4e D&D GSL Live

[Psion]

My initial reaction: Not as clear or friendly as I wanted. In fact, it feels like "we want you to support 4E but we dont really want you doing anything interesting or being too successful." Which smacks more of corporate fear than it does of vision.

My adoption is going to depend on the answers to a few questions I am still formulating. Which troubles me, 'cause I wanted very badly to be in with both feet on this.

Interesting. The GSL is about what I expected, but ever Clark seems put off. I guess we had different expectations.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

Here is my question. If a third party was to publish a product with a Druid class and then Wizards were to come out with their own Druid, and updated the SRD to reflect this, the third party product would automatically be in violation of the GSL correct ??

 

[jaldaen]

Here is my question. If a third party was to publish a product with a Druid class and then Wizards were to come out with their own Druid, and updated the SRD to reflect this, the third party product would automatically be in violation of the GSL correct ??

It depends on if you read the race (Dwarf, Human, etc.), class (Fighter, Wizard, etc.), monster (Demon, Devil, etc.) section headings as "Section Headings & 4e References" or as just "Section Headings."

If you read it the first way it is very restrictive, if you read it the latter, then it is quite open and intended for ease of using the SRD in conjunction with the Core Books.

This is a question I've asked in this thread, though maybe it deserves its own thread since so many questions hing on its interpretation.

 

[Lizard]

How ironic is it that it seems as though the WOTC 4th Ed GSL is going to drive more support to...Pathfinder.

Pathfinder probably exists only because of the long delays in getting the GSL out...

If WOTC had followed the path of the original OGL, publishers would have been working on conversions/new products for most of 2008, and there would have been a flood of support for 4e now, with promises of everyone's favorite 3e settings, etc, coming soon -- reducing the incentive to stay with the 3e, and encouraging players to buy the 4e books so they could use all the Cool New 4e stuff. If the 4e SRD was placed under the OGL, publishers could 'mix and match' the rules, to create D&D variants which could find the right niche between those tired of the flaws of 3e but leery of the radical changes of 4e. Instead, WOTCs "all or nothing" approach, as well as the way the 4e GSL is written to minimize the creation of variant systems or subsystems, means that rather than encouraging system evolution and diversification, they are focusing on "compatibility", telling, in effect, all those who like part, but not all, of 4e to "go back to 3x" -- since 3x, thanks to the OGL, *can* evolve, mutate, and diversify, but 4e cannot.

As someone said in another thread, it's a very 20th century attitude.

 

[keterys]

Clearly, as I understand that existing license, there wont be a "Tome of Horrors" for 4E. I'm not losing the right to make an OGL version. Period. In fact, I am pretty sure that I will be announcing a full color Pathfinder version of the Tome of Horrors shortly.

I don't understand what WotC gains by 'turning' one of their greatest 3rd party supporters in this fashion.

At a minimum, they might have wanted to add something to the FAQ like '3pp can seek less restrictive, but not free, licenses by approaching <this contact>' - it seems obvious, but it feels like they're not even trying to play in the same court.

 

[Yair]

What I didn't expect the most was Wizard's insistance on the precise formatting of, e.g., references (in the SRD). Allowing you to use their template formats is great. Deciding, for you, that page references are a no-no is condensending. Insisting you use small-caps for the initial cite an italics for the following ones is... just strangely obsessive.

I am surprised that "will survive termination" is even possible. Can future changes to the license then be invoked? For example, if the license is later changed to disallow any backwards conversion into Creative Commons License as well as the OGL, would it be applicable to someone who terminated his contract before the change was enacted? I'm guessing no, but the whole idea of a contract binding after it's been terminated is rather new to me...

I was also surprised at the amount you need to kiss-up to WotC if you're gonna use this license. "Licensee will not attack the title of Wizards in and to any Wizards Intellectual Property" (so if Wizards claims to own the copyright to "Blue Moon", I'm supposed to not challenge that?!), "Licensee will assist Wizards to the extent necessary or as requested by Wizards to protect any of Wizards’ rights in and to Wizards Intellectual Property." (so now I'm your lackey? Now I gotta admonish people using your Yu-Gi-Ho names illegally in my country on your behalf?), "Licensee will defend and indemnify Wizards and its affiliates, and their respective employees, directors and representatives, against any claim ... brought by a third party,... any material contained therein that is alleged to be scandalous..." (so now I need to pay for your PR if my bokk caused someone to make some Chick-Tract about diabolism in D&D?)....

I am disappointed that the poison pill applied to content, not just product lines. This means that you can't have dual-statted works, no 3e and 4e stats for the same world (not even by partners - "and ensure that third party affiliates of Licensee cease their publication, distribution and sale"). Yet you MAY, if you reach an agreement with White Wolf, publish 4e and Storyteller mechanics for your content - madness! This is just designed to kill off 3e support, and of course takes True20 and so on down with it.

Otherwise, the contract is pretty much what I expected.

As a non-publisher, I would of course never use the GSL - unlike the OGL, which felt much more accomodating and simple. This is clearly much more a "this license is for buisness" thing.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

I thought it pretty clear that you cannot modify what's in the SRD hence my reading of it that if Wotc were to publish anything titled Xx and put it in the SRD and a third party had previously done xxx the third party product would be in violation.

 

[Admiral Caine]

Clearly, as I understand that existing license, there wont be a "Tome of Horrors" for 4E. I'm not losing the right to make an OGL version. Period. In fact, I am pretty sure that I will be announcing a full color Pathfinder version of the Tome of Horrors shortly. That said, I am still considering a monster book for 4E.

We'll see....

Clark

I know this isn't the time or place. And that your comments shouldn't be taken as a final opinion, or decision. So on and so forth...

But I would be interested in buying a Pathfinder version of ToH. I find the prospect of it pretty exciting actually.

 

[Yair]

Here is my question. If a third party was to publish a product with a Druid class and then Wizards were to come out with their own Druid, and updated the SRD to reflect this, the third party product would automatically be in violation of the GSL correct ??

That is my guess. As someone mentioned upthread (I think - too many threads), you'd be wise to tie in your names to your IP. WotC may publish a "Druid", but not a "Naerthorian Priest".

 

[philreed]

Here is my question. If a third party was to publish a product with a Druid class and then Wizards were to come out with their own Druid, and updated the SRD to reflect this, the third party product would automatically be in violation of the GSL correct ??

Yes. And a simple letter could force you to destroy your existing stock/remove the PDF from sale. And they could wait and send this letter after your product hits your warehouse.

This license is the best tool WotC has created to combat direct competition. Anyone signing the agreement and using the license places their entire business in WotC's hands.