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.
Gamers Online Now: 864
107 members and 757 guests
Most users ever online was 4,029, 8th April 2009 at 05:04 PM.
This product is 56 pages long and free. Cover, credits, intro and ToC take up 4 pages. I counted 17 pages of adds many of them for other Rite... [Read More]
Evocative City Sites Lorn's Entrepot (Abandoned Warehouse) by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. This product is 47 pages long. Cover, Credits, two pages of... [Read More]
Feats 101 by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. I have not yet played using these feats my review is based on reading the feats and checking a few against... [Read More]
The Plane Below: Secrets of the Elemental Chaos is a 4e D&D product describing some of the different planes in the 4e Cosmology. The book is a typical hard bound book that Wizards of the Coast... [Read More]
Granted. Allow me to clarify what I mean by "speculative". I mean that there are no sufficient grounds for the speculation. I could use the word "specious" instead, but I figure that would be offensive.
Oh, gee. How kind of you to be polite.
Nice sig. Still don't believe the OGL didn't give WotC latitude. They have enjoyed watching from their high perch while small print presses were making supplements for D&D via d20STL (in conjunction with the OGL: Covered Product need minimum 5% OGC), like Seafarer's Handbook and Seas of Blood until they come out with their own, Stormwrack.
So, can I safely assume you will buy/support GSL products, even more than WotC's own, as I have supported d20 products in the 3e Era?
__________________ Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
My philosophy is "you don't need me to tell you how to play -- I'll just provide some rules and ideas to use and get out of your way." --Monte Cook
Please stop making inferences from my words that I never even implied. My choices are not a part of this discussion. This discussion is about WOTC, not me. If you have a point to make, I suggest you do it without directing it at me personally.
__________________ My current view of the OGL: Though accomplishing exactly what it was meant to do, it is flawed for not providing WOTC more latitude.
My current view of the GSL: section 2 and subsections 6.1, 11.1, and 11.3 need to be completely rewritten to protect the licensee from abuse, but the rest of the GSL is commendable and provides loss leader dynamics superior to the OGL, as the point to being a loss leader is pointing the community toward the loss leader.
Please stop making inferences from my words that I never even implied. My choices are not a part of this discussion. This discussion is about WOTC, not me. If you have a point to make, I suggest you do it without directing it at me personally.
Just asking a question.
__________________ Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
My philosophy is "you don't need me to tell you how to play -- I'll just provide some rules and ideas to use and get out of your way." --Monte Cook
Your "question" is c0cked and loaded. I thought I might try to pull the point out from between the lines of your "question", but I can't be certain about the point to why you asked the question. So what I'm going to do is just clarify the difference between the OGL and the GSL regarding people's general buying preferences.
First, allow me to point out that most people don't buy a product to spite a particular company or to support a particular kind of business. Sometimes they'll buy a product to support a particular company they like, but usually it's dependent on the product itself.
The OGL did indeed allow a greater support for 3pp's to multiply. It allowed plenty of room for companies to compete and come up with unique ideas that distinguish them from their competitors. If someone wanted to support D&D, they could, but mostly they were free to do what they wanted.
With the GSL, it limits the pool of publishers, because it's not a generally good idea to support a competitor's product, which is exactly what the GSL encourages: supporting the D&D system. If you, as a publisher, support the game, it typically means you're willing to take a smaller cut of the pie to ensure that you have a steady market to dip into. WOTC's success becomes your success. If you want your game to survive, then you have to do everything in your power to help the D&D system to grow. The GSL ensures that your game system has little variance from D&D, because you're not allowed to redefine the definitions. If there is any mechanic in the system at all that you want to use, it must direct the reader to the D&D core rulebook where it is found. You can't even have humans without referencing the D&D core rulebooks. (Though you can get around that particular snaffu by declaring them "Baratas Humans" or something like that.) Essentially, every single product produced must be nothing more than a supplement. So, then, if you buy that product, or better yet, if you make your own little world using the GSL, you are supporting D&D, period. Even if you never buy another D&D product, but use a GSL product, you are supporting D&D because you had to buy the D&D core rulebooks to use that GSL product.
So, then, as a customer, my preferences are virtually irrelevant. Either I support D&D 4e, or I don't. If I buy GSL, then I am supporting 4e. No if's, and's, or but's.
__________________ My current view of the OGL: Though accomplishing exactly what it was meant to do, it is flawed for not providing WOTC more latitude.
