
I don't think that was intended to alienate Green Ronin or Necromancer or some of those companies, so there's some "collateral damage" going on that they're obviously trying to remedy without gutting the part that puts the stops to certain product lines -- for example, I'm guessing they were looking straight at the Book of Erotic Fantasy and its ilk when they wrote the GSL.
The fact that WotC could do little to stop the Book of Erotic Fantasy from being released under OGL was certainly a big part of the GSL design but they all so wanted 3PP to stop supporting 3.5. Games like Amethyst are taking a leap of Faith that WotC/Hasbro will let them skirt the edges of the community standards provisions in the GSL with there potently valuable IP. I think WotC will let them be, so long as the likes of Jerry Falwell don't start using Amethyst as a weapon to attack RPGing and WotC/Hasbro in particular. Companies like Green Ronin or Necromancer have valuable IP assets that would be at risk under the current GLS and are confident that they can go forward with out GSL.
I am implying no such thing. Any license can always be made worse. I am sure you know that even better than I do (or most here do). The GSL is free (at least monetarily) and does allow the use of the 4e trademark (which is a lot less than it seems at first glance...just ask Kenzer Games). Fair use covers a lot of territory. Enough said..
Use that sense of humour much? She was clearly being playful, sheesh.
No it isn't communication. Communication implies the transmission of information. Your annoucement is entirely content free. You say nothing and you promise nothing. IMHO this is nothing more than a publicity stunt just before Gencon to get people to tallk about (speculate) about what changes there may be to the GSL/SRD (if any) rather than complain (and justifiably so) about what the GSL/SRD currently is.
That means Hooey is a completely fair and accurate description of this annoucement...
I hope this is true, it would show far more savvy in manipulating the fan base than they've shown so far.
Edit PS: For the record I believe (and I think the facts thus far support this belief) the only reason Wotc is doing the GSL at all is to entice/force 3PPs into giving up their OGL rights, i.e. to kill the OGL once and for all. If there are changes in the pike (a big if), I can only conclude that Wotc determined that not enough 3PPs (and more importantly not enough important 3PPs) have decided to swallow the bait.
Unless their complete idiots, and lets assume their not (perhaps foolishly) there are bound to be some changes. You don't say your going to change something and then not unless you really want to annoy people, generally not a good business practice.
As for wanting more 3PP to sign on and/or killing the OGL being a reason for the change, so what? From a business perspective their bound to want 4E supported as opposed to another game line, that just makes sense.
WotC are updating the awful GSL, hooray!
The bad...
I completely accept that it's a "common" contract clause for one party to freely change the license (in this case, the GSL) at will. However, now that WotC have shown their hand and revealed what they'd LIKE the GSL to be, what's to stop them reverting back to the current version in a year's time once people have started using it?
I don't mean to be cynical, but much of it comes down to the whole "yes, you trust them now..but do you trust the people who will have their jobs in x years time?".
Personally, I'll be hoping for some kind of modification that protects against this.
The ugly
But sadly, I don't think it'll ever happen, and I won't be holding my breath. I think that if you pick up the GSL, you're doomed to accept whatever changes they add at any time
When we're told it's a "revision" does that mean:
1) "We've rewritten it, to more clearly reflect the points we were trying to make. There's less ambiguity about exactly what you can or cannot do and some of the more conspiracy-theory scenarios have been prevented."
OR
2) "We realised that the GSL was perhaps a little too unfair and didn't really give you much. We've revised it to cut out some of the harsher demands and we've given you a few more rights in return."
A quick glance at this thread seems to suggest everyone is assuming #2...
2) "We realised that the GSL was perhaps a little too unfair and didn't really give you much. We've revised it to cut out some of the harsher demands and we've given you a few more rights in return."
A quick glance at this thread seems to suggest everyone is assuming #2...
I hope you aren't including me in "everybody" because I definately am not ascribing to reason number 2 as outlined above.
-Polaris
As I said, I only had a quick glance and all of the posts I saw seemed to assume that the revision would automatically mean fairer terms rather than less ambiguity.
Reading through your last couple of posts, I notice that you're discouraging speculation as to what they will change. However, given your reply, I'm afraid to say that you've sparked my curiosity. What do you think they'll change (if anything)?
I hope you aren't including me in "everybody" because I definately am not ascribing to reason number 2 as outlined above.
-Polaris
No, Polaris, no-one will ever accuse you of saying anything positive.
Bel
No it isn't communication. Communication implies the transmission of information.
Yeah, it does. Last week it was "WOTC has released the GSL and there are no plans to change it." Now it's "WOTC is working on some changes to the GSL." That's information, Polaris. You can be pessimistic about what those changes will be, but the announcement that there's a change upcoming is not "content free".
Edit PS: For the record I believe (and I think the facts thus far support this belief) the only reason Wotc is doing the GSL at all is to entice/force 3PPs into giving up their OGL rights, i.e. to kill the OGL once and for all.
That's gonna be tough, since the GSL doesn't do that even in its current form.
Nothing in the GSL says you may not produce new OGL works, so long as they're a different "product line" from the 4e stuff. In other words, Mongoose can produce a 4e Quintessential series, but they can't go back and reprint or add new 3.x Quintessential books. But they could produce a new line called Monster Insight that gives expanded material for use with 3.5 monsters.
Section 6.1(a) is very clear on this point: "Any OGL Product that is not part of a Converted OGL Product Line may continue to be manufactured, published, sold and distributed pursuant to the OGL." If they started releasing 4e material but never created a 4e Quintessential line, they could continue to write and release new Quintessential books.
Moreover, the license makes no reference to disallowing brand new products to be released under OGL outside of section 6.2, where it says you can't "publish any product pursuant to the OGL that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents of a Licensed Product." So as long as you're producing two different product lines and you don't try to make both 3.x and 4e versions of the same material, you're in the clear.
That said, I know there's discussion of what "product line" means, and all that. I think it's intended to mean an obvious series of books with a similar title, look, and purpose; that may be one of the bits they're going to clarify in this revision. (I know Necromancer said the biggest problem they had with the GSL was that it's unclear on a lot of definitional points.)
Even the FAQ is very clear about this:
Q. Can companies still produce 3.x products under the OGL?
A. Yes, but we anticipate that interest in the 4e GSLs will be greater.
Q. Can publishers release new products under both the OGL and 4E GSL?
A. No. Each new product will be either OGL or 4E GSL. If a new product is published under the 4e GSL, it cannot also be published as 3.x product under the OGL; and vice versa.
Q. I have multiple product lines. If I update one product line to 4th Edition, do they all have to be updated?
A. No. Publishers are able to choose on a product line by product line basis which license will work best.
If they intended GSL to kill OGL, they've screwed up pretty badly, because it just doesn't.
The bad...
I completely accept that it's a "common" contract clause for one party to freely change the license (in this case, the GSL) at will. However, now that WotC have shown their hand and revealed what they'd LIKE the GSL to be, what's to stop them reverting back to the current version in a year's time once people have started using it?
I'm not a lawyer, but I think there are some precedents in contract law that prevent, or at least discourage, companies from enticing a party to sign a contract and then changing the terms later on to the other party's detriment.
A court can rule the contract invalid if it can be demonstrated that one party was misrepresenting the contract in order to induce someone to enter it. For example, if I sign a contract that says I am allowed to produce OGL products, and later WotC changes the contract to say that I can no longer produce OGL products, I can make the case that they misrepresented the contract in the first place.
So, while Wizards has the right to revise the terms of the license, they don't have unlimited rights in this regard. Changes to the license have to be reasonably close to the original intent of the license, so Wizards can't unilaterally change the GSL to a royalty-based license, for example.
Section 6.1(a) is very clear on this point: "Any OGL Product that is not part of a Converted OGL Product Line may continue to be manufactured, published, sold and distributed pursuant to the OGL." If they started releasing 4e material but never created a 4e Quintessential line, they could continue to write and release new Quintessential books.
Under the
Wotc and only Wotc.
That gives Wotc defacto control over ALL your OGL product line. As written it does indeed give Wotc veto power over all your OGL products, forever since 6.1 and 6.2 survive license termination.
The poison pill is hidden, but it's there.
-Polaris
Under the OGL who gets the final say as to whether or not YOUR (not Wotc's) OGL product falls in the converted OGL product line?
Wotc and only Wotc.
That gives Wotc defacto control over ALL your OGL product line. As written it does indeed give Wotc veto power over all your OGL products, forever since 6.1 and 6.2 survive license termination.
The poison pill is hidden, but it's there.
-Polaris
And how many times have they done this in the 8 someodd years that the OGL has been out?
None as far as I'm aware.
Under the OGL who gets the final say as to whether or not YOUR (not Wotc's) OGL product falls in the converted OGL product line?
Wotc and only Wotc.
That gives Wotc defacto control over ALL your OGL product line. As written it does indeed give Wotc veto power over all your OGL products, forever since 6.1 and 6.2 survive license termination.
The poison pill is hidden, but it's there.
I disagree... the GSL says "Licensee may publish a Licensed Product subject to this License that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents as such OGL Product", and that this is "as reasonably determined by Wizards". The GSL is very clear about what they're looking for, and the caveat of "reasonable" means that Wizards can't simply say that, for example, your OGL line of monster books is part of your GSL line of adventures because it has "similar contents".
I think your interpretation is the most negative and paranoid one possible, and it's not something Wizards would be able to pull off even if they wanted to.
And how many times have they done this in the 8 someodd years that the OGL has been out?
None as far as I'm aware.
I meant to say GSL not OGL. The OGL does not give Wotc the right to pull your OGL products or product lines.
-Polaris
I disagree... the GSL says "Licensee may publish a Licensed Product subject to this License that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents as such OGL Product", and that this is "as reasonably determined by Wizards". The GSL is very clear about what they're looking for, and the caveat of "reasonable" means that Wizards can't simply say that, for example, your OGL line of monster books is part of your GSL line of adventures because it has "similar contents".
I think your interpretation is the most negative and paranoid one possible, and it's not something Wizards would be able to pull off even if they wanted to.
When reading a license with your own IP (and profit) on the line, you have to read it in the most negative and paranoid way. "Reasonable" doesn't mean anything until a federal judge tells Wotc that it does....and few (if any) 3PPs have the resources to survive a lawsuit long enough to force the issue.
-Polaris
"Reasonable" doesn't mean anything until a federal judge tells Wotc that it does...
As I said in that post, that is definitely one of the points that needs clarification, what constitutes a product line. It's not a nefarious WOTC plot. Legal docs have weird things like that all the time. I work for a software company that does contract work on an infrequent basis, and we always have to go through many versions before both parties are satisfied. In this case there's many second parties, and this kind of confusion is really only to be expected.
Oh, and coincidentally, I believe the judge would be a Washington state judge, not a federal one, unless it went to appeal. I'm a little hazy one when contract breach becomes a federal matter.
Any legal contract should always be read in the most meticulous and paranoid way possible. Why? Because that's still binding, and the OTHER guy may mean just that.
Oh, and coincidentally, I believe the judge would be a Washington state judge, not a federal one, unless it went to appeal. I'm a little hazy one when contract breach becomes a federal matter.
I am quite sure (not 100% but reasonably close to that) that any dispute would be held in Federal Court given that the 3PP would probably be based outside of Washington State and any alledged violations would also occure at least in part outside the state (making it interstate commerce). The GSL demands that such cases be heart in the local Seattle circuit, but I am quite sure the jurisdiction would be federal.
-Polaris
When reading a license with your own IP (and profit) on the line, you have to read it in the most negative and paranoid way. "Reasonable" doesn't mean anything until a federal judge tells Wotc that it does....and few (if any) 3PPs have the resources to survive a lawsuit long enough to force the issue.
