Say, for example's sake, I create a 30 level character class: the assassin.
I publish it, but then oh, 6 months later, WOTC releases a PHB III that features the assassin as a character class.
Am I suddenly in violation of the GSL?
I think I am, though i can't find the right clause in the gsl which leads me to believe that.
I think it's the clause that prohibits redefinition of anyhting in the SRD.
Now, I don't ever plan on making an assassin. I'm just using it as an example.
I'm not looking for legal advice per se'.
I have a lawyer for that.
I just was wondering if other people came to the same understanding I did.
Goodman Games put our Forgotten Heroes: Fang, Fist and Song, under the GSL, and that product contains 4 complete character classes, levels 1 through 30: the Barbarian, the Bard, the Monk, and the Druid. These names are in no way altered. So, the OP has a valid question. What should Goodman expect with the release of the PHB2, and its versions of any of those classes? Will it be pulled off the shelves, its GSL license revoked?
I have no idea. It's a perfectly reasonable question to try to gauge the general opinion on this sort of thing. Otherwise, why have a GSL forum section at all?
A generic name like druid, bard, barbarian, and monk cannot really be copyrighted.
WotC made names would be different. Don't use those.
In all e-mailing Customer Service would likely be the best way to get an answer, though I've heard of them giving people the run around on this kind of thing.
Leichenreiter, that's not actually true at all, I'm afraid.
Goodman Games put our Forgotten Heroes: Fang, Fist and Song, under the GSL, and that product contains 4 complete character classes, levels 1 through 30: the Barbarian, the Bard, the Monk, and the Druid. These names are in no way altered. So, the OP has a valid question. What should Goodman expect with the release of the PHB2, and its versions of any of those classes? Will it be pulled off the shelves, its GSL license revoked?
I have no idea. It's a perfectly reasonable question to try to gauge the general opinion on this sort of thing. Otherwise, why have a GSL forum section at all?
Was Forgotten heroes, fang Fist and Song a GSL release? For some reason I thought they released it under straight copyright law.
I'd forgotten (no pun intended), that I bought that pdf.
Yep, looks like they did go GSL with it. hmmm. interesting.
Well, first off I'd like to state: Disclaimer I'm no lawyer.
A generic name like druid, bard, barbarian, and monk cannot really be copyrighted.
WotC made names would be different. Don't use those.
Words and phrases cannot be copyrighted. A copyright applies to the work as a whole. Words and phrases can be trademarked. I doubt anybody could get a trademark on bard, barbarian, druid, monk, etc - but they could certainly try.
Typical disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television
4.1 4E References. Licensee may reprint the proprietary 4E reference terms, tables, and templates (each, a “4E Reference”) described in the 4E System Reference Document as presented in the file “SRD.pdf” that is available for download at http://www.wizards.com/d20 (“SRD”), incorporated herein by reference. Licensee acknowledges that Wizards has previously defined each 4E Reference. Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter the definition of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product. [...] Wizards may update or revise the SRD at any time in its sole discretion by posting the updated SRD on its website page located at http://www.wizards.com/d20. Wizards will indicate on the cover page of the SRD the date it was last updated. Licensee is responsible for checking the SRD regularly for changes, and waives any right to receive specific notice of changes.
If WotC puts out an assassin class and you have an assassin class you would be redefining the class (its features, powers, etc) which is prohibited by the GSL.
Advaned Players Guide by Ari Marmell (or whatever he is spelled >_<) has Troubadour, Nature-Priest and Martial Artist, thus I am neither totally wrong nor totally right.
No.. you are totally wrong.
You said
Well judging from other publications, it's not exactly a safe-zone.
The 3rd Party Products to date made a Troubadour, Nature-Priest and Martial Artist and so on instead of Bard, Druid and Monk.
- Fang, Fist, and Song is a 3rd part product to date.
- Fang, Fist, and Song does not use alternate names instead of Bard, Druid, and Monk.
--- - Therefore it is not the case that The 3rd Party Products to date made a Troubadour, Nature-Priest and Martial Artist and so on instead of Bard, Druid and Monk. It is only the case that A SINGLE 3rd Party Product used alternate names which is not at all what you said.
Forum posters need to learn to admit when they're wrong (and learn that it's ok to be wrong) and you in particular need to learn the difference between universals and particulars.
At best you could make the claim that you MEANT to say that A 3rd Party Product used alternate names (though it is clear that you didn't) in which case you would still have been wrong (by misstating what you meant) and would have also had a weak argument.
Now that that's out of the way, the way I read the current GSL you would be in violation if you use word 'A' to name a class and WotC later also labels a class 'A'. Whether they would shut down that product or not is anyone's guess.
Well, first off I'd like to state: Disclaimer I'm no lawyer.
A generic name like druid, bard, barbarian, and monk cannot really be copyrighted.
WotC made names would be different. Don't use those.
