Revised GSL TODAY!

Gilwen · Mar 4, 2009

Orcus said:
Everyone needs to back up.

First of all, you cant compare the OGL to the GSL. They arent the same.

Really, you should compare the d20 STL to the GSL. And they are basically very much the same. The OGL let you use the SRD without the restrictions or the benefits of the d20 STL. The GSL is really 4E's STL not its OGL. So if you compare those, the differences (now) arent that significant. In fact, most if not all of the terms the people are complaining about are either identical to or similar to terms that have been in the d20 STL for years which we were all using and which WotC never used to screw us.

<snip>

I agree that you can't really compare the OGL and the GSL. Apples and Oranges.
However, one distiction (at least in my mind) is that under the D20 STL that was purely a license for a logo and not the content. The content was governed under a different agreement. If wizards changed the D20STL and I didn't like it or I was in violation of the D20STL or they simply rescinded the license then you didn't have to worry about if you could still sell your product. You had a short term "what do I do with current product" but you could release the exact same product without the D20STL info and logo. Today if the GSL get's revoked (I don't buy into the evil corp out to screw you stuff), you terminate, or you are in violation. Then you can't keep selling that exact product like you could previously by just removing the logo. I don't see this as good or bad, just a term of the license. This shouldn't be a problem unless there wasn't a whole lot of creativness going on with the product. You should be able to adapt your IP to a new system.

This is where a 3PP's business savvy would need to come into play to determine if that was acceptable. I don't publish so I don't know what would be acceptable but from the look of things it does seem acceptable with more 3PP's now.
My personal opinion of the license is that it is much improved and much easier to use. If I were to get into the game I'd develop under it. I think the best thing to do if you want to publish under it is to forget that the OGL and D20STL ever exsisted and move forward. The GSL and the OGL/D20STL are for two different properties and the terms of one shouldn't be used to throw stones at the terms for the other.

gil

Alzrius · Mar 4, 2009

CharlesRyan said:
1. One title. Out of zillions of 3P products released under the OGL.

It wasn't just one title.

There were other books of a similar nature that also couldn't exist under the d20 STL, and can't exist under the GSL now, from Mongoose's Encyclopedia Arcane: Nymphology and Quintessential Temptress to Skortched Urf' Studios Black Tokyo to Fantastic Gallery's Sisters of Rapture.

And that's just dealing with products that have a sexual focus. Ones that could be considered to have "excessive graphic violence and gore" also fall under this prohibition. Blackdirge Publishing's None So Vile line of products was OGL rather than d20 because of the similar prohibition in the d20 STL. And as has been said, a lot of Paizo's products could fall under either, or both, of these particular clauses (though usually the latter, most likely).

It seems pretty clear that the "quality and content standards" aren't the minor points that some people seem to think they are.

Echohawk · Mar 4, 2009

Bardsandsages said:
It's a licensing contract that allows one partner to change the terms at any time without telling the other partner, and the other partner automatically accepts the terms of the new license even if he/she is not aware of the new license.

To be fair though, it is also a royalty-free licensing contract.

It stands to reason that the criteria for deciding what constitutes "reasonable" contract terms are probably slightly different when comparing a royalty-free contract to one where the licensee is actually paying money for the licensing rights (such as in your Batman example).

Gilwen · Mar 4, 2009

Those books can still exsist. It's only a issue if the publisher is wantingn to use the logo's which requires using the license. you could still release a line that was compatible with 4e, several publishers are doing this and still getting across that it's for DnD 4E without infringing.

Those clauses are there to protect their brand and are appropriate. Lincenses are not there to give thrid party's complete and unfettered access to anothers IP or property.

gil

Alzrius · Mar 4, 2009

Gilwen said:
Those books can still exsist.

Not under the GSL, which is kind of the point of this thread.

Those clauses are there to protect their brand and are appropriate.

They are not "appropriate" in any sense of the word. Restrictions that vague and undefined are harmful, not helpful, in that they leave companies unsure if their products would leave them in an actionable position or not. James Jacobs even said this outright regarding Pathfinder, if you tried to apply it to this particular litmus test in the GSL.

Lincenses are not there to give thrid party's complete and unfettered access to anothers IP or property.

The GSL doesn't give anyone "complete and unfettered access" to the D&D IP anyway, so I don't see why you're mentioning that. The point here is that those nebulous "community standards" clauses are another problematic stumbling block in the GSL.

Justin D. Jacobson · Mar 4, 2009

Spinachcat said:
Thank you Fred Hicks!

When are we going to get The Shroud setting compiled into a dead tree book version?

Short version: When we compile sufficient material to warrant such a treatment.