According to a strict reading of the OGL, you have to "expressly" write out a contract or license with yourself if you want to say that one of your Open Game Content products is compatible with another of your Open Game Content products, and if you don't you're not allowed to use Open Game Content anymore. I wonder if Green Ronin writes out contracts with themselves to cover every possible combination of Mutants & Masterminds product...
If Wizards tried to shut down another company's entire OGL product line based on the "no dual lines" clause, they'd be opening themselves up to an Undue Influence lawsuit, financial responsibility for all damages incurred (if the contract is thrown out by a judge, the "you have to pay our legal bills" clause goes with it) and, potentially, criminal charges of fraud. If they lost a case complaining of Undue Influence, implying that they intentionally wrote the GSL to bait 3PPs into an unfair business relationship, then they also open themselves up to a class action lawsuit from all 3PPs who have signed the GSL. Taking this sort of legal action would be a huge risk, and no company would take such a risk unless their legal team was composed of morons.
So, since we can safely assume that Hasbro's legal team is not entirely composed of morons, claiming that the GSL will somehow grant WotC the ability to destroy 3PPs through bad faith lawsuits is completely ridiculous. The GSL has enough unappealing clauses in it without random internet conspiracy theorists and armchair lawyers calling it a "poison pill" and making absurd claims about it.
When 3rd came out, there was an abundance of adventures which I could fit into my campaign. With 4th unfortunately, there is not, so I am forced to take time either converting 3rd or 3.5 adventures (which I don’t have time to do), or not play. Not playing has been the answer much of the time.
A revised GSL brings those products on the market and jump starts Wizards sales. That would be good for those player and DM’s in my situation.
Actually and quite obviously no one cared, because not a single person I know IRL cared at all.
You do know that your little tiny world isn't representative of the world at large right? How about you spew something different for a change, it's getting tiersome.
You don't like 3pp...trust me, we know!
You do know that your little tiny world isn't representative of the world at large right?
Hehe. Reading comprehension failure. Looks like your sarcasm detector is on the blink. Titanium was replying to a poster who used that exact argument seriously; he reversed the statement to show how silly it is.
Hehe. Reading comprehension failure. Looks like your sarcasm detector is on the blink. Titanium was replying to a poster who used that exact argument seriously; he reversed the statement to show how silly it is.
Technically, he reversed it, then amplified it.
Reversing would be more like "Quite obviously very few people cared..." as opposed to "no one cared"
I like pie.
ditto
Now they're revising it to attract more 3PPs and lessen the competition from continuing 3.5E support. The problem WotC has is that 3.5E is superior to 4E, and I think they realize they wan tthe market of people who recognize this basic truth.
I like and play both editions (3.5E and 4E), but I think 3.5 is much better and WotC has realized that the 4E system itself isn't enough to get everyone onboard. It simply isn't good enough for that. So they need to rework the GSL and make it more attractive.
WotC realized they needed a revision when they saw some of the 3PPs who were staying away from it. I don't think they want competition from 3.5, and the underestimated the looseness GSL would need to lure the 3PPs in.
I agree, this is a smart move by wotc. They cocked up with the GSL IMHO, I understand their desire to protect their IP and retain some control over the products released but the draconian style of the GSL as stands forces other publishers into a competitive rather than supportive position. Not good if you intend to be the go to game for RPG'ers.
The problem WotC has is that 3.5E is superior to 4E, and I think they realize they want the market of people who recognize this basic truth.
I like and play both editions (3.5E and 4E), but I think 3.5 is much better and WotC has realized that the 4E system itself isn't enough to get everyone onboard. It simply isn't good enough for that. So they need to rework the GSL and make it more attractive.
Wow! Talk about presenting subjective opinion as objective truth
. In my opinion 4E is a far superior game, does that make it true? No it simply means I think it is, the same with your unsupportable opinion of 3.x.Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with your opinion. I'm just a little tired of people making statements as if they were gospel.
Just to clarify my overall opinion of D&D, it's not my favourite game. It is my most played as that's where my players comfort zone lies but given a choice I favour at least 3-4 other games as far better. However that is just my opinion, and I certainly don't present these games as the Holy Grail, expecting all other players to bow to my superior gaming tastes and knowledge.
Subjective opinion = fine
Objective statement of fact = well not fine;)
Personally I fear the whole "you pay for our legal fees" clause. It's a self destruct button that WotC is asking me to hand over.
Most 3PPs can't afford to fight WotC/Hasbro in court anyways. This clause basically means "you should sort things out with us in a friendly way, unless you have deep pockets".
Most 3PPs can't afford to fight WotC/Hasbro in court anyways. This clause basically means "you should sort things out with us in a friendly way, unless you have deep pockets".
Or we will bully you into doing what we say or sue you and make you pay win or lose, or just pull your license from you.
Or we will bully you into doing what we say or sue you and make you pay win or lose, or just pull your license from you.
However, since Wotc is such a kind and gentle corporation, they will only threaten, bully, sue you, or take your license in the kindest and most friendly way.
I will now go sun bathing in my beach resort in Montana.....
-Polaris
I think the biggest problem with the GSL has been its practical effect. I am both a player and a DM, but I am not someone who has a lot of time to put dungeons/adventures together. Because the GSL has kept many of the major companies from publishing 4th edition adventures, there have not been enough material to run my campaign.
A big part of this is because we aren't allowed to put anything out until October unless it's free/promotional.
Still up for coffee, right Lidda?
Or we will bully you into doing what we say or sue you and make you pay win or lose, or just pull your license from you.
Right, without the GSL there's no possible WAY that WotC could bully a 3PP into doing what they say...
Right, without the GSL there's no possible WAY that WotC could bully a 3PP into doing what they say...
Yeah. Quite frankly, any large corporation can sue any small partner company out of existence with some degree of impunity. Or, what happens more often, the big company can break contract and then shrug because they have high power lawyers on retainer who can afford to tie things up in court for years until the little guy can't pay to continue.*
In any case, I'm not sure that's what that clause actually does, legally. I think that clause says "If you lose, you have to pay our costs". If the judge rules against WOTC, then that was clearly not an example of legal action to enforce the contract, because the contract was not enforced in that case.
* This happened to the company I work for, so I pretty much know whereof I speak. We had to just eat the losses from the broken contract because we knew we couldn't last long enough in court to get a ruling.
Yeah. Quite frankly, any large corporation can sue any small partner company out of existence with some degree of impunity. Or, what happens more often, the big company can break contract and then shrug because they have high power lawyers on retainer who can afford to tie things up in court for years until the little guy can't pay to continue.*
In any case, I'm not sure that's what that clause actually does, legally. I think that clause says "If you lose, you have to pay our costs". If the judge rules against WOTC, then that was clearly not an example of legal action to enforce the contract, because the contract was not enforced in that case.
* This happened to the company I work for, so I pretty much know whereof I speak. We had to just eat the losses from the broken contract because we knew we couldn't last long enough in court to get a ruling.
I've got to tell you this notion that corporations sue with impunity and bury the little guy in legal bills is largely tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Do companies file frivolous lawsuits? Sure. Are some with out much basis and meant to hurt competition? Maybe. If these things happen they are the extreme corner cases and not the practice of the majority of corporations out there.
The general truth of the matter is that companies like WoTC have very talented (and thus expensive to retain) lawyers who are good people and want to do what is best for the company (while still being able to sleep at night and kiss their kids in the morning). These are not ambulance chasing creeps who were former partners at Dewy, Cheatum, & Howe. They are good people who have a job to do. The have morals, ethics, principles, and the rule of law as the guiding light in what they do.
In the case of WOTC, as is likely true for other companies, we have limited resources and need to carefully choose how we use our legal team's time. We need to pick our battles and don't have time to "spend years in court" over little nit-picky issues. In fact there are many occasions when the most we can do is fire off a C&D letter, if we respond at all. In a situation like WOTCs, companies tend to save the few legal resources they have for things that matter and actually grow the business.
I've got to tell you this notion that corporations sue with impunity and bury the little guy in legal bills is largely tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Do companies file frivolous lawsuits? Sure. Are some with out much basis and meant to hurt competition? Maybe. If these things happen they are the extreme corner cases and not the practice of the majority of corporations out there.
The general truth of the matter is that companies like WoTC have very talented (and thus expensive to retain) lawyers who are good people and want to do what is best for the company (while still being able to sleep at night and kiss their kids in the morning). These are not ambulance chasing creeps who were former partners at Dewy, Cheatum, & Howe. They are good people who have a job to do. The have morals, ethics, principles, and the rule of law as the guiding light in what they do.
In the case of WOTC, as is likely true for other companies, we have limited resources and need to carefully choose how we use our legal team's time. We need to pick our battles and don't have time to "spend years in court" over little nit-picky issues. In fact there are many occasions when the most we can do is fire off a C&D letter, if we respond at all. In a situation like WOTCs, companies tend to save the few legal resources they have for things that matter and actually grow the business.
I know you have good intentions posting this. It is a good attempt to ease some of the stress that seems to be surrounding the GSL, however...the way you've said pretty much says: "we won't go after you unless you're costing us too much money. It's just not worth it to pursue you." Hopefully, this won't cause people to now pretty much disregard the rules surrounding the GSL and publish stuff willy-nilly with no fear of repercussions. They'll figure, "hey...I'm just a small-time guy publishing small-time stuff...no problem. WotC won't even look at me twice." If too many adopt this mentality, yes, it will cost WotC money. Not at first, but the more people catch on that there aren't repercussions for "small" violations, where will it stop? Hopefully people will respect what WotC is trying to do, and not abuse it.
I know you have good intentions posting this. It is a good attempt to ease some of the stress that seems to be surrounding the GSL, however...the way you've said pretty much says: "we won't go after you unless you're costing us too much money. It's just not worth it to pursue you." Hopefully, this won't cause people to now pretty much disregard the rules surrounding the GSL and publish stuff willy-nilly with no fear of repercussions. They'll figure, "hey...I'm just a small-time guy publishing small-time stuff...no problem. WotC won't even look at me twice." If too many adopt this mentality, yes, it will cost WotC money. Not at first, but the more people catch on that there aren't repercussions for "small" violations, where will it stop? Hopefully people will respect what WotC is trying to do, and not abuse it.
I suspect most people will not take my post as a green light to act in a particular way. People who are going to abuse it, likely don't need an excuse.
I suspect most people will not take my post as a green light to act in a particular way. People who are going to abuse it, likely don't need an excuse.
Here is how I look at this Scott, as a player, not a 3pp.
The more options I have for game material to use with D&D 4E, the happier I am as a player, and most importantly, as a customer. Simple as that.
No matter how you word the GSL, if you scare them away, you likely chase a lot of us away for a different reason. Its a double edged sword.
The tighter you grip, the more you scare, the looser the grip, the more they can leach. Which one in the end keeps you going and growing? That's the real answer.
Here is how I look at this Scott, as a player, not a 3pp.
The more options I have for game material to use with D&D 4E, the happier I am as a player, and most importantly, as a customer. Simple as that.
No matter how you word the GSL, if you scare them away, you likely chase a lot of us away for a different reason. Its a double edged sword.
The tighter you grip, the more you scare, the looser the grip, the more they can leach. Which one in the end keeps you going and growing? That's the real answer.
I think that is a fair observation. The trick is finding the right balance. I hope we are moving towards a more centralized point where everyone can live with it.
"Reasonable" doesn't mean anything until a federal judge tells Wotc that it does.
Reasonable means a reasonable person would come to the same conclusion. That still leaves a fairly broad range of options, but I suspect that a good faith attempt to follow the rules is sufficient unless you're really stupid.
