4e D&D GSL Live

[pemerton]

Right. If you change the Orc Berserker's weapon, you can say that he has the melee attack Falchion, and that it is +6, 1d8+4, and that he has the power Warrior's Surge... but you still can't say what Warrior's Surge does. If all you've changed is the weapon, you probably can't list the Orc Berserker's Intelligence or his Speed, since those can be found in the D&D 4E Monster Manual.

What I'm also not sure about:
... you can add functions to 4E References as long as, in doing so, you don’t redefine that 4E Reference.

So you can certainly add the Battleaxe attack to the Orc Berserker, but I don't know if you can take away the Greataxe attack, since that would involve redefining the 4E Reference...

The relevant text in the GSL (clause 4.1) states that "Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter the definition of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product. Without limiting the foregoing, Licensee may create original material that adds to the applicability of a 4E Reference, so long as this original material complies with the preceding sentence."

Probably the easiest way to do it would be along the lines of "The Orc Chopper has the same statistics as an Orc Beserker except that, in place of a Great Axe attack, he attacks with a Falchion: +6, 1d8+4."

the GSL is restrictive, but honestly, do you think WotC would approve a license that forced 3pps to modify their published works if WotC happens to use something similar, or similarly named?

The best way to do this would probably be as someone suggested upthread, namely, use names that WoTC cannot use without violating your copyright or infringing your trademark.

I'd be interested to hear the opinion of an IP lawyer to determine what a publisher could do on their own without the GSL under the guise of current IP laws as far as fair use.

I'm not an IP lawyer, but I would be surprised if the US laws of fair use permitted the reproduction or derivation of a work for commercial purposes (other than perhaps in the context of criticism, satire or review).

So where would that leave OSRIC 4e? It should, in theory, be possible to create a ruleset that implements the same underlying rules, but does so without duplicating any of the actual expression of said rules from 4e.

I think that would likely be quite difficult (but not necessarily impossible). It would depend upon the relevant US law pertaining to "derivative works" - the work you are talking about would be, after all, highly derivative in a certain obvious if non-technical sense - and also upon the extent to which the work might be taken to involve trademark infringements or some other sort of passing off.

In this respect OSRIC has the significant advantage of using the OGL and, thereby, the d20 SRD. Its useage of WoTC intellectual property is therefore licenced.

 

[pemerton]

Well, according to the SRD, the whole chapter on "Falling" is a 4E Reference. I'm really unsure if your wording doesn't redefine the 4E Reference of "Falling". I think the same would apply if I wanted to dublicate effects of the Heal skill in another skill. You are adding something to the skill, but you are infringing on another skills usability and are changing it in that way.

As I read the Licence, the 4E Reference is not the chapter on Falling but rather the word "Falling". The Licence permits you to use that word, but not to redefine it. Its definition is determined by the Players Handbook. My suggested rules is not changing that definition, it's just coining a new one. The only trickiness, I think, is that I can't use the word "falling" (or any other form of that word) when coining my new rule.

Incovenient, I'll grant you. But I don't think it's prohibited.

 

[pemerton]

The OGL can't be undone. HASBRO would love to do so now. So, they go for the next best approach... limit the licensing of the #1 market (the D&D brand name) and use that GSL to force 3pps to make a choice.

"It's a trap!"
[/Akbar]

Right. WoTC had at least 2 options: issue this GSL; or issue none at all. Clearly the latter is the easier option in terms of money and time spent. So if their desire was to kill 3PPs the only reason they would go down the route that they have is if they thought that they could set a trap into which 3PPs would step. If no 3PPs step into the trap, then WoTC could have got the same result (ie no 3PPs publishing under the GSL) far more cheaply by just not issuing the licence.

I think that the trap hypothesis is far-fetched. Therefore, I infer that WoTC do not want to kill 3PPs - but obviously do want 3PPs to operate very much on WoTC's own terms.

 

[pemerton]

So what exactly does 5.5 mean about websites, minis and the like?

<snip>

I can't imagine that they would try to keep you from having a website.

What it means is that you cannot produce a website under the licence. Therefore, if you want a 4e website, you have to do it in a way which respects WoTC's intellectual property (because they have not licensed you to use it).

 

[argash]

I'd be interested to hear the opinion of an IP lawyer to determine what a publisher could do on their own without the GSL under the guise of current IP laws as far as fair use.

I'm not an IP lawyer, but I would be surprised if the US laws of fair use permitted the reproduction or derivation of a work for commercial purposes (other than perhaps in the context of criticism, satire or review).

Sorry I should have specified that I was referring to someone who wants to say take an adventure they wrote for example and put it online and make it available for free, not for profit.

 

[pemerton]

Sorry I should have specified that I was referring to someone who wants to say take an adventure they wrote for example and put it online and make it available for free, not for profit.

I think that probably makes a difference.

Also, Orcus (who, unlike me, is a US lawyer) suggested on the other thread that fair use might be appicable here. I'm not entirely sure what he has in mind, however.

 

[TimeOut]

As I read the Licence, the 4E Reference is not the chapter on Falling but rather the word "Falling". The Licence permits you to use that word, but not to redefine it. Its definition is determined by the Players Handbook. My suggested rules is not changing that definition, it's just coining a new one. The only trickiness, I think, is that I can't use the word "falling" (or any other form of that word) when coining my new rule.

But if the definition of falling includes all application where a character would fall, how do you apply your new rule?

If you define "plummeting" triggering on the same conditions as "falling", effectively replacing it (or creating rules ambiguity) you are changing the 4E Reference implementation of "falling" in my opinion.

Incovenient, I'll grant you. But I don't think it's prohibited.

I'm not sure. Better check with WotC and/or a lawyer, if you want to publish such rules.

 

[defendi]

BTW, I agree with checking before writing the rules. It occurs to me though that I didn't see a clause about removing or disregarding a definition. For instance, I think you can write up a wood elf and then, at the very least, leave the normal elf out of your race list, removing it by omission. You can probably do that with other rules as well, as long as they aren't a part of a larger definition (for instance you couldn't do it with a power that was part of a class, since that would be redefining the class with the deletion).

 

[TimeOut]

BTW, I agree with checking before writing the rules. It occurs to me though that I didn't see a clause about removing or disregarding a definition. For instance, I think you can write up a wood elf and then, at the very least, leave the normal elf out of your race list, removing it by omission. You can probably do that with other rules as well, as long as they aren't a part of a larger definition (for instance you couldn't do it with a power that was part of a class, since that would be redefining the class with the deletion).

Maybe, just maybe, that is handled under

Q: Do I have to use the Defined Terms in my product?
A: No, you are not required to use any specific Defined Term. You are, however, required to reprint the legal text identified in the GSL.

But I think that omission and removing or disregarding definitions is not possible, because it would alter them.

 

[neceros]

I will be surprised if anyone makes content for 4e ever. This is a sad day.