It allows you to search the
messageboards, send and receive private messages, give yourself a
custom usertitle, turn ads on or off, create a custom style for your
profile, get a nifty badge under your username, and gives you a special
warm glowy feeling! Oh, and it gets rid of this annoying message, too!
RPG Legalities: OGF/4eGSL/d20STLDiscussions about the Open Gaming Movement, the Open Gaming License, along with WotC's GSL. This is the new home of the OGF-L and d20-L listserver discussions.
WOTC’s press release was inadequately written, and misunderstanding has [Edit by Morrus: removed profanity. Do not use profanity on EN World, even when you cleverly disguise it with a couple of asterisks.] run rampant around here.
First, I want to say that a person cannot revoke a license anymore than they can un-publish a work. So the statement in the release saying, “This royalty-free license will replace the former d20 System Trademark License (STL),” I would interpret as meaning that it will fill the same role as the original STL or OGL. The material published under the OGL or STL will remained licensed under the license in which it was published…THEREFORE this so-called “replacement” will not affect 3.5E publishers. It will only affect content referencing the 4E line of products. 3.5E publishers fear not....go about your lives as normal.
Second, the distinction between “fantasy” and “non-fantasy” is going to be a legal quagmire. While we here may all understand the distinction, articulating this distinction in court will be onerous at best. And where exactly is this a problem?? Assuming that the need for a split license b/t fantasy and non-fantasy is instigated by inherent (and subtle) differences in the application (and therefore the declaration of) of each license, there are going to be pros and cons to using one over the other in any given situation. So for example, for my purposes, I may prefer the fantasy license (regardless of whether my setting is “fantasy” or not); while another person may prefer the non-fantasy license simply due to some subtle nuance dictated in the definition of the license (again, regardless of whether or not his setting meets some arbitrary definition of “non-fantasy”). Bottom line: determining which license applies to a given third-party product will, in my opinion, be a huge legal problem should any legal action be taken by WOTC or others.
Lastly, I want to point out that there is no “updating” old content for the new license. Only products using content from the new 4E system will have to abide by the D&D GSL or d20 GSL…at least as I understand it. But, definitely, WOTC (nor anyone) can “revoke” a license under which content has already been published anymore than they can “un-publish” the original content.
The specific details of each license will make or break this effort. While openness is a laudable goal, if these licenses are implemented poorly then publishers could have a mess on their hands. I’m also curious to know if there was ever any action brought about in court concerning the original OGL…does anyone have any info on this? B/c my understanding was that there was not, and therefore the stability of the OGL was never tested. If I was WOTC, I would reach deep in my pockets and hire a top notch IP firm to write the license, and then find two more firms to try to "break" it and refortify it.
So, if I'm missing something please let me know.
Last edited by Morrus; 18th April 2008 at 04:48 PM..
The myth of "role vs. roll playing" has poisoned the well deep.
—Chris Chinn
Every person playing the game is responsible for the fun of the game.
—D&D 4e DMG, p.7
It doesn't feel like D&D to me. First Level shouldn't be that much fun.
—Mustrum_Ridcully on 4e
I think there have been a LOT of people over the years who wanted to like D&D, and tried to play it once or twice, but bounced off it because the rules were too picky and esoteric or the groups they tried to play with had been taught to value simulation of a potentially slightly tedious fantasy reality over having fun.
—Rob Heinsoo, interview at Guys Lit Wire
Edit: double post, no red voice for an old newshound.
__________________ EN World Newshound
"Baseball breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." — A. Bartlett Giamatti
Last edited by Kajamba Lion; 18th April 2008 at 04:23 PM..
I just moved out of the news forum (and off the front page) and into the 4e forum.
__________________ EN World Newshound
"Baseball breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." — A. Bartlett Giamatti
Heh - at the same time as I was moving it to the OGL forum!
Apologies, everyone - there's some permissions bug we can't track down that allowed dickensider to post his opinions directly to the news page. Thank you to those who jumped on it and reported it - it was only there for twenty minutes.
It appears to have already been moved, so that's good.
I think WOTC probably have hired IP lawyers for the purposes of writing these agreements (or Hasbro probably has some on retainer!)
And to say that any licence cannot be revoked is a strange thing to say - the D20 STL includes details of how this licence may be revoked (admittedly only when the terms of the licence are breached). So any licence can be revoked provided the terms of that revocation are included in the licence, surely.
However a small point to note is that the D20 STL does not actually refer to a specific version of D&D, 3, 3.5 or 4E, so if it is updated with a new version then under the terms of the licence all parties must adhere to it. The system guide does makes reference to both 3E and 3.5E though.
Finally, I think all we can say for definite is that the licenses are coming (which IS good news), and we wont know what till we see them - which hopefully for all involved will be soon.
The d20 STL may absolutely be revoked. The OGL cannot be.
Basing legal opinions on a press release is somewhat premature; a press release is not a legal document. Not having seen the license, who knows if the definition concerns mentioned above are relevant?
Guys, I suspect the two different licenses are based on the fact that there's a new D20 modern (or whatever it will be called) coming out. Since we have no details on that, my guess is that you will choose the license based on what original base game you take it from. We don't yet know how compatible both rulesets will be--it's possible the new d20 modern will be different from D&D 4e in some significant mechanical ways.
Guys, I suspect the two different licenses are based on the fact that there's a new D20 modern (or whatever it will be called) coming out. Since we have no details on that, my guess is that you will choose the license based on what original base game you take it from. We don't yet know how compatible both rulesets will be--it's possible the new d20 modern will be different from D&D 4e in some significant mechanical ways.