Reasonable means a reasonable person would come to the same conclusion. That still leaves a fairly broad range of options, but I suspect that a good faith attempt to follow the rules is sufficient unless you're really stupid.
Or Wotc is betting that a 3PP can't afford to challenge any action long enough (i.e. have deep enough pockets) to make it to a bench ruling. The fact is that "reasonable" even using the "reasonable person" standard means nothing until and unless a Federal Judge says so. Until then Wotc can make any claim of reasonable they want to.
-Polaris
Most 3PPs can't afford to fight WotC/Hasbro in court anyways. This clause basically means "you should sort things out with us in a friendly way, unless you have deep pockets".
It's a threat. The lawyer bringing you that message would love to get some overtime, on your dime. HE has no incentive to compromise, but YOU do.
The general truth of the matter is that companies like WoTC have very talented (and thus expensive to retain) lawyers
I imagine the RIAA's lawyers aint cheap either, and yet its being proven (by papers from law students that have caused judges who have presided over RIAA cases to sit up and take notice) that they're doing illegal stuff, and their entire business plan seems motivated on making a court battle too expensive to endure compared with the cheap settlement.
I agree, WotC isn't going to engage in court battles over people following the intent of the GSL. I'm not a paranoid like some here. However I'd hardly say that the following helps alleviate anyone's concerns who don't personally know your lawyers.
I imagine the RIAA's lawyers aint cheap either, and yet its being proven (by papers from law students that have caused judges who have presided over RIAA cases to sit up and take notice) that they're doing illegal stuff, and their entire business plan seems motivated on making a court battle too expensive to endure compared with the cheap settlement.
How about you quote the rest of that post instead of taking a snippet to make what one could consider an unfair comparison?
Like this (emphasis) minie:
Do companies file frivolous lawsuits? Sure. Are some with out much basis and meant to hurt competition? Maybe. If these things happen they are the extreme corner cases and not the practice of the majority of corporations out there.
or this
The general truth of the matter is that companies like WoTC have very talented (and thus expensive to retain) lawyers who are good people and want to do what is best for the company (while still being able to sleep at night and kiss their kids in the morning). These are not ambulance chasing creeps who were former partners at Dewy, Cheatum, & Howe. They are good people who have a job to do. The have morals, ethics, principles, and the rule of law as the guiding light in what they do.
Or this:
In the case of WOTC, as is likely true for other companies, we have limited resources and need to carefully choose how we use our legal team's time. We need to pick our battles and don't have time to "spend years in court" over little nit-picky issues. In fact there are many occasions when the most we can do is fire off a C&D letter, if we respond at all. In a situation like WOTCs, companies tend to save the few legal resources they have for things that matter and actually grow the business.
How about you quote the rest of that post instead of taking a snippet to make what one could consider an unfair comparison?
If I had a dollar for every time I had to make that exact same statement...
I mean its not like you work for Exxon/Mobil. If we thought (Dias Ex Machina) in anyway that WOTC would A) take our IP, B) halt the progress of the IP beyond 4ED, or C) Claim ownership of our IP, we wouldn't have signed on. But we didn't think that. We understood where they were coming from. Now, I know some companies have had issues, especially with some of these points. I am estatic WOTC is making progress in helping alleviate these issues. If I had issues or if WOTC proved me wrong, you'ld all be the first to know. Hell, I want them to read our book when it comes out. We are very proud about we are doing. I have seen some licenses which are far more restricting.
How about you quote the rest of that post instead of taking a snippet to make what one could consider an unfair comparison?
I originally did address all of those other points. But I deleted them because it all amounted to "I agree with you" and so instead included that sentiment with the first two words in my post. The only intent of my post was to say "I'm sure your lawyers are great people, but unless people personally know your lawyers, their talent and expense isn't really persuasive on how moral they are."
I'm sorry if I offended you.
It's not that I distrust YOU, or even really WotC at the moment. But companies and staffers change. I was around for TSR under Lorraine, and I know that placing my trust in even a gaming company I like is a foolish arrangement for my livelihood.
* This happened to the company I work for, so I pretty much know whereof I speak. We had to just eat the losses from the broken contract because we knew we couldn't last long enough in court to get a ruling.
I've got to tell you this notion that corporations sue with impunity and bury the little guy in legal bills is largely tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.
Do people not read what they quote anymore?
Clearly states this person claims to have had just what he/she describes happen personally.
So I guess they put on their tinfoil hat with their oily gamer fingers huh?
You don't act on behalf of a company and come out first insulting one of your customers.
Maybe you should have started with something like this:
"I am sorry to hear what happened to you, but at WotC we would strive to not have that be the case, we wish to do it this way......."
Well excuse me, I must go wash my nasty oily gamer fingers again so I don't smear the letters on my keyboard.
If such behaviour is an "extreme corner case" and if WotC are unlikely to take such action (which I think is the implication you're making?) then why does the clause about legal costs appear in the GSL?
It's not that I disbelieve you. I just can't imagine why such a clause should need to be present if what you say is true. Further from that, might there be any chance of toning down such a clause in the revision so that people can put their tin hats away?
It's interesting you mention conspiracy theories, by the way. I have noticed that I've developed a far more wary attitude toward WotC in recent weeks/months. I'm not entirely sure where it's come from, but it's nothing I ever used to hold...
Yeah, why should we need - as a human species - antidotes for a bunch of diseases that will likely never ever comeup, eh? ;)
Just because something is there it doesn't mean it will be used much. The Clause is most likely there as a "think twice if you wanna sue us" thing.
The point I think Mystara was trying to make is that the "pay our legal fees" claus along with many others (including the jurisdiction claus) seem particularly vindictive and petty given the sheer difference in scale between Wotc (and certainly Hasbro!) and other 3PPs. They aren't necessary, unlikely to be upheld by an actual judge, and give the impression that Wotc not only wants a courtroom fight, but is spoiling for one (and in short is acting like a bully) contrary to the impression that Mr. Rouse was trying to give earlier.
If that is not Wotc's intent, then they would be well advised to revisit these sections in particular.
-Polaris
So I live in the UK and am not familiar with the US court system. But don't you have to pay the legal costs of the winning party in court?
If so, what's the purpose of that clause?
Leichenreiter: haha, that made me laugh. Okay, fair point :D
So I live in the UK and am not familiar with the US court system. But don't you have to pay the legal costs of the winning party in court?
If so, what's the purpose of that clause?
IANAL That said, it is my understanding that in the US, in most cases, yes, the loser pays all legal costs. That is certainly the customary arrangement. However, depending on the judge, jurisdiction, and other considerations, it is generally possible for specific contract provisions to override normal rights. Whether or not this is such a case remains to be seen, but this also makes the "jurisdiction clause" in the GSL look even more onerous.
IMHO (and again IANAL), I doubt that this provision would be upheld in court. That said the 3PP would have to argue against this provision as well as the provision(s) that might actually be in dispute driving costs and time up even further which Wotc/Hasbro can afford but 3PPs generally can not.
-Polaris
If it's as simple as:
"If you sue us and you lose, you agree to pay for our lawyers". Fair enough.
If it's:
"We want to prevent you from ever successfully suing us". It feels like Wizards are placing themselves above the law.
On the other hand, if it's a completely unrelated issue like:
"We aren't going to read your products, so we want to be covered in case we accidentally rip off your IP". Then I think Wizards ought to re-examine that clause and find a better way of achieving it.
I'm not sure how they might do that, but then I'm not one of those high paid moral lawyers that we've been hearing all about ;)
Edit: Polaris keeps ninja-ing me ;D
Thanks for the response, Polaris.
That clause may be perfectly innocent, but given your interpretation, it seems there's sufficient cause for me to wonder as to the purpose of that clause.
It's a threat. The lawyer bringing you that message would love to get some overtime, on your dime. HE has no incentive to compromise, but YOU do.
Think about the practical application of the "You will pay our legal bills" clause. WotC could put most 3PPs out of business just by bringing lawsuits against them, without this clause (and WotC_ScottR, I didn't mean to imply that WotC wants to do this, I was merely stating that it is possible).
If a 3PP has to declare bankruptcy because they are in a lawsuit with WotC, how is WotC ever going to get their legal bills refunded? You can't squeeze blood from a stone, and if you sue a company out of existence, you're never going to get all of the money they owe you.
So, this clause doesn't mean that WotC can afford to go around suing companies out of existence willy-nilly. It's just another way of pointing out that it's much easier to negotiate with WotC than to try to fight them in court. Why have the clause, then? I couldn't tell you - probably the lawyers at WotC said something along the lines of "better safe than sorry".
Well, I'd certainly like to know what WotC's intentions are with respect to that clause.
If it's as simple as:
"If you sue us and you lose, you agree to pay for our lawyers". Fair enough.
Well under the GSL you cannot sue WotC. So no matter what WotC can call upon you for ANY reason under the GSL, and you not only have to pay your own travel expenses from UK or wherever to Renton, but you may be asked as an innocent bystander to pay in part for WotC legal costs.
It does not define "how" WotC may request your "help".
So they could actually have every person who signed the GSL pay a portion of any WotC legal costs pertaining to it. Whether any suit involves you or not.
It's certainly not new and not unique to WotC.
Thing is, I've seen that kind of language in lots of contracts and EULAs, seems to be a fairly standard 'claim as much as possible' clause.
It's certainly not new and not unique to WotC.
Here's the difference. DnD 4E is a game and specifically a tabletop game. That means the system itself is not protected by copyright under longstanding US law and precedent. That means that a 3PP's freedom of action is much greater by "going copyright" (as Kenzer is doing) than it would be for other types of contracts and IP venues.
That means that the GSL can not be as restrictive as other kinds of contracts or people will turn thier noses up at it (which is happening).
Mind you IANAL, but it's clear enough to me that you can't compare the GSL to a credit card contract and say the GSL 'isn't so bad'. When publishing a game system "under copyright" you have more rights under the law than other cases.
-Polaris
I originally did address all of those other points. But I deleted them because it all amounted to "I agree with you" and so instead included that sentiment with the first two words in my post. The only intent of my post was to say "I'm sure your lawyers are great people, but unless people personally know your lawyers, their talent and expense isn't really persuasive on how moral they are."
I'm sorry if I offended you.
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification
Thing is, I've seen that kind of language in lots of contracts and EULAs, seems to be a fairly standard 'claim as much as possible' clause.
It's certainly not new and not unique to WotC.
Yes, they are very standard.
Jurisdiction is almost always in the home territory of the company originating the contract (in this case Wizards thus Washington State USA)
Most contracts have a provision for attorneys fees. Intent is obviously important. Our intent is not to say we are going to send a bill to every person that gets a letter from us because they had an issue with the license. But if something big happened that required us to go to court and spend significant dollars (like retaining outside counsel) to protect our rights we are going to want those costs covered. This all hinges on a determination of breach of contract, which is decided by a judge or binding arbitration. Standard stuff.
Here's the difference. DnD 4E is a game and specifically a tabletop game. That means the system itself is not protected by copyright under longstanding US law and precedent. That means that a 3PP's freedom of action is much greater by "going copyright" (as Kenzer is doing) than it would be for other types of contracts and IP venues.
That means that the GSL can not be as restrictive as other kinds of contracts or people will turn thier noses up at it (which is happening).
Mind you IANAL, but it's clear enough to me that you can't compare the GSL to a credit card contract and say the GSL 'isn't so bad'. When publishing a game system "under copyright" you have more rights under the law than other cases.
-Polaris
The GSL is also a license for a Trademark.
The GSL is also a license for a Trademark.
