Any word on the GSL?
Haffrung Helleyes
First Post
Don't believe you can, or else I'd be on it already. Wizards held on to a lot of really cool properties. Rightfully, I might add, but it's still sad when you've got a great idea for a product and realize a key piece is missing cause it's not covered.
Why can't your great product just have a place called 'The land of the Faeries'?
Ken
IIRC, you simply cannot use the terms WotC uses.
So you could place an adventure or create fey creatures that inhabit the realm where faeries live, you just can't use the word "Feywild" anywhere in there.
WotC owns the rights to the Word Feywild. They do not own rights to the notion of a place where faeries party all night long. That's an idea as old as the Celts.
Unless I am incorrect, it's just like how certain monsters were treated in 3e; "Yaun-Ti" were not in the SRD because WotC owned the rights to them. They did not own rights to the idea of cult-like, sinister snake people. Ergo why many 3rd Party Products had their own cult-like, sinister snake people by a different name.
So you could place an adventure or create fey creatures that inhabit the realm where faeries live, you just can't use the word "Feywild" anywhere in there.
WotC owns the rights to the Word Feywild. They do not own rights to the notion of a place where faeries party all night long. That's an idea as old as the Celts.
Unless I am incorrect, it's just like how certain monsters were treated in 3e; "Yaun-Ti" were not in the SRD because WotC owned the rights to them. They did not own rights to the idea of cult-like, sinister snake people. Ergo why many 3rd Party Products had their own cult-like, sinister snake people by a different name.
Last edited:
Thank you for the reply.
You mean redefine as in, you can't make dwarves like elves? What is the original definition of a dwarf?
You can make whatever you like as long as the original definitions remain valid -in other words: as long as the original definitions do not become invalid. Its first order logic.
Please note that this only applies if you sign the GSL. We don't want to create the impression that WotC actually owns a word...
I think they were called "yuan-ti", but the reason people stayed away from that word was that it was defined as PI and the OGL forbade you to use PI of someone else.
Bottom line - you can't own a word. Not even a made-up one. But you can agree to not using it through a license such as OGL or GSL.
What IS the original definition? Whatever is in the 4e core books? For example, in the 4e core books, dwarves are said to be (in a general manner) short and strong and have +1 to whatever abilities.
So I can say that dwarves are long and thin and like to play tennis? But, I cannot say that the definition of dwarves that WoTC gives is invalid. Right?
Yes; the assumption being if you sign the GSL, then you can't use WotC's intellectual property (like Feywild), just like with the OGL, WotC had the IP for Yuan-ti.
I guess that the anatomical and physical characteristics of some race should remain as defined -if they are defined. You may add though information about specific physical characteristics that have not been specified (for example hair color varieties or their limits-if something like that has not been defined in a way that what you add makes it invalid).
kenmarable
Hero
"4 new classes"
So it's sounding like barbarian, bard, druid, and sorcerer will be in the SRD. Avenger, invoker, shaman, swordmage, and warden will all be excluded. (Assuming they would add the "old" classes, and if anything is excluded it would be the "new" ones.) Well, I can't help feeling greedy and wanting to play with all of the 4e classes, but it's certainly nice to see that some new material is in fact being added. Knowing whether future core books will be added to the SRD was one deciding factor for me.
So... new core material will be added to the SRD? Check.
Also, of the 50 new monsters being added, I'm curious if those are MM1, MM2, or other (Draconomicon, Open Grave). Hopefully we'll see soon.
Similar Threads