My current view of the GSL: section 2 and subsections 6.1, 11.1, and 11.3 need to be completely rewritten to protect the licensee from abuse, but the rest of the GSL is commendable and provides loss leader dynamics superior to the OGL, as the point to being a loss leader is pointing the community toward the loss leader.
Last edited by Corjay; 29th August 2008 at 06:00 PM..
Please stop making inferences from my words that I never even implied. My choices are not a part of this discussion. This discussion is about WOTC, not me. If you have a point to make, I suggest you do it without directing it at me personally.
Yours is a mission impossible. You say this thread should only discuss WotC. However, we have absolutely no insight in the workings of that company. The only thing we can do is speculate, and there one man's speculation isn't any better than the next's.
I fully understand why the thread comes back to you, because, frankly, there isn't much else to discuss, and what there was, has been regurgitated several times over already.
I think it is time for me to leave this thread. If something interesting comes up, be sure to post it in a new thread will you? Thanks muchly.
__________________ My current view of the OGL: Though accomplishing exactly what it was meant to do, it is flawed for not providing WOTC more latitude.
My current view of the GSL: section 2 and subsections 6.1, 11.1, and 11.3 need to be completely rewritten to protect the licensee from abuse, but the rest of the GSL is commendable and provides loss leader dynamics superior to the OGL, as the point to being a loss leader is pointing the community toward the loss leader.
Some things to add. The "True20 romantic" srd is actually illegal and Green Ronin has asked that guy to take it down. He hasn't. GR never released an SRD for the True20 system because the entire core book is the "SRD" (with a few minor exceptions).
No. Blatantly wrong, incorrect and misunderstood. The True20 SRD as hosted by a fan, is NOT illegal in ANY way. True20 is and was published under the OGL and part and parcel of that is the possibility of someone making a functional SRD site out of it. Whether or not Green Roning approves of it or likes it is another thing alltogether.
Fact is - just as with D&D, someone can take the entirety of the True20 system as released and republish it, even sell it. That is part of the "viral" nature of the OGL and what makes it both so widely accepted but also widely spread.
So, can we PLEASE not perpetuate this "misunderstanding" about the True SRD?
__________________ Andreas Rönnqvist Dreamscarred Press
New publishing with a focus on Psionics
Get a FREE download of our Dreamscape release!
No. Blatantly wrong, incorrect and misunderstood. The True20 SRD as hosted by a fan, is NOT illegal in ANY way. True20 is and was published under the OGL and part and parcel of that is the possibility of someone making a functional SRD site out of it. Whether or not Green Roning approves of it or likes it is another thing alltogether.
Fact is - just as with D&D, someone can take the entirety of the True20 system as released and republish it, even sell it. That is part of the "viral" nature of the OGL and what makes it both so widely accepted but also widely spread.
So, can we PLEASE not perpetuate this "misunderstanding" about the True SRD?
Well, I haven't seen the True SRD, but as long as the SRD contains all OGC, and not one PI, then it is okay.
Just because the product is under OGL, doesn't necessarily means it is 100% OGC. The OGL specifically defines what is OGC and PI, and which content you can use under the license, and what you cannot use under the license (without the OGL, it's considered copyrighted material enforced under copyright law).
__________________ Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
My philosophy is "you don't need me to tell you how to play -- I'll just provide some rules and ideas to use and get out of your way." --Monte Cook
No. Blatantly wrong, incorrect and misunderstood. The True20 SRD as hosted by a fan, is NOT illegal in ANY way. True20 is and was published under the OGL and part and parcel of that is the possibility of someone making a functional SRD site out of it. Whether or not Green Roning approves of it or likes it is another thing alltogether.
Fact is - just as with D&D, someone can take the entirety of the True20 system as released and republish it, even sell it. That is part of the "viral" nature of the OGL and what makes it both so widely accepted but also widely spread.
So, can we PLEASE not perpetuate this "misunderstanding" about the True SRD?
Well, I haven't seen the True SRD, but as long as the SRD contains all OGC, and not one PI, then it is okay.
Just because the product is under OGL, doesn't necessarily means it is 100% OGC. The OGL specifically defines what is OGC and PI, and which content you can use under the license, and what you cannot use under the license (without the OGL, it's considered copyrighted material enforced under copyright law).
