4e D&D GSL Live

[Knightfall]

I have to say, this is the worst possible situation...

And it doesn't surpise me at all.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I think your just asking for a lawsuit if you do that. Unlike 1e, there is a reasonable license for this, so it's not like it's a "dead product"....Based on Ryan D's infamous "How Wizards can get rid of the OGL" on an Industry List, and considering how his other predictions came true, I fully expect somebody who tries that to be made an example of.

That's what this seems like it was intended to do. Not that there aren't ways around it either. If you handed it to someone in the right country to distribute they wouldn't even hear a case. Just look at Russia for example which does not recognize foreign copyright law. It isn't the only one.

EDIT: Russia has apparently revised it's copyright law with a new version which went into effect a couple of months ago. I'm wading through it now but this may close one door to any sort of OSRIC 4e attempt.

 

[Obrysii]

So after reading this thread and the GSL, I have to ask something.

What is the benefit to a fellow publisher to publish material using the 4e rules? This whole thing seems entirely too restrictive. If I were a fellow publisher, I'd create my own rules, similar but dissimilar enough, to 4e instead of use the 4e rules and GSL.

 

[LeaderDesslok]

Ironically, it'll make a 4e Tome of Horrors and similar products even more desirable and bigger competition for the Monster Manual if Clark does what I think he'll do, and add a seperate license permitting 4e 3rd party publishers to use material in his books at the cost of opening up your own product in a like manner. That'd create an independant pool of 3rd party design material to draw upon, unconnected to WotC's proprietary pool.

Here's an interesting thought though. Let's say Necromancer does make the 4e Tome of Horrors and includes the flumph. They also make their own separate license as you've described above.

Fast forward to summer '09, and WotC puts their own "official" version of the flumph in MM2, which has a very different stat block. Wizards adds the flumph to the SRD. I come along and create an adventure using Necromancer's flumph, complete with the Necromancer special license.

Question 1: Can WotC then come after me for using the flumph, since I went against the GSL and used a different stat block?

Question 2: Could WotC retroactively tell Necromancer it cannot produce future products containing the flumph unless said products adhere to the new, "official" flumph SRD entry and the GSL? Could they even do something about the pre-wizards product (I doubt it but worth asking)

 

[xechnao]

So after reading this thread and the GSL, I have to ask something.

What is the benefit to a fellow publisher to publish material using the 4e rules? This whole thing seems entirely too restrictive. If I were a fellow publisher, I'd create my own rules, similar but dissimilar enough, to 4e instead of use the 4e rules and GSL.

This is a logic question that has an illogic answer regarding material itself: a 10cm2 circa surface which depicts 16 letters: "dungeons&dragons"

 

[eyebeams]

I believe in people's IP rights. Nevertheless, I have no intention of being a contracted, occasionally paid snitch a la 10.3.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

So after reading this thread and the GSL, I have to ask something.

What is the benefit to a fellow publisher to publish material using the 4e rules? This whole thing seems entirely too restrictive. If I were a fellow publisher, I'd create my own rules, similar but dissimilar enough, to 4e instead of use the 4e rules and GSL.

If you have the ability and resources to make a whole system that is good enough to not only make it past your friends, but into publishing, more power to you!
I've tried inventing my own systems before... and failed horribly. Using established rules sets created by professionals just makes things easy.

 

[xechnao]

Here's an interesting thought though. Let's say Necromancer does make the 4e Tome of Horrors and includes the flumph. They also make their own separate license as you've described above.

Fast forward to summer '09, and WotC puts their own "official" version of the flumph in MM2, which has a very different stat block. Wizards adds the flumph to the SRD. I come along and create an adventure using Necromancer's flumph, complete with the Necromancer special license.

Question 1: Can WotC then come after me for using the flumph, since I went against the GSL and used a different stat block?

Question 2: Could WotC retroactively tell a company it cannot produce future products containing the flumph unless said products adhere to the new, "official" flumph SRD entry and the GSL? Could they even do something about the pre-wizards product (I doubt it but worth asking)

There is a problem I think. Since, if I got this right they keep referring to no reprinting or redefining from core and they intend to produce each year a core line each GSL license might only be applicable for a year as the SRD will get renewed each year.

Of course I could be wrong.

 

[Darrin Drader]

If you have the ability and resources to make a whole system that is good enough to not only make it past your friends, but into publishing, more power to you!
I've tried inventing my own systems before... and failed horribly. Using established rules sets created by professionals just makes things easy.

Creating a game system isn't the hardest thing in the world to do, in my experience, but you have a huge marketing advantage going with the D&D brand.

 

[gribble]

Question 2: Could WotC retroactively tell Necromancer it cannot produce future products containing the flumph unless said products adhere to the new, "official" flumph SRD entry and the GSL? Could they even do something about the pre-wizards product (I doubt it but worth asking)

I can't see anything preventing this, WotC's right to revoke a publishers right to use the GSL at any time notwithstanding (which they could certianly use in this situation to get rid of the pre-wizards product). By my reading, any published product must comply with the most recent version of the SRD or License, so if WotC defines something in one of their products and adds it to the SRD, any 3rd party product redefining that term is now in violation (even if they defined it first).