Longer version: Our plan is to release a steady but not overwhelming stream of Shroud-related products through the rest of the year. We have a couple of products in the pipeline, a location-based supplement and an adventure. At some point, when we reach critical mass, we will collate the material add additional necessary material and a few bennies, and we will set it up for print-on-demand and some sort of low-handling print version for sale through IPR and the retail market.

Unrelated Note: We should have some news to report very soon about a different setting we'll be releasing that will make some people very happy.

Gilwen · Mar 4, 2009

Alzrius said:
Not under the GSL, which is kind of the point of this thread.

They are not "appropriate" in any sense of the word. Restrictions that vague and undefined are harmful, not helpful, in that they leave companies unsure if their products would leave them in an actionable position or not. James Jacobs even said this outright regarding Pathfinder, if you tried to apply it to this particular litmus test in the GSL.

The GSL doesn't give anyone "complete and unfettered access" to the D&D IP anyway, so I don't see why you're mentioning that. The point here is that those nebulous "community standards" clauses are another problematic stumbling block in the GSL.

I mention it because it seems people are crying foul on WOTC for not allowing certain things to be published under this brand or even giving them the same amount of freedom that was had under the OGL. The license is so you can play in their pool not the other way around.

The restrictions are there to protect the brands image. How is that inappropriate. This is a subjective condition but it I would imagine it is in most contracts that deal with a third party representing a company or their brands/IP/whatever. This restriction is a condition subject to WOTC satisfaction. I don't think this issue is a strict as people want to make especially considering there was a hell of a lot of publishing going on under similar conditions in the D20STL

Gil

Mustrum_Ridcully · Mar 4, 2009

I wonder if this "decency" clause thing is not also a Hasbro specific issue?

I know little about their policies, but I wouldn't be surprised if a toy company tries to keep a "clean" image.

justanobody · Mar 4, 2009

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
I wonder if this "decency" clause thing is not also a Hasbro specific issue?

I know little about their policies, but I wouldn't be surprised if a toy company tries to keep a "clean" image.

Well My Little Ponies and Dragons just wont work as a game. Even the Judeo-Christian attempt at D&D where the players are good, and anything they fight is evil, and you dont fight other good things has the idea founded in it that you are killing other creatures. Even the PHB has one creature beheading another. That right there throws "decency" out of the window in many contexts.

Just because the heavily Christian influence and morals within Chronicles of Narnia had people being killed.

Leaving the idea of religion alone but just as a book and what is decent to have in print, because I am not trying to start a religion discussion, but rather to show what would be the height of allowed decency in modern society....anything in The Bible is decent enough for print to most people, so it should be decent enough for D&D. Sorry, I don't know the Torah, Koran, etc to compare the things printed in them. But if it is decent enough to be printed in ANY religions holy scripture, then a game focused on "killing things and taking their stuff" would be silly to not consider them decent.

I know they are trying to avoid porn books and such, but decent doesn't totally remove everything that could get close, and mature need not include porn and excessive gore.

If HASBRO wants to make kiddy games, they can continue to print CandyLand for that audience and demographic, and need to understand that those games fade out, and there needs to be more than kiddy games, and family games. There are other demographics of which D&D and other RPGs and games gave those people something to do and spend their money on.

I think the idea is sound to protect IP form certain types of things, but they went mother hen and pecking the life out of anything that may contain a buzzword that might set some random person in [insert state or country here] into a hissy fit. Or just their lawyers in this law suit crazed country.

I think recent action has caused D&D to take a turn back to the late 90's and TSR is back in control, or at least the LW mentality. C&D's to fans that help promote the game? Well we all know what happened to TSR, and that is my final words on recent events and D&D.

The GSL will not help the gamers, the game, or the game makers still as it is. It will only keep around those people who are devoted to the company and will play anything that company makes. Plus some people that actually like the game. But the "brand" has been dilluted by WotC and the GSL and other thing that was worse than could have happened form any confusion OGL products or the like could have done.

Anyway. the whole HASBRO poking around making D&D some kid-ified game is just dumb. Lead me to the Rugby and Hockey versions of D&D, rather than the flag tag football version. :hmm:

I agree with Paizo, that redefining public domain terms is still overkill and overboard.

JohnRTroy · Mar 4, 2009

The whole point about the ecosystem comments I made earlier was just because I think people see gaming in limited terms (D&D), without looking at the whole pie. (All of genre gaming).

The one reason I prefer the GSL to the OGL, is, while it's great for the licensees, I felt the OGL as presented threatened to turn D&D from a product to a commodity, and commoditization of a product makes limited economic sense. While I don't agree with the direction of it, it seems the goal with D&D is to strengthen the brand, the GSL (instead of an OGL) and it seems to be working.

As far as the morals clause goes--well, it's okay to cry about censorship and freedom when its your own neck on the line, but if your creating a product that is "spun off" or using somebody's else's creation, you shouldn't drag them into a fight they might not want to have.