The correct term in the U.S. is 'IP' for 'Intellectual Property', not 'PI' for 'Product Identity' or 'Propriedade Intelectual'[/nitpick]
RangerREG is correct. Angellis ater may also be correct, so long as no IP is involved. If there is no IP involved, then there's nothing the True20 staff can do about it. Mechanics are not covered under copyright. And unless the whole True20 system is covered under a patent, there's nothing they can do about the mechanics at all. Now, if the True20 logo is used, then there may be trademark issues. But that's a discussion for another thread.
__________________ My current view of the OGL: Though accomplishing exactly what it was meant to do, it is flawed for not providing WOTC more latitude.
My current view of the GSL: section 2 and subsections 6.1, 11.1, and 11.3 need to be completely rewritten to protect the licensee from abuse, but the rest of the GSL is commendable and provides loss leader dynamics superior to the OGL, as the point to being a loss leader is pointing the community toward the loss leader.
Last edited by Corjay; 3rd September 2008 at 03:57 PM..
If we wanted there to be a True20 SRD, we would do one ourselves. Also, a third party doing one would probably defeat the purpose, since you couldn't actually call it the True20 SRD, as that's our Trademark and you couldn't use it without our permission.
The contents of the True20SRD isn't illegal. Calling it the TrueSRD or True20SRD or whatever is the illegal part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OGL 1.0A Section 1e
"Product Identity" means product and product line names,
"Product Identity" means product and product line names,
emphasis mine.
My bad. I thought both licenses said "intellectual property", not just the GSL. "Intellectual property" is also used in copyright law, while "product identity" is used in trademark law.
__________________ My current view of the OGL: Though accomplishing exactly what it was meant to do, it is flawed for not providing WOTC more latitude.
My current view of the GSL: section 2 and subsections 6.1, 11.1, and 11.3 need to be completely rewritten to protect the licensee from abuse, but the rest of the GSL is commendable and provides loss leader dynamics superior to the OGL, as the point to being a loss leader is pointing the community toward the loss leader.
The correct term in the U.S. is 'IP' for 'Intellectual Property', not 'PI' for 'Product Identity' or 'Propriedade Intelectual'[/nitpick]
RangerREG is correct. Angellis ater may also be correct, so long as no IP is involved. If there is no IP involved, then there's nothing the True20 staff can do about it. Mechanics are not covered under copyright.
No, but a written [non-mathematical] expression of game mechanics may be copyrighted. But if said written text is designated OGC under the OGL, then you may copy them verbatim, so long YOU obey the OGL also.
As stated before, the OGL defines OGC (i.e., Open Game Content) and PI (Product Identity). By using the OGL, you acknowledge the definition in the agreement and how they are used.
And yes, we all know what IP means. Copyright is one form of IP, trademark and short-lived patent are the others.
__________________ Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
My philosophy is "you don't need me to tell you how to play -- I'll just provide some rules and ideas to use and get out of your way." --Monte Cook
__________________ My current view of the OGL: Though accomplishing exactly what it was meant to do, it is flawed for not providing WOTC more latitude.
My current view of the GSL: section 2 and subsections 6.1, 11.1, and 11.3 need to be completely rewritten to protect the licensee from abuse, but the rest of the GSL is commendable and provides loss leader dynamics superior to the OGL, as the point to being a loss leader is pointing the community toward the loss leader.
I believe you are confusing political compromise for corporate compromise. Besides this, WOTC is run by people who love the game. Judging by those they hire, I would expect it to be a prerequisite to any position in the company (which is good business sense; you have to love a game and put your ear to the street to know what the layman really wants in order to properly interpret the marketing data). It's the lawyers I have no faith in, especially considering what they did to the first version of the GSL (which was very law-bent). I think what's going to happen is that the lawyers need to make the GSL work, or they'll find themselves looking for a new client. WOTC is making major cutbacks, and they aren't going to put up with lawyers skimming the company's pennies for a poor end-product that doesn't satisfy anyone.
It's not simply optimism. It's business sense.
Business sense went out the window when then-TSR was headed by Lorraine Williams. She absolutely hated D&D and RPG and wanted to turn the company into a Buck Rogers merchandising house.
Business sense was questioned when gamer-at-heart and former WotC President Anthony Valterra -- who replaced Peter Adkison, the founder of WotC -- resigned amidst the "Erotic RPG" controversy and Hasbro hired a former Coke Ad exec as the company president.
First, what does TSR and Lorraine Williams have to do with any of this? I'll tell you: nothing. Zilch, zip, nadda. If that's all you have as the basis for your opinion, then I would suggest reviewing the situation a little closer. Lorraine Williams was only out for her own agenda and didn't have a lick of business sense.