In all e-mailing Customer Service would likely be the best way to get an answer, though I've heard of them giving people the run around on this kind of thing.
I would say e-mailing Scott would be better than Customer Service, as Scott is the man that's worked the most on the GSL (well, that's still employed at least)
I would say e-mailing Scott would be better than Customer Service, as Scott is the man that's worked the most on the GSL (well, that's still employed at least)
The even better answer is to consult a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property issues.
I would say e-mailing Scott would be better than Customer Service, as Scott is the man that's worked the most on the GSL (well, that's still employed at least)
Does anyone have an email address for Scott? I assume it's similar to other WOTC employees but you never know.
Yes, it was GSL. I picked it up at my local gaming store, and I'm really enjoying it, actually. The classes are excellent, though it does have more typos than I'd care for. None the less, I hope the book is secure, and there will be no silly issues if WOTC releases books with the same classes in them.
Thanks Rant_Casey, I was one of the writers on FH I. I also hope that WOTC doesn't come down with the copywright hammer on Goodman, but I think that we are safe for now.
I've really enjoyed using these classes in play, but having no official answers to these questions has been a sore point, with my group. Keep up the good work, though. I, personally, know how much pressure there can be on editing staff when you're working on a tight deadline, but I hope errata or Q/A can clear up some lingering rules issues.
Thanks!
The even better answer is to consult a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property issues.
RTFT
had you read the thread, you would see that the OP already has a lawyer
RTFT
had you read the thread, you would see that the OP already has a lawyer
I don't have any idea what wtft means... but if the OP has a lawyer, then he's wasting his time asking for legal advice here. He should be asking his lawyer, not WotC customer service and not Scott (who's a very nice guy, don't get me wrong).
The Game System License offers third parties an opportunity to publish materials for Fourth Edition Dungeons & Dragons. Discuss the ins and outs of the GSL, as well as what third parties are using it to produce.
{emphasis mine}
That's what this forum is for, discussing the gsl, and 3rd party products.
I simply wanted to know if anyone else came to the same conclusion I did.
I didn't ask anyone to_tell_me what to do.
I didn't ask for legal advice.
I'll say it again for the 3rd time.
I asked if people came to the same conclusion I did about section 4.1.
I'm sorry I even came to these forums.
You're not understanding me.
*shrug* happens sometimes, especially in a medium that is written text only.
I didn't ask for legal advice.
I'll say it again for the 3rd time.
OK
I asked if people came to the same conclusion I did about section 4.1.
OK - based on what I've read on this forum and others, yes, people have reached the same conclusion as you.
I'm sorry I even came to these forums.
I do hope you stick around, rather than departing. These forums have a lot to offer most of the time.
I'll be more careful about what subjects I might bring up in the future.
I'm sorry, Thurik. I hope, in the future, people will offer a more welcoming and useful response to a well meaning question than "see a layer," and, "go away."
It's not a good sign when a community responds to well meaning questions with open hostility.
I don't see where anybody told you what to do. What I do see is where several people offered up ways to get better answers than a random message board on the internet: customer service, e-mailing Scott, and/or consulting a lawyer who specializes in Intellectual Property laws.
If by " random message board on the internet" you mean the company's official message board on the forum explicitly described as being for said answers.
Gee, that's like going to Microsoft's technical forum and asking a problem about fixing Vista.
Only, if it was frequented by posters like this board's he'd have been told not to use the MB and consult an in-store technician.
I agree that the technical language of the GSL does make giving any advice daunting. However, that should not stop you from looking before replying to see if there was an easy response.
I'm no lawyer and it only took a minute of scanning to see the possible problem.
If by " random message board on the internet" you mean the company's official message board on the forum explicitly described as being for said answers.
Gee, that's like going to Microsoft's technical forum and asking a problem about fixing Vista.
Only, if it was frequented by posters like this board's he'd have been told not to use the MB and consult an in-store technician.
I agree that the technical language of the GSL does make giving any advice daunting. However, that should not stop you from looking before replying to see if there was an easy response.
I'm no lawyer and it only took a minute of scanning to see the possible problem.
If you want to throw out analogies, a more correct one would be; it's like going to the microsoft forums and asking whether you can put a 'Vista Approved' sticker on a new piece of hardware you want to produce.
By 'random board' I'm sure Zherog meant a forum where any random person can answer with widely differing opinions.
The original question has been answered, there are some people who agree with the OP's interpretation and some people who don't. Zherog and the OP had a miscommunication about whether a proffesional opinion was the desired answer. There's no need to bust the Z-man's chops over it.
Well, first off I'd like to state: Disclaimer I'm no lawyer.
A generic name like druid, bard, barbarian, and monk cannot really be copyrighted.
WotC made names would be different. Don't use those.
It's not about copyright. It's about the fact that you enter a license agreement with WotC if you publish under the GSL.