Exactly what I was thinking.
It seems like one's basically a "make stuff for D&D" license, and the other is a "make stuff that's not for D&D" license. It's seems obvious to me there's no "Is it fantasy?" issue. Still, we'll see when the actual license is released.
__________________
The myth of "role vs. roll playing" has poisoned the well deep.
—Chris Chinn
Every person playing the game is responsible for the fun of the game.
—D&D 4e DMG, p.7
It doesn't feel like D&D to me. First Level shouldn't be that much fun.
—Mustrum_Ridcully on 4e
I think there have been a LOT of people over the years who wanted to like D&D, and tried to play it once or twice, but bounced off it because the rules were too picky and esoteric or the groups they tried to play with had been taught to value simulation of a potentially slightly tedious fantasy reality over having fun.
—Rob Heinsoo, interview at Guys Lit Wire
I'm not trying to write a legal opinion nor base one on the press release, merely point out that the release was "inadequate". (cap't obvious). Also wanted to solicit opinions on what I thought were potential issues. I guess this is what other people here thought to be a "legal opinion". But I never portrayed the post as anything other than a random internet forum post. Others read into it as me trying to say more than I actually was, I think.
I was also equating the STL and OGL - my fault. But OGL cannot be "revoked" per se. If the PHB (for example) was published under the OGL, then that content will remain governed by the OGL. On a side note (irrelevant tangent), I also think that the trademark is of lesser importance in this industry than it would be in others, but not entirely irrelevant or anything like that.
I still think that discerning the application of one license over the other (fantasy vs non-fantasy) is going to be a potentially big problem. This of course depends entirely on the wording of each. I'm really beginning to pick up on a pattern with WOTC releasing statements that confuse more than illuminate. I'm also getting a little fed up with it. But...whatever...
And my comment about WOTC hiring a good IP firm....well I was being a little sarcastic. I mean I hope that hiring a good firm is plainly obvious. I also hope that they spend a good deal of time working it out. It just seems to me that since the license scheme is still changing (for no apparent reason other than the fact that final goals/intentions are still not set in stone) there is the possibility that inadequate effort is being given to such an important item. I would think that something as core as the license for the content (and the inherent goals and purposes of the content as determined by the license) would be a foundation on which the final content was devised, not the other way around. I suppose I'm griping about what appears to be a recurrent theme - haphazard work. But I hope all works out in the end. I am happy that the game is going to be open and I don't want to denigrate WOTC yet again. But I'm scared by what I see. This is not how I would do things. But, who am I? Just a schmo.
I was also equating the STL and OGL - my fault. But OGL cannot be "revoked" per se. If the PHB (for example) was published under the OGL, then that content will remain governed by the OGL. On a side note (irrelevant tangent), I also think that the trademark is of lesser importance in this industry than it would be in others, but not entirely irrelevant or anything like that.
The OGL can't be revoked, true. However, keep in mind the following:
1) WoTC never made the D&D game OGL. They have the rights to all the content. Thus, they are allowed to go to the "source well" and reinvent the game without violating the OGL.
2) The SRD of the game doesn't have a lot of descriptive information--no monster background or "what is a fighter". Most of it is rules--stat blocks, etc. The "fluff" was reserved by Wizards.
3) D&D is being Significantly changed in many ways. 3e and 4e are not compatible. For instance, the Pit Fiend in 4e has different powers, rules, attack ranges, etc. You won't really be able to use 3e monsters from the OGL itself. For balance purposes, you're really going to have to take them from the 4e versions.
If the PHB (for example) was published under the OGL, then that content will remain governed by the OGL.
It wasn't released under the OGL.
Quote:
I still think that discerning the application of one license over the other (fantasy vs non-fantasy) is going to be a potentially big problem. This of course depends entirely on the wording of each. I'm really beginning to pick up on a pattern with WOTC releasing statements that confuse more than illuminate. I'm also getting a little fed up with it. But...whatever...
I'm fairly sure they won't actually care about the fantasy/modern fluff/flavour - it'll simply be to do with the compatibility statement/access to branding. You'd choose whichever you felt best for you product. But without seeing the licencse, that's just an educated guess. I very much doubt the word "fantasy" will appear in either license.
I think the need for a new license is just to differentiate between D&D and NOT D&D. Why would someone pick up a book with a D&D logo that is for a NOT D&D product. It's a problem the d20 logo had - is that it indicated compatibility with too many game systems that ended up not being compatible at all. D&D classes are not compatible with d20 Modern classes - but the d20 logo said they were, which was a huge mistake.
The great thing is that this doesn't seem to indicate anything like the masses thought that say no more Spycraft or True20.
While I love True20 as is, I would probably check out a True20: d20GSL version.
We've spent quite a bit of time contemplating the licenses, working out the corner cases, and identifying any possible legal concerns.
Linae, will there be any significant differences in the rights or restrictions granted by the two separate licenses (ala the differences between the OGL and d20 STL), or will the main difference just be the ruleset the author is allowed to reference?
Linae, will there be any significant differences in the rights or restrictions granted by the two separate licenses (ala the differences between the OGL and d20 STL), or will the main difference just be the ruleset the author is allowed to reference?
I'm at a Con right now and don't have the actual documents right in front of me. IIRC the main differences lie in the ruleset being used. Both GSLs incorporate many aspects of the OGL and d20STL.
One is for D&D and the other is for non D&D. Say, if you want to do a d20 game called Supermarkets & Housewives, or Paparazzi & Heiresses you'd use the genre-free license.
Linear Mode