As for any "erotic controversy", I think any such issue has been resolved by the wording in section 7 of the GSL. The business sense in that situation comes when they don't want RPG's, or at least d20 and D&D, to be automatically associated with such a narrow market as erotica. When you get a stigma like that, it's pretty hard to live it down. There's a reason why so few pron stars break into the legitimate acting world. Their battles over the subject seem warranted. They may have even known that they couldn't win, but just making their separation from erotica public, they made a good business decision. Winning the case wasn't likely their goal. Publicly divorcing themselves from the erotica industry was the most likely goal.
Look, associating WOTC with a competitor that they bought out, and with a case that was perfectly justified morally and monetarily, are non-existent reasons for accusing WOTC of bad business motives. Neither one of them has anything to do with anything regarding that issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger REG
Personally, I don't know if WotC's lawyers are trembling at the possible loss of job from client that is WotC.
If they're in-house lawyers, then they're trembling. There's no one in the company that's not trembling right now. If they're outsourced, then losing a corporate client is no small deal.
__________________ My current view of the OGL: Though accomplishing exactly what it was meant to do, it is flawed for not providing WOTC more latitude.
My current view of the GSL: section 2 and subsections 6.1, 11.1, and 11.3 need to be completely rewritten to protect the licensee from abuse, but the rest of the GSL is commendable and provides loss leader dynamics superior to the OGL, as the point to being a loss leader is pointing the community toward the loss leader.
Last edited by Corjay; 11th September 2008 at 11:07 PM..
First, what does TSR and Lorraine Williams have to do with any of this? I'll tell you: nothing. Zilch, zip, nadda. If that's all you have as the basis for your opinion, then I would suggest reviewing the situation a little closer. Lorraine Williams was only out for her own agenda and didn't have a lick of business sense.
Lorraine Williams is relevant to the point that was being made. That point was that the head of a company doesn't always make the best business decisions. In fact she drove TSR into the ground to the point that WotC was able to buy it. The argument that this point makes by just looking at the history of D&D is that the president of the company in charge of D&D does not always make the best business decisions just because they are in charge of a business. While the current president of the WotC division of Hasbro may be a phenomenal business man, from past experience he may not be as well. We cannot assume from his title alone that he knows what he is doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corjay
As for any "erotic controversy", I think any such issue has been resolved by the wording in section 7 of the GSL. The business sense in that situation comes when they don't want RPG's, or at least d20 and D&D, to be automatically associated with such a narrow market as erotica. When you get a stigma like that, it's pretty hard to live it down. There's a reason why so few pron stars break into the legitimate acting world. Their battles over the subject seem warranted. They may have even known that they couldn't win, but just making their separation from erotica public, they made a good business decision. Winning the case wasn't likely their goal. Publicly divorcing themselves from the erotica industry was the most likely goal.
Not sure where you are going with this. The second half had absolutely nothing to do do with the conversation. As for Anthony Valterra, once more the point was that just because someone was in charge of D&D doesn't mean that they actually had the best business sense. In this case it was pointing out that unlike Lorainne Williams, this time it was a gamer in charge who did love the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corjay
Look, associating WOTC with a competitor that they bought out, and with a case that was perfectly justified morally and monetarily, are non-existent reasons for accusing WOTC of bad business motives. Neither one of them has anything to do with anything regarding that issue.
Now I am entirely lost. WotC bought TSR because Peter Atkinson loved D&D and wanted to save it from the bankruptcy that was TSR at the time. Peter did have some good business sense but then he left the company and Valterra was put in charge of D&D. Valterra as part of WotC/Hasbro also made bad decisions. The point once again was showing a past history of both TSR and WotC making bad decisions to help prove the point that just because someone owns D&D doesn't mean they are making the best decisions about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corjay
If they're in-house lawyers, then they're trembling. There's no one in the company that's not trembling right now. If they're outsourced, then losing a corporate client is no small deal.
As for the lawyers they are probably in no danger. The GSL probably makes up a very small portion of their jobs, which is also likely why it doesn't get done very fast. If WotC is laying off their lawyers then they are in worse shape than I thought.
__________________ Brain: Come Pinky! We must prepare for tomorrow night.
Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?
Brain: The same thing we do every night....TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
Gamers Online Now: 864
Linear Mode