Yes it is, and that's the mistake your company is making (in trying to shoehorn a game license and trademark license into the same package).
There is a lot one can do without using your trademark and trademarks can be used under 'fair use'. Again IANAL but I know that there is significant lattitude here (Kenzer games for example).
My point is twofold:
1. Good intentions and a cup of coffee is worth about as much as a cup of coffee. Just because Wotc doesn't intend to abuse a provision in the GSL now is no guarantee for the future given how corportations work.
2. The GSL is a game license as well as a trademark license. You can not expect people to give up their rights under copyright law (which is extensive for GAMES in the US) without something a lot better than what you are offering. Bottom line.
-Polaris
I've got to tell you this notion that corporations sue with impunity and bury the little guy in legal bills is largely tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Do companies file frivolous lawsuits? Sure. Are some with out much basis and meant to hurt competition? Maybe. If these things happen they are the extreme corner cases and not the practice of the majority of corporations out there.
Oh, that's not what I meant! I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear about my experience.
In my particular case, we were dealing with a large company to sell them an upgrade to our software product. It turned out, after a year of negotiation, that they had been negotiating in bad faith, just keeping us busy until their in-house product, which very likely infringes on our IP*, was ready for prime time.
We had reason enough to sue them over it, but there's just no way we could've won -- even if the case went our way, they had the financial backing to run a multi-year lawsuit. We didn't. Suing them would've been throwing good money after bad, unfortunately, so we had to eat our losses (as we'd been depending on that deal going through for some much needed funding), lay off half the staff, and move the office to what is essentially a guy's air conditioned garage to save on rent.
I'm not referring to nuisance lawsuits so much as the fact that money determines, in large part, what you can afford to sue over.
I'm not implying that WOTC would ever do that. I personally believe that WOTC is an upright company staffed by people who love what they do and that any issues with the GSL are either accidental miswording or misinterpretation (with the exception of the INTENTIONAL attacks, such as the aforementioned Book of Erotic Fantasy).
*It's tough to prove IP infringement in software, partly because even the supreme court has never managed anything more concrete than "well, we'll know it when we see it", and partly because an in-house tool isn't something you can easily get a copy of. We're pretty sure they essentially duplicated our tool to get out of paying the monthly licensing fee, but we can't prove it.
Well under the GSL you cannot sue WotC. So no matter what WotC can call upon you for ANY reason under the GSL, and you not only have to pay your own travel expenses from UK or wherever to Renton, but you may be asked as an innocent bystander to pay in part for WotC legal costs.
It does not define "how" WotC may request your "help".
So they could actually have every person who signed the GSL pay a portion of any WotC legal costs pertaining to it. Whether any suit involves you or not.
Well, technically I could of course say "go to hell", as the license and contract are enforced under US law, and that doesn't apply in the UK.
But certainly it's a position I'd not like to be in :D
Well, technically I could of course say "go to hell", as the license and contract are enforced under US law, and that doesn't apply in the UK.
But certainly it's a position I'd not like to be in :D
That is exactly what a few people/companies HAVE said to WotC in some fashion regarding the GSL.
Yes, they are very standard.
Jurisdiction is almost always in the home territory of the company originating the contract (in this case Wizards thus Washington State USA)
Most contracts have a provision for attorneys fees. Intent is obviously important. Our intent is not to say we are going to send a bill to every person that gets a letter from us because they had an issue with the license. But if something big happened that required us to go to court and spend significant dollars (like retaining outside counsel) to protect our rights we are going to want those costs covered. This all hinges on a determination of breach of contract, which is decided by a judge or binding arbitration. Standard stuff.
Well, it's reassuring to know that your intent isn't to abuse that clause.
But I hope you can see the view point that companies as big faceless entities are ever changing and often don't match the morals and attitudes of the people who work for those companies.
Certainly your good intents may not match those of EvilSoftwareCorp who acquires the rights to D&D in x years time and the license is still enforceable.
Personally, I'll hope that all of Wizard's good intents will be reflected in the wording of the revised GSL so that signees are protected.
...This all hinges on a determination of breach of contract, which is decided by a judge or binding arbitration. Standard stuff.
Ah! So I was right -- if the judge finds that the 3pp was not in breach, then you have no right under the license to ask for any fees back; the license doesn't even come into effect under that condition.
Sorry; just expanding my lawyer brain a bit. :D
Here's the difference. DnD 4E is a game and specifically a tabletop game. That means the system itself is not protected by copyright under longstanding US law and precedent. That means that a 3PP's freedom of action is much greater by "going copyright" (as Kenzer is doing) than it would be for other types of contracts and IP venues.
That means that the GSL can not be as restrictive as other kinds of contracts or people will turn thier noses up at it (which is happening).
Mind you IANAL, but it's clear enough to me that you can't compare the GSL to a credit card contract and say the GSL 'isn't so bad'. When publishing a game system "under copyright" you have more rights under the law than other cases.
-Polaris
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth or overanalyze my comments. All I said was that it was neither new nor unique to claim something like that, and the only thing you may infer from that is that acting like it is, is silly.
And yes, it's glaringly obvious that you are not a lawyer.
Oh, that's not what I meant! I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear about my experience.
In my particular case, we were dealing with a large company to sell them an upgrade to our software product. It turned out, after a year of negotiation, that they had been negotiating in bad faith, just keeping us busy until their in-house product, which very likely infringes on our IP*, was ready for prime time.
We had reason enough to sue them over it, but there's just no way we could've won -- even if the case went our way, they had the financial backing to run a multi-year lawsuit. We didn't. Suing them would've been throwing good money after bad, unfortunately, so we had to eat our losses (as we'been depending on that deal going through for some much needed funding), lay off half the staff, and move the office to what is essentially a guy's air conditioned garage to save on rent.
I'm not referring to nuisance lawsuits so much as the fact that money determines, in large part, what you can afford to sue over.
I'm not implying that WOTC would ever do that. I personally believe that WOTC is an upright company staffed by people who love what they do and that any issues with the GSL are either accidental miswording or misinterpretation (with the exception of the INTENTIONAL attacks, such as the aforementioned Book of Erotic Fantasy).
*It's tough to prove IP infringement in software, partly because even the supreme court has never managed anything more concrete than "well, we'll know it when we see it", and partly because an in-house tool isn't something you can easily get a copy of. We're pretty sure they essentially duplicated our tool to get out of paying the monthly licensing fee, but we can't prove it.
That is too bad. I am sorry that your company went through that. I appreciate the explanation.
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth or overanalyze my comments. All I said was that it was neither new nor unique to claim something like that, and the only thing you may infer from that is that acting like it is, is silly.
And yes, it's glaringly obvious that you are not a lawyer.
I seriously suggest you take a chill pill. I may not be a lawyer, but I have discussed this issue with those who are both online and offline at various times (including Stearpike7 among others). My point was a cogent one and it needed to be made.
The IP rules regarding games (and instructions in general) differ from other sorts of IPs, and thus contractual language that would be considered acceptable or even normal for other types of contracts simply will not fly for a game systems license (even if it's also a trademark license). That's because game system IP holders have much few rights than other sorts of IPs (Seldon v Baker and other precedents) and as such, the contract needs to give more in order to ask the 3PP to give up more...and the current GSL doesn't.
-Polaris
Well under the GSL you cannot sue WotC. So no matter what WotC can call upon you for ANY reason under the GSL, and you not only have to pay your own travel expenses from UK or wherever to Renton, but you may be asked as an innocent bystander to pay in part for WotC legal costs.
It does not define "how" WotC may request your "help".
So they could actually have every person who signed the GSL pay a portion of any WotC legal costs pertaining to it. Whether any suit involves you or not.
WHAT?!?!?
Okay, this falls into the realm of fictional lawyering, in other words made up. I am not a lawyer, but I do work as a consultant for several on employment cases (which covers a lot of contracts).
First and foremost, the idea that you cannot sue WotC is inane, ludicrous, or out and complete bunk along those lines. What they are doing is protecting themselves from 'accidental' damages. I.E. you cannot hold the own of a parking lot responsible for things in your car be stolen, but if they are the ones to steal from you... you definitely can. You cannot truly 'sign away your right to sue,' but it can get very convoluted. (please note that there are exceptions to this in regards to arbitration)
Secondly, they cannot call upon you willy nilly. Most likely it will come in the form of a subpoena, but you are basically agreeing to be a willing non-party. (Naturally, if you are a primary party, you do not get some of these rights.) Being a willing participant does not mean you are responsible for travel expenses. Normally, courts give a travel expense to any necessary witnesses. They cannot call on you for ANY reason, only reason they can is as a non-party, I.E. to be a witness, where you would be compensated by the court. Additionally, if you are party to an arbitration, there is NO legally binding method to force or even draw your appearance (kinda sorta there is a lot of discrepancy and waffling precedent) unless you are a primary party unless you are located within 100 miles... this is covered by Federal Arbitration Act.
Thirdly, when it comes to international enforcement of contract law, there are a host of additional concerns. I am not knowledgeable enough to be able to cover them in great detail, but remember that a US subpoena cannot be served in the UK, Canada, or even some territories without the consent of the sovereign government. In regards to some of the US' more friendly relations, there are several 'mutual legal assistance' treaties that allow the the US to serve subpoena's outside of the nation but this is not normally used in small civil cases. Additionally, calling a non-party from overseas is determined to unnecessary and places 'unfair hardship' on the non-party, considering the 'damages' would be very small.
Fourthly, as an 'innocent bystander' you cannot ‘reasonably’ be 'forced' to contribute monetarily to WotC's legal defense fund.
As for it not defining how WotC can request your help... there is a reasonable expectation that is filtered through the American legal system, you could not be reasonably held to pay WotC's legal fees. 'Leonard v. Pepsico' is one of my personal favorites in regards to this. No reasonable person would expect to get a Harrier jet with Pepsi Points... but, it also demonstrates that there is a matter of reason to be taken into account in the legal system.
Basically, the biggest terms that apply to this is ‘reasonable’ which is legally synonymous with just; proper; ordinary; fair; usual, and appropriate to a given situation. Keep that in mind when reading over things, even though there is a large amount of ‘letter of the law’ there is still the reasonable interpretation to keep in mind. Always in matters of contracts, seek legal advice. I recommend this before entering into employment with any company as well.
I seriously suggest you take a chill pill. I may not be a lawyer, but I have discussed this issue with those who are both online and offline at various times (including Stearpike7 among others). My point was a cogent one and it needed to be made.
The IP rules regarding games (and instructions in general) differ from other sorts of IPs, and thus contractual language that would be considered acceptable or even normal for other types of contracts simply will not fly for a game systems license (even if it's also a trademark license). That's because game system IP holders have much few rights than other sorts of IPs (Seldon v Baker and other precedents) and as such, the contract needs to give more in order to ask the 3PP to give up more...and the current GSL doesn't.
-Polaris
From my own reading and my own lawyer's words, that is the core of it. I still would not prefer to challenge or be challenged with it in court.
This is far more of my understanding of what Kenzer is doing rather than actually using any 'Fair Use' based justification. (They could also have a deal worked out with WotC.)
10.3 Protection of Wizards’ Rights. Licensee will assist Wizards to the extent necessary or
as requested by Wizards to protect any of Wizards’ rights in and to Wizards Intellectual Property. Wizards
will reimburse Licensee for any reasonable out-of-pocket costs incurred as a result of providing such
assistance, provided that Wizards has approved such costs in advance. Licensee will not institute any suit
or take any action on account of any such infringements or imitations, or otherwise institute any suit or take
any action relating to Wizards Intellectual Property. Licensee will take no action that will harm, misuse or
bring into disrepute the activities, properties or products of Wizards or Wizards Intellectual Property.
Now the fact you cannot sue WotC I am not sure about, but again look at the bold portion.
Licensee will assist Wizards to the extent necessary or as requested by Wizards to protect any of Wizards’ rights in and to Wizards Intellectual Property.
It does not define how the license will be asked to asist or when, only at the descretion of WotC, and how it sees fit to ask.
Meaning they could call for $$$ from each licensee at any point to help if they so chose to do.
There is no definition as to what nature the licensee will be asked to "assist" nor is there anything saying what forms of "assistance" this amy come in.
Firstly, the second sentence of the clause seems to completely discredit that, considering that any financial assistance would be 'out-of-pocket costs incurred.'
If they failed to approve of these 'reasonable out-of-pocket costs' in advance, than you would not be required by the contract to fulfill any further terms.
Wouldn't it just be easier to ask the people who signed the GSL to 'take out' the parties that are involved in the lawsuit?
Again this whole thing falls under the word 'reasonable' interpretation of contract law. A reasonable person would not consider it 'proper' 'just' 'fair' and 'appropriate to a given situation.' I'm not quite sure that a 'reasonable' expectation would be for other companies to take on the burden of Wizard's legal issues in the enforcement of this contract.
Also note: "provided that Wizards has approved such costs in advance"
How much advance notice do they have to give you for anything to prepare for WotC to approve it, and will it actually cover the expense, of like mileage for tax purposes be set as $0.XX per mile?
What about living expenses while in King County? Where will the licensee be housed during their visit due to "assist"ing WotC?
Who decides what is reasonable?
That's something for lawyers, arbitrators, and judges. Flat-out. If you are party to the GSL, you will have consulted a lawyer previously (I hope). They will discuss with WotC's legal team or the arbitrators about what is 'reasonable' compensation.
Also note: "provided that Wizards has approved such costs in advance"
Noted. Now there are alot of things that can happen in regards to this. If yourself and WotC cannot meet a mutual decision, there are alot of ways to still 'comply' but be very hostile. My own experiences normally come it in civil courts over labor practices... we have terminated alot of people due to attendance issues. When asked about their performance or attendance at the job, I can say alot of different things and still be in compliance... think about all the different ways to answer questions, you can influence a positive or negative decision based on phrasing and attitude all the while still being totally honest.
What was the reason that X missed work?
A) They were dealing with some terrible family problems, I would have liked to see them stay, but it was just too many absences.
B) Family problems.
C) They claimed they were having family problems.
All three of these answers are correct, but have different implications.
How much advance notice do they have to give you for anything to prepare for WotC to approve it, and will it actually cover the expense, of like mileage for tax purposes be set as $0.XX per mile?
Most arbitration companies consider 15-30 days notice to be 'reasonable.' Normally, companies that are calling witnesses to defend them will provide travel expenses. You are going because they need something from you... I have been compensated for each trip sometimes in excess of $.60 per mile.
What about living expenses while in King County? Where will the licensee be housed during their visit due to "assist"ing WotC?
Normally, travel expenses cover meals and hotel stays.
If WotC needs the 'Licensee to assist Wizards to the extent necessary or as requested by Wizards to protect any of Wizards’ rights in and to Wizards Intellectual Property,' you can bet they are going to make you fairly compensated to give the most positive display for them as possible. To do otherwise lets someone who is feeling cheated get up and take their case so to speak.
Say you developed 4E material for a living, if WotC asked you to come testify for them, didn't offer you compensation, made you pay for everything, and gave you a day's notice for you to protect your livelihood (i.e. threaten to null and void your GSL if you don't), would you give the 'best-case' testimony (no question of honest) just subjective. I doubt WotC would risk turning a witness hostile... if they were somebody they needed to appear for them.
Thanks so much for taking time out to help clear away some of the confusion around the GSL.
For my part I definately appreciate the extra time taken out of a likely busy day by many Wizard's staffers to hop onto the boards and help sort things out. I see this general lifting of the veil and communications directly to the customer via the forums as a -fantastic- move and one that helps bolster my confidence in WIzards for the long term.
Of course nothing is perfect. THere are still irons in the fire that make me a little perturbed. The virtual table being one that I avidly look forward to but I am admittedly saddened to see so far off. Good work though on bringing a voice of clarity (as much as is possible) and reason to the forums.
I look forward to reading the revision to the GSL when it comes out. I feel much better about the spirit in which it is offered. I am more prone to listen to a company representative, particularly when their words are echoed by several company rep's plus updates to the document itself, over the hard core nay sayers in the forum. THere will always be people with an axe to grind over one thing or another no matter how hard to work to avoid it.
I am also very pleased that the OGL remains an option for those of us who want to do 3rd party publications of 3.5 materials for the old rules. I see that as an outstanding move. Thanks Wizards. It allows those of us who remain fans of the older version to still have fun writing dungeons or splat books for our favorite game.
Hope to see you guys at the conventions one day.
Arthnek
I am also very pleased that the OGL remains an option for those of us who want to do 3rd party publications of 3.5 materials for the old rules. I see that as an outstanding move. Thanks Wizards.
Actually, I'd thank Ryan Dancey.
I am also very pleased that the OGL remains an option for those of us who want to do 3rd party publications of 3.5 materials for the old rules. I see that as an outstanding move. Thanks Wizards. It allows those of us who remain fans of the older version to still have fun writing dungeons or splat books for our favorite game.
I concur with Ranger REG. Thank Ryan Dancey for this. This ability to use the OGL for 3.5 material is (IMHO) precisely what Wotc is trying to take away and they'd kill the OGL if they could.
-Polaris
I'd like to see the OGL dead, really...
That would not make people use the GSL any more.
Or make people play 4E any more.
All it would be is a petty swipe at people playing a different game.
I'd like to see the OGL dead, really...
Why?
You have a gripe with Green Ronin and their Mutants & Masterminds and True20 RPG lines?
You have a gripe with Sword & Sorcery Studios and their World of WarCraft: The Roleplaying Game rulebook?
You have a gripe with AEG (and now Crafty Games) with their Spycraft 2.0 rulebook and supplements?
You have a gripe with sharing Open Game Content, a practice that even WotC occasionally employed when developing the new Unearthed Arcana?
Without the OGL being as free as it is, folks would maybe react different to the GSL.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. This rancor over the GSL actually predates the OGL. Its roots can be found in the malicious and ultimately unfounded (under US copyright laws) lawsuits and actions that Lorriane Williams attempted while running TSR in the mid to late 1990s (and Wotc ironically was one of her prime targets). 3PPs and gamers as a whole have never forgiven or forgotten this period, and Wotc is reaping that sour harvest now.
The fact is Wotc's (and Hasbro's) legal team missed an important point when constructing the GSL.
Instructions including game rules systems are NOT protected by copyright.
That means that no one owns under US copyright law (which applies since Wotc is a US company under the understanding of the Berne Convention) the actual rules system of DnD 4E. Wotc owns the trademark and one particular expression of the 4E system, but that is all.
Because of this, what would be acceptable and even normal for other sorts of IP/trademark contracts simply does not apply. Because Game Rules and Game Rule Systems are not protected under US law, in order to get more from a game systems rules contract, you have to offer more and the GSL doesn't.
-Polaris
Instructions including game rules systems are NOT protected by copyright.
Correct, but the presentation of those rules, ARE.
That means, presenting a monster stat block or a power, is protected under copyright, as the D&D book is protected under copyright.
I wonder if people would feel differently if the license was more "open", but not free. That is, would third party publishers bother to buy a license?
Correct, but the presentation of those rules, ARE.
Not quite. The exact presentation of those rules are protected by copyright. To show a copyright violation, you have to show that your expression was derivative of the protected expression. Read Nimmers (I did on advice of Stearpike7).
That means, presenting a monster stat block or a power, is protected under copyright, as the D&D book is protected under copyright.
Kenzer games doesn't think so. You can not photocopy or use the same format as a DnD book protected under copyright, but you certainly can use the same monster with the same stats and rules (unless that monster is protected by trademark but that's not a copyright issue).
I wonder if people would feel differently if the license was more "open", but not free. That is, would third party publishers bother to buy a license?
What you are missing is after Selden v. Baker, the Anti-Opoly case, TSR v. Mayfaire Games, and many other precedents, the OGL wasn't so much generosity as it was Wotc (under Dancy) making an admission of reality. The OGL said in effect, "We know we can't protect rules system and copyright law for games is a mess, so instead of fighting over it, let's cooperate."
It was less a generous gift and more an admission of reality under US copyright law (and a way to profit from it at least potentially). It seems Wotc has forgotten how little protection US copyright laws offer actual game systems.
-Polaris
It seems Wotc has forgotten how little protection US copyright laws offer actual game systems.
I don't think it's that - I think that they are overestimating the value of their trademark and logo (especially with the restrictions of the GSL). Now, if the GSL let 3PPs put a big D&D logo on the front cover of their products, I bet you'd see a lot more of them signing on in spite of some of the so-called 'draconian' clauses.
I don't expect that the revised GSL will go this far, but hopefully it will allow 3PPs to reprint limited segments of the actual rules. For example, I think it would be fair to say that a 3PP could reproduce up to 5% of the core rulebooks in each product, so that they could reprint monster stat blocks or certain powers (with a caveat that WotC has the right to unilaterally pull the license if they feel that a 3PP is using this to sell their own core rulebooks).
I don't expect that the revised GSL will go this far, but hopefully it will allow 3PPs to reprint limited segments of the actual rules. For example, I think it would be fair to say that a 3PP could reproduce up to 5% of the core rulebooks in each product, so that they could reprint monster stat blocks or certain powers (with a caveat that WotC has the right to unilaterally pull the license if they feel that a 3PP is using this to sell their own core rulebooks).
Funny...
I suggested something like that same idea, somewhere else on these forums...
It's nice to see some people here find resolution to their thoughts about the GSL.
WotC has also approved for people to copy their formatting, as indicated in the GSL SRD, which is primarily a listing of terms and a series of layouts and presentations, with the acknowledgment that your product will likely resemble the core books, and thus, encouraging use of the presentation -- but not any of the contents or definitions, without citing the core rules in reference.
I am not a fan of the Core Rulebook citation schema yet, because there is no clean way to cite and keep it streamlined for the reader of my publication. I don't like having to flip around the books to play "rules hunt". That's the point of having stat blocks, definitions, and such in front of me when I'm reading an adventure or using a supplement.
I'd rather use MLA.
I know we ask for news and updates, but personally I have no interest in "were making a change" notice with a vague release date. Maybe that's just me, but when I see a "WotC announces changes to the GSL" post, I expect it to be posted because the *changes* were just posted... otherwise, I'd really actually prefer no notice at all.
Have we seen the new GSL yet? It was announced two weeks ago, GenCon's been over for a week almost, what's the hold up?
I know we ask for news and updates, but personally I have no interest in "were making a change" notice with a vague release date. Maybe that's just me, but when I see a "WotC announces changes to the GSL" post, I expect it to be posted because the *changes* were just posted... otherwise, I'd really actually prefer no notice at all.
Jeez...be patient, young Skywalker. In the corporate world, things take time to shuffle through levels, pass through hands, and be marked and signed and stamped.
Have we seen the new GSL yet? It was announced two weeks ago, GenCon's been over for a week almost, what's the hold up?
I know we ask for news and updates, but personally I have no interest in "were making a change" notice with a vague release date. Maybe that's just me, but when I see a "WotC announces changes to the GSL" post, I expect it to be posted because the *changes* were just posted... otherwise, I'd really actually prefer no notice at all.
I am meeting with legal today to go over the changes we suggested. I've seen the draft it looks good and there just a few sentences that need to be tweaked.
I still need to finalize the new FAQ and look at the SRD but overall I feel like it's going how I want although I am still not going to commit to any time line.
I am meeting with legal today to go over the changes we suggested. I've seen the draft it looks good and there just a few sentences that need to be tweaked.
I still need to finalize the new FAQ and look at the SRD but overall I fell like it's going how I want although I am still not going to commit to any time line.
Does the fansite policy depend on the GSL being finished first, or was it delayed generally by the changing of the GSL* and GenCon?
*Only able to work on one at a time with each given certain levels of priority. GSL of course the higher level.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. This rancor over the GSL actually predates the OGL. Its roots can be found in the malicious and ultimately unfounded (under US copyright laws) lawsuits and actions that Lorriane Williams attempted while running TSR in the mid to late 1990s (and Wotc ironically was one of her prime targets). 3PPs and gamers as a whole have never forgiven or forgotten this period, and Wotc is reaping that sour harvest now.
The fact is Wotc's (and Hasbro's) legal team missed an important point when constructing the GSL.
Instructions including game rules systems are NOT protected by copyright.
That means that no one owns under US copyright law (which applies since Wotc is a US company under the understanding of the Berne Convention) the actual rules system of DnD 4E. Wotc owns the trademark and one particular expression of the 4E system, but that is all.
So my question is, since we now know that the rules of a game are public domain, what would happen if someone were to create a document which provides only rules for D&D 4e (similar to the 3e SRD) and realese it for everybody to use for free without a license?
Specificly what effect would such a document have on the GSL, WotC, 3PP, and the gaming community in general.
So my question is, since we now know that the rules of a game are public domain, what would happen if someone were to create a document which provides only rules for D&D 4e (similar to the 3e SRD) and realese it for everybody to use for free without a license?
Specificly what effect would such a document have on the GSL, WotC, 3PP, and the gaming community in general.
There are two thing to factor in to begin with and then fair-use is all gray elsewhere.
You cannot duplicate the rules of a game exactly as written. That IS copyright violation. Then there is the amount of content used that is NOT trademarked.
Otherwise you can do what many have done and make as many Monopoly or D&D clones as you want.
The problem with D&D is how many rules exist and the % that would be allowed under fair-use...as well the whole "scholarly" bit built into most fair-use cases.
For example, someone other than WotC could have made the new D&D for Dummies book.
So my question is, since we now know that the rules of a game are public domain, what would happen if someone were to create a document which provides only rules for D&D 4e (similar to the 3e SRD) and realese it for everybody to use for free without a license?
Specificly what effect would such a document have on the GSL, WotC, 3PP, and the gaming community in general.
First off, you would have to reproduce the rules without violating any trademarks or copyrights. Trademarks wouldn't be too hard to avoid, but a lot of the names of the powers, class abilities, magic weapons, and so on could qualify for copyright protection - especially if you were using a lot of them. Same with the stat block, monster, and power template layouts.
So, if you wanted to do something like this, you'd probably want to retain a lawyer to help you minimize the risk of committing copyright violations. I doubt anyone would want to release such a product for free after spending the time and money required to create it, although I suppose it's possible.
As for the impact: it would probably cost WotC some sales, although I'm sure that most people would still buy the official D&D rulebooks for the art, layout, and the fact that they wouldn't have to print the documents out. The GSL would be unaffected. Some 3rd party publishers would probably use the document in much the same way as they used the OGL, to publish their own games instead of creating compatible products - after all, a generic rules system which is a rip-off of a popular game, and that doesn't have a valuable trademark, isn't a very attractive thing to tie your business to. Moreover, since most or all of the powers would be renamed, it's debatable how compatible this hypothetical document would be with official D&D products and supplements. Some people in the gaming community would probably use the system, but most would stick with official D&D stuff anyways. There are lots of free RPGs around, many of them based on various incarnations of D&D, and D&D has managed to remain vastly more popular than any of them.
There are two thing to factor in to begin with and then fair-use is all gray elsewhere.
You cannot duplicate the rules of a game exactly as written. That IS copyright violation. Then there is the amount of content used that is NOT trademarked.
Otherwise you can do what many have done and make as many Monopoly or D&D clones as you want.
The problem with D&D is how many rules exist and the % that would be allowed under fair-use...as well the whole "scholarly" bit built into most fair-use cases.
For example, someone other than WotC could have made the new D&D for Dummies book.
Fair use is for reproducing parts of copyright protected material. Things in public domain are not copyright protected so I cant see how fair use would apply to game rules.
Now duplicating text from a copyright protected product would likely be covered by fair use laws, but could also be considered plagerisim, and I would not reccomended doing anything like that.
So my question is, since we now know that the rules of a game are public domain, what would happen if someone were to create a document which provides only rules for D&D 4e (similar to the 3e SRD) and realese it for everybody to use for free without a license?
Probably less than the currently available pirate copies of the D&D 4e rules which are already available for free without a license. Any legally created rules product would almost certainly be less useful than the pirate rules.
Incidentally, rules are not 'public domain'; public domain implies something normally copyrightable that has been placed in the public domain by the copyright holder. Rules mechanics are not copyrightable (though the specific expression of the rules is).
As far as when to expect the revised GSL: based on how fast this process went last time, I'm going to bet on late September ;)
Incidentally, rules are not 'public domain'; public domain implies something normally copyrightable that has been placed in the public domain by the copyright holder. Rules mechanics are not copyrightable (though the specific expression of the rules is).
Actually, there are many reasons a work can become public domain.
You can find more info about what qualifies as public domain here http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/10-misconceptions-about-the-public-domain.html
Im reffering to public domain as its used in this qoute:
"In the context of copyright law the term public domain has a specific legal meaning. It means a work is not protected by copyright."-Public Domain Sherpa
Ok this is my current understanding of the situation, to copyright somthing you must put it in a fixed form (i.e. write it down). Well US Copyright Law says games are not copyrightable. Now, Im not a lawyer, but it seems pretty obvious that no matter how you write the rules down your work would not allow you to claim any ownership of those games rules. So, my point is, without the copyright protection on the rules, could those rules be described in a way that would cause the work you created to fall into the public domain automaticly?
Perhaps if the document stricly adheres to this criteria "Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration ", which would restrict its potential for copyright.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp
I've been reading how people are trying to ferret out all the "draconian" clauses and phrases in the GSL, and how WotC's legal team is like a vulture lurking on the fence post waiting for a 3pp to lay down and die...
I don't buy any of that. WotC's legal team has better things to do with its time, and with retainers being as high as they are, WotC can't afford it, anyway.
That being said, I had an epiphany while reading.
Has anyone wondered what the real purpose of the GSL is?
Oh, sure, I bought into the whole "WotC is greedy and is sick of the profits lost from the OGL and wants to kill it, etc, blah, blah, blah" speil. In retrospect, it really doesn't wash. 3pp's are as good for WotC as they are for gamers.
But today, I remembered something someone posted in a forum a long time ago, about the OGL. About how, the license essentially meant that a 3pp could use the rules for D&D and make improvements on those rules, but that WotC couldn't use those improvements themselves. It was seen as a hinderance to WotC's ability to revise the game.
Like lightning frying my brainpan, the GSL suddenly made sense.
Simply put, it's a way for WotC to adopt changes proposed by 3pp's and add them to 4E, and thus revise the rules using the ideas of others in a legal manner, thereby improving the game.
It's an elegant idea. But the present GSL is a sledge hammer's attempt to implement it.
I'm probably wrong. But I'd bet that the changes to the GSL are aimed at making this thing work the way it's intended without further alienating 3pp's.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool D&Der from 30 years back, and as a result, I don't particularly care for the GSL. But at this point, even I have to agree that almost any change has to be an improvement.
Has anyone wondered what the real purpose of the GSL is?
Not at all. Its purpose is rather obvious. The problem is that it makes doing most of the products declared as the purpose too risky to produce. That is why people are passing on them.
But today, I remembered something someone posted in a forum a long time ago, about the OGL. About how, the license essentially meant that a 3pp could use the rules for D&D and make improvements on those rules, but that WotC couldn't use those improvements themselves. It was seen as a hinderance to WotC's ability to revise the game.
Like lightning frying my brainpan, the GSL suddenly made sense.
Simply put, it's a way for WotC to adopt changes proposed by 3pp's and add them to 4E, and thus revise the rules using the ideas of others in a legal manner, thereby improving the game.
It's an elegant idea. But the present GSL is a sledge hammer's attempt to implement it.
I'm probably wrong. But I'd bet that the changes to the GSL are aimed at making this thing work the way it's intended without further alienating 3pp's.
Not probably, definitely. Indeed, the exact opposite is true.
With the OGL, any open material, which was likely to be a lot of rules options, could be used by WotC. Of course they had some issues with doing so properly, they did not format the MM II properly with the OGL monsters they included in it, but they could incorporate new rules modifications that would improve the game.
Conversely the GSL explicitly does not allow for any open material. If a third party publisher came up with a super-awesome new rules concept, WotC would have no grounds for using it.
The thing is, the GSL goes even further, and even more explicitly prohibits any modification of defined terms. Because of that, a third party publisher is not allowed to come up with a super-awesome new rules concept at all.
So, my point is, without the copyright protection on the rules, could those rules be described in a way that would cause the work you created to fall into the public domain automaticly?
No, pretty much anything you publish is automatically covered by copyright. You can't copyright rules because they describe process for doing something (for the same reason, you can't copyright recipes or street directions) but the actual combination of words that you write to explain those rules is covered by copyright.
The only time something would automatically be public domain is if it's a derivative work of a public domain work which isn't substantially different from the original. For example, if I republished one of Shakespeare's plays, and changed the names of the characters but nothing else, then my work is probably in the public domain. If, however, I publish an original play based on the plot of one of Shakespeare's plays, my work is probably original enough to be copyrighted, even though it is a derivative work.
You can also choose to release something into the public domain, but that's not the same as it becoming part of the public domain automatically.
I mean, come on, we do know that some companies shamelessly printed PHB's by basically doing the C&P with the SRD. Which is bad style.
Yep, and to be honest I'd have loved it if WotC had put out the same product themselves. Myself I love the idea of the smaller more portable handbook without the extra art and flavor text that I don't need when I need to look up a rule during a game or that wouldn't take up as much room in my non-gaming bag. (Such a volume would be particularly nice as there will be no 4th ed version of d20srd.org and WotC's "Rules Compendium" isn't one.) I was tempted to buy a 3.5 Players Kit just for the paperback PHB for the same reason.
On the plus side with the current situation, according to an interview from GenCon (which I have misplaced the link to I'm afraid
) if the revised GSL gets through in the shape that they are hoping it will, Clark Peterson from Necromancer Games is in. (and hopefully with him some of the other larger 3pp that put out (good) material for 3.x)But today, I remembered something someone posted in a forum a long time ago, about the OGL. About how, the license essentially meant that a 3pp could use the rules for D&D and make improvements on those rules, but that WotC couldn't use those improvements themselves. It was seen as a hinderance to WotC's ability to revise the game.
Where was this from? If I'm remembering right, unless the 3pp put something as IP which wasn't open, WotC could snag/use it just as easily as anyone else.
Where was this from? If I'm remembering right, unless the 3pp put something as IP which wasn't open, WotC could snag/use it just as easily as anyone else.
You're right, everything published under the OGL was defined as "open content" unless it was specifically defined as "product identity". WotC has the same right to use improvements and innovations as anyone else under the OGL.
Because the OGL is in a sense too free. I mean now with 4E WotC want to protect it's own Ip a bit more (which is usual) and gets called out for it.
If they want to protect it, make 4e proprietary, then don't release the GSL or any royalty-free trademark use license. Make 4e more attractive than its predecessor 3e.
Besides, it wasn't too free. WotC refused to released 3.0e material from their 3.0e books (e.g., Oriental Adventures).
Fair use is for reproducing parts of copyright protected material. Things in public domain are not copyright protected so I cant see how fair use would apply to game rules.
Now duplicating text from a copyright protected product would likely be covered by fair use laws, but could also be considered plagerisim, and I would not reccomended doing anything like that.
One or two stats blocks could be considered fair-use. But duplicating the PHB and selling it as your own could not be so.
The court just has to decide how much would be fair use.
See WB+JKR vs RDR Books (& Steve VanderArk?)...the verdict on this bench trial is still out...(was last I looked)
One or two stats blocks could be considered fair-use. But duplicating the PHB and selling it as your own could not be so.
The court just has to decide how much would be fair use.
See WB+JKR vs RDR Books (& Steve VanderArk?)...the verdict on this bench trial is still out...(was last I looked)
Agreed and for the record I wasn't talking about xeroxing the 4E system as presented by Wotc. That definately is a copyright violation. However, there is nothing to stop you from using the same monsters Wotc does (unless that monster is trademarked...a different issue) and presenting the same game-rule information (it's stats and abilities) as long as the actual expression was different.
-Polaris
Agreed and for the record I wasn't talking about xeroxing the 4E system as presented by Wotc. That definately is a copyright violation. However, there is nothing to stop you from using the same monsters Wotc does (unless that monster is trademarked...a different issue) and presenting the same game-rule information (it's stats and abilities) as long as the actual expression was different.
-Polaris
I think you could use the monster....BUT you could not use the name or image that goes with it for trademarked ones such as
or . ALL images are copyright to the artist if not to the company.EDIT: See. You just can't use those trademarked names at all!
I think you could use the monster....BUT you could not use the name or image that goes with it for trademarked ones such as
EDIT: See. You just can't use those trademarked names at all!
I definately agree about the artwork. Artwork (my parents were both professional artists) has much stronger IP/copyright protection than games do. Monster names should be OK unless protected by trademark (easy enough to check). Many traditional monsters are public domain, however.
-Polaris
I definately agree about the artwork. Artwork (my parents were both professional artists) has much stronger IP/copyright protection than games do. Monster names should be OK unless protected by trademark (easy enough to check). Many traditional monsters are public domain, however.
-Polaris
You must have missed the joke within that post. Elf is public domain but the
represents the trademarked names of monsters, not limited to named monsters but names made up by TSR or WotC that WotC/HASBRO currently owns a trademark for. ;)No, pretty much anything you publish is automatically covered by copyright. You can't copyright rules because they describe process for doing something (for the same reason, you can't copyright recipes or street directions) but the actual combination of words that you write to explain those rules is covered by copyright.
Its interesting that you would use the word "process", because that term is used in this definition of public domain.
Dictionary: public domain
http://www.answers.com/topic/public-domain
The status of publications, products, and processes that are not protected under patent or copyright.
So under this definition of public domain, game rules (which as you said are a "process for doing somthing") would indeed qualify.
Also I agree with your point about rules being similar to recipes in regards to their lack of copyright protection. Im just trying to figure out how much artistic or literary merit your description of how to make chocolate chip cookies, or your directions from point A to point B, need to qualify for a copyright on the text you use to express the information.
But even if you could describe the rules/recipes/directions into a creative compilation worthy of copyright, that still doesnt stop others from offering that information in a similar manner without infringing, because as we agreed this information is already public domain.
So under this definition of public domain, game rules (which as you said are a "process for doing somthing") would indeed qualify.
Yes, game rules are in the public domain (unless they're patented, which AFAIK is not the case with any set of tabletop RPG rules at present).
Also I agree with your point about rules being similar to recipes in regards to their lack of copyright protection. Im just trying to figure out how much artistic or literary merit your description of how to make chocolate chip cookies, or your directions from point A to point B, need to qualify for a copyright on the text you use to express the information.
That's something that the courts have to decide. If you publish a recipe book where all the recipes have fancy names like "Lonely Chicago Pie" and "Heavenly Angel Meatloaf", you can probably claim copyright protection on the names and the descriptions ("This tasty treat will melt in your mouth like a chocolate-covered back-rub"). I could publish a book with the exact same recipes, but I would have to come up with my own names and descriptive text. With D&D, most of the rules are contained in the class powers - you could probably copy the powers word-for-word, but you would have to come up with new names, new descriptive text, and (probably) a new formatting style.
In other words, if you rename "Twin Strike" to "Double Attack" you're probably OK, but if you keep the name "Twin Strike" you can probably expect a C&D letter from Wizards. If you decide to fight it in court, the judge could potentially rule either way, which is why most of these cases are settled out of court.
But even if you could describe the rules/recipes/directions into a creative compilation worthy of copyright, that still doesnt stop others from offering that information in a similar manner without infringing, because as we agreed this information is already public domain.
My point is that anything that is determined to be "creative expression" is copyright-protected. Where "creative expression" ends and "description of process" begins isn't clearly defined by law (and may not even be definable) so if it comes to a legal dispute, the courts will be the final arbiters.
If you publish a recipe book where all the recipes have fancy names like "Lonely Chicago Pie" and "Heavenly Angel Meatloaf", you can probably claim copyright protection on the names and the descriptions ("This tasty treat will melt in your mouth like a chocolate-covered back-rub"). I could publish a book with the exact same recipes, but I would have to come up with my own names and descriptive text.
I think you a already answered this one with your comment about Skakespeare's plays when you wrote this
The only time something would automatically be public domain is if it's a derivative work of a public domain work which isn't substantially different from the original.
So if your recipe for "Heavenly Angel Meatloaf" is just a derivative of somthing in the public domain, and all you did was change the name and a few things like measurements or ingredients (but in the end your still describing how to make meatloaf), then your "derivative" of the normal procedure, and listed ingedients for that recipe, would also become public domain, automatically.
A good example of how easy this is to do, recently Cindy McCain has been slightly changing and renaming popular recipes without any legal problems.
You can read about it in this article: Can You Copyright a Recipe?
And more on copyrights on recipes here: When Can Chefs Sue Other Chefs? which states:
More specifically, the court ruled that recipes can’t be copyrighted as long as they are just lists of ingredients and directions for combining them without additional descriptive embellishments or commentary.
As for getting a copyright on the specific name of your recipe, it looks kinda grim when you concider that titles, names, short phrases, and slogans are not protected by copyright law".
With D&D, most of the rules are contained in the class powers - you could probably copy the powers word-for-word, but you would have to come up with new names, new descriptive text, and (probably) a new formatting style.
In other words, if you rename "Twin Strike" to "Double Attack" you're probably OK, but if you keep the name "Twin Strike" you can probably expect a C&D letter from Wizards. If you decide to fight it in court, the judge could potentially rule either way, which is why most of these cases are settled out of court.
I doubt the term "Twin Strike" would be copyright protected if it is an important part of the rules (like the name of a process used in the game). Personally, I think its too similar to terms like "foul shot" (aka "free throw") in basketball , or "bunt" from baseball, and nobody could have a copyright on those words.
My point is that anything that is determined to be "creative expression" is copyright-protected. Where "creative expression" ends and "description of process" begins isn't clearly defined by law (and may not even be definable) so if it comes to a legal dispute, the courts will be the final arbiters.
Well, with rules and recipes (when devoid of an authors artistic expression) both being public domain, perhaps what the game industry needs to do, is take a lesson from the culinary arts and start making RPG cookbooks, with rules listed like recipes. Ofcourse, we know there will be many rules/recipe clones (like what Cindy McCain did), but maybe thats a good thing.
So if your recipe for "Heavenly Angel Meatloaf" is just a derivative of somthing in the public domain, and all you did was change the name and a few things like measurements or ingredients (but in the end your still describing how to make meatloaf), then your "derivative" of the normal procedure, and listed ingedients for that recipe, would also become public domain, automatically.
Yes, exactly. I don't (and can't) own the recipes, but I probably do own the names of the recipes in my cookbook, taken collectively.
As for getting a copyright on the specific name of your recipe, it looks kinda grim when you concider that titles, names, short phrases, and slogans are not protected by copyright law".
I doubt the term "Twin Strike" would be copyright protected if it is an important part of the rules (like the name of a process used in the game). Personally, I think its too similar to terms like "foul shot" (aka "free throw") in basketball , or "bunt" from baseball, and nobody could have a copyright on those words.
Right, but the names of all the powers in 4e, taken collectively, aren't the same as "titles, names, short phrases, and slogans" - those things are covered by trademark law, not copyright law. You can't take a creative work, break it down into short phrases, and argue that you haven't breached copyright because you only copied a whole bunch of short phrases. Similarly, if you copy the titles of every power in 4e, and argue that they are "only titles", you'll find yourself in a lawsuit very quickly.
Examples of titles, names, short phrases, and slogans that are not protected by copyright are things like "Dungeons & Dragons", "Drizz't Do'Urden", "I'm Lovin' It", and so on. Most (but not all) of these can be protected by trademark law, which is why you can't publish a role-playing game called "Dungeons & Dragons" unless you're Wizards of the Coast. You could probably create a character called "Drizz't Do'Urden", but if he bears any similarity to Salvatore's character beyond the name you're potentially in breach of copyright.
So, in my hypothetical recipe book, I probably don't have a case against you if you copy the names of one, two, or a few of my recipes - but if you copy all of them, you might not just be copying titles, you might be copying my creative expression. A judge would have to decide, and the ruling could potentially go either way, but I wouldn't put my money on the guy who copied all of the recipe names (or power names) out of someone else's book.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would be very cautious about copying the names of the powers or the short descriptions in the 4e rules - these are probably covered by copyright, and not public domain. Likewise, the graphic layout of stat blocks is copyrighted. You're right, though, that the actual mechanics of the powers themselves are public domain, because processes can't be protected by copyright or trademark law - they can only be covered by patent law (and the D&D rules aren't, and probably wouldn't qualify).
Well, with rules and recipes (when devoid of an authors artistic expression) both being public domain, perhaps what the game industry needs to do, is take a lesson from the culinary arts and start making RPG cookbooks, with rules listed like recipes. Of course, we know there will be many rules/recipe clones (like what Cindy McCain did), but maybe thats a good thing.
The game industry won't do that, because there's not enough money in it. Cookbooks sell well (especially ones written by celebrity chefs) so it's still profitable for publishers to print books on non-copyrightable recipes. I could copy all the recipes in the Joy of Cooking without breaching copyright, but nobody wants to buy "DDogwood's Big Book of Recipe Rip-Offs" (I can't call it Joy of Cooking, because that's a trademark).
The OGL was very close to what you're talking about, and you can see that WotC decided not to pursue it as a long-term strategy.
What I'm saying, in essence, is that it's not perfectly clear whether the names of powers in 4e are covered by copyright, but unless you've got a good lawyer and the money to fight a court battle over it, don't assume that they're not.
I don't (and can't) own the recipes, but I probably do own the names of the recipes in my cookbook, taken collectively.
You can't take a creative work, break it down into short phrases, and argue that you haven't breached copyright because you only copied a whole bunch of short phrases. Similarly, if you copy the titles of every power in 4e, and argue that they are "only titles", you'll find yourself in a lawsuit very quickly.
According to US Copyright office, names do not qualify for copyright protection but the descriptive text might.
Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, Titles, or Short Phrases
Names, titles, and short phrases or expressions are not subject to copyright protection. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or if it lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright. The Copyright Office cannot register claims to exclusive rights in brief combinations of words such as:
Names of products or services
Names of businesses, organizations, or groups (including the name of a group of performers)
Names of pseudonyms of individuals (including pen name or stage name)
Titles of works
Catchwords, catchphrases, mottoes, slogans, or short advertising expressions
Mere listings of ingredients, as in recipes, labels, or formulas. When a recipe or formula is accompanied by explanation or directions, the text directions may be copyrightable, but the recipe or formula itself remains uncopyrightable.
Subject Matter of Copyright
To be protected by copyright, a work must contain at least a certain minimum amount of authorship in the form of original literary, musical, pictorial, or graphic expression. Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these requirements.
The game industry won't do that, because there's not enough money in it. Cookbooks sell well (especially ones written by celebrity chefs) so it's still profitable for publishers to print books on non-copyrightable recipes. I could copy all the recipes in the Joy of Cooking without breaching copyright, but nobody wants to buy "DDogwood's Big Book of Recipe Rip-Offs" (I can't call it Joy of Cooking, because that's a trademark).
So, in my hypothetical recipe book, I probably don't have a case against you if you copy the names of one, two, or a few of my recipes - but if you copy all of them, you might not just be copying titles, you might be copying my creative expression. A judge would have to decide, and the ruling could potentially go either way, but I wouldn't put my money on the guy who copied all of the recipe names (or power names) out of someone else's book.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would be very cautious about copying the names of the powers or the short descriptions in the 4e rules - these are probably covered by copyright, and not public domain. Likewise, the graphic layout of stat blocks is copyrighted.
Your right, a collection of information taken from the public domain (like rules/recipes/facts/etc.) can be covered under Compilation Copyrights.
Compilation copyrights are a special breed of copyrightable work. They are defined by the Copyright Act as a work that is formed by the "collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.
and
A grouping of facts is also protected as a compilation, assuming the grouping contains enough original expression to merit protection.
Also the US Copyright office had this to say about recipes
Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, when a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection.
So a cookbook(rulebook) would be covered by copyright law, if there is "substantial literary expression" or a "combination of recipes(rules)".
Right, but the names of all the powers in 4e, taken collectively, aren't the same as "titles, names, short phrases, and slogans" - those things are covered by trademark law, not copyright law.
Some names can have Protection under Trademark or Unfair Competition Laws instead of copyright law.
Some brand names, trade names, slogans, and phrases may be entitled to protection under the general rules of law relating to unfair competition, or they may be entitled to protection and registration under the provisions of state or federal trademark laws. The federal trademark statute covers trademarks and service marks—those words, phrases, symbols, or designs that identify the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguish them from those of others. The Copyright Office has no role in these matters.
What is a trademark or service mark?
A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.
A service mark is the same as a trademark, except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. Throughout this booklet, the terms "trademark" and "mark" refer to both trademarks and service marks.
I think a recipes name may qualify as trademarked if the name is used in commerce, for example a recipe named "Hershey's choclate chip cookies" may be protected by trademark law, but only if Hershey Co. made and marketed those specific chocolate chip cookies.
Most (but not all) of these can be protected by trademark law, which is why you can't publish a role-playing game called "Dungeons & Dragons" unless you're Wizards of the Coast.
Ok, now I think we agree that, if names for rules could be protected, it would be with trademark law.
But, I noticed this referance to trademarks in the US Copyright Office comments regarding games
Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game.
I think this means when a trademark is created for a game (like "Dungeons and Dragons") any other use of that term will no longer qualify for copyright protection, at all.
So, yes 'Dungeons and Dragons" is covered by trademark law, and the Infringement criteria is this,
In a nutshell, a plaintiff in a trademark case has the burden of proving that the defendant's use of a mark has created a likelihood-of-confusion about the origin of the defendant's goods or services
, but any other use of that term is considered public domain.
The OGL was very close to what you're talking about, and you can see that WotC decided not to pursue it as a long-term strategy
Personally, I think creating a marketing licence for games (OGL or GSL) is unnecessary, and basically, this is why i prefer the recipe/rulebook style of publishing more. I mean, it only seems fair that gamers should get the same choices and freedom to create rules, as chefs have for their recipes. Who knows "Cindy McCains Twin Srtike" might be the best rule ever
, should we(the gamers) be denied it because she didnt have a licence?Ofcourse, a trademark licence for using WotC's "Dungeons and Dragons TM" can be useful, but currently, I think the GSL looks mor like a franchise agreement then a trademark licence.
I am not a big fan of speculation, so I will just ask, has anyone heard any more about when the "newer" GSL will be released?
Scott Rouse is working on it. Without Linae it may take a bit longer with only a single person working on it.
According to US Copyright office, names do not qualify for copyright protection but the descriptive text might.
Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, Titles, or Short Phrases
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. I understand what you're saying about names, individually, not qualifying for copyright protection - I'm just warning you that if you copied most or all of the power names in 4e for a 'generic' rulebook, you'd probably get a C&D letter from Wizards. If you don't believe me, please feel free to try it for yourself.
You can't copyright one or two short phrases, but an entire book composed of short phrases is copyrightable. Likewise, I expect that the hundreds of power names in 4e are copyrightable, when taken collectively. I'm not an expert who can tell you this for sure, but I wouldn't advise trying to prove otherwise without a good lawyer and the funds to fight a court case about it.
Hi there, any chance that fluff terms like Feywild, Shadowfell and so on will be introduced in the new GSL?
Not in the GSL, no. The SRD would have to be updated to include those terms and as far as they have stated, the SRD is not being updated at this time.
Not in the GSL, no. The SRD would have to be updated to include those terms and as far as they have stated, the SRD is not being updated at this time.
Doesn't sound good, but thanks anyway for the answer. So how will the new books refer to the Feywild and the Shadowfell? Will they call it Faerieland and Shadowland, or something like that?
I understand what you're saying about names, individually, not qualifying for copyright protection - I'm just warning you that if you copied most or all of the power names in 4e for a 'generic' rulebook, you'd probably get a C&D letter from Wizards. If you don't believe me, please feel free to try it for yourself.
If you understand that the names cant get copyright protection, how would using them result in a C&D letter?
You can't copyright one or two short phrases, but an entire book composed of short phrases is copyrightable. Likewise, I expect that the hundreds of power names in 4e are copyrightable, when taken collectively.
The book is covered by (compilation) copyright, the names and phrases are not.
Doesn't sound good, but thanks anyway for the answer. So how will the new books refer to the Feywild and the Shadowfell? Will they call it Faerieland and Shadowland, or something like that?
WotC will obviously use the original names.
3PP will most likely have to use new names to refer to those places. Faerieland and Shadowland are certainly a possibility.
WotC will obviously use the original names.
3PP will most likely have to use new names to refer to those places. Faerieland and Shadowland are certainly a possibility.
The only problem with this line of thought is as I mentioned in another post, the SRD grants us use of these terms to an extent. Some could interpret it as unfettered use, since the terms aren't defined they could be redefined in 3pp. Some would interpret it as the terms can be referred to, but not specifically addressed. This is one of the most annoying problems with the SRD for me as it stands. Obviously, the smart choice would be to ignore the terms and deal with your own, but it would be nice is WotC would step forward and address it.
If you understand that the names cant get copyright protection, how would using them result in a C&D letter?
Because there is a difference between a single name or short phrase, and use of a whole set of names or short phrases from a single work. If you're so sure that it's OK, then please feel free to go ahead and try.
Because there is a difference between a single name or short phrase, and use of a whole set of names or short phrases from a single work. If you're so sure that it's OK, then please feel free to go ahead and try.
Actually getting a C+D letter does not make the sender of the C+D letter correct or you legally in the wrong. The only think Wotc is out by sending a C+D letter is the cost of postage if they can intimidate you out of your legal rights, they've already won.
-Polaris
The only problem with this line of thought is as I mentioned in another post, the SRD grants us use of these terms to an extent. Some could interpret it as unfettered use, since the terms aren't defined they could be redefined in 3pp. Some would interpret it as the terms can be referred to, but not specifically addressed. This is one of the most annoying problems with the SRD for me as it stands. Obviously, the smart choice would be to ignore the terms and deal with your own, but it would be nice is WotC would step forward and address it.
It is highly annoying from a publisher point of view. Alas, you are correct that it is not clear and the smart choice is to play it safe.
Thankfully when I wrote Night Reign back before 4E, I came up with my own so I'm not as worried about it.
Actually getting a C+D letter does not make the sender of the C+D letter correct or you legally in the wrong. The only think Wotc is out by sending a C+D letter is the cost of postage if they can intimidate you out of your legal rights, they've already won.
Perhaps, but lawyers don't write them out of kicks, especially if it's about trademark infringement.
If you and your lawyers believe you're in the right, then challenge them in court for an interpretation/ruling.
So did the GSL die?
Apparently the so-called revision has...or at least I'm not hearing anything about a revision any more.
-Polaris
Apparently the so-called revision has...or at least I'm not hearing anything about a revision any more.
-Polaris
Well Goodman put stuff out already, and Scott Rouse said e was working on it last I heard, but I haven't read anything from that guy from Necro lately to know if anything has changed, or know anywhere other than here to check since ENWorld broke a table or something, and I can't even search those forum because I have never registered to them....
You must have missed the joke within that post. Elf is public domain but the
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what you can do with trademarks. You cannot trademark a monster. You can trademark the name of a monster only to the extent that it has a secondary meaning that defines a good or service provided to the community. So, if you say that "mind flayer" is trademarked, and it just means that it is a monster, that means WotC is selling mind flayers. If they were pets, perhaps they would be marketed as MIND-FLAYER(TM) pets, which better have a pretty serious warning about brain eating. Plus, if they were selling mind flayers, since there is no better term than mind flayer to describe them, the term has become generic (like Kleenex) and cannot be protected anymore.
There is a Blackmoor trademark. Does that mean I cannot make a place in my game "blackmoor?" Of course not. Blackmoor is used in connection with the sale of game rules. Ravenloft is the same. I cannot write a book series entitled Ravenloft in the sci-fi/fantasy genre, but I can name a place in my game setting Ravenloft if I want to.
Trademark is a non-issue. If you use enough terms that are sprinkled around the D&D game rules and settings, you are stepping into copyright law.
Was someone getting confused about the trademarked images, that were not identical, and pouring themself a nice bowl of 93 octance for breakfast?
Then please explain why Kellogs had to change Tony the Tiger to include some gold lightning stripes or something on their Frosted Flakes cereal because of Exxon?
Was someone getting confused about the trademarked images, that were not identical, and pouring themself a nice bowl of 93 octance for breakfast?
I believe that it was Kellogs who sued Exxon and it was because Exxon was using their tiger to sell food at TigerMart convenience stores, thus putting the trademarked images into similar enough roles to create grounds for a lawsuit.
Then please explain why Kellogs had to change Tony the Tiger to include some gold lightning stripes or something on their Frosted Flakes cereal because of Exxon?
Was someone getting confused about the trademarked images, that were not identical, and pouring themself a nice bowl of 93 octance for breakfast?
That was a big case (made it all the way to the supreme court), but I never heard anything about changing the stripes. Kellogs sued Exxon because Exxon was using a tiger image in association with selling food. The BIG QUESTION(TM) was whether Exxon could be sued after having used the tiger for 30 years without Kellogs ever saying anything about it. The Supreme Court decided Kellogs could sue anyway on a theory of "progressing encroachment."
Edit: Is Tenzhi a ninja clan name?
Point out a monster that is trademarked and I will explain why there isn't really a trademark on that monster.
And, more than likely, as long as you follow the GSL as best you can, they won't throw a fit about it anyway; it'd make WotC look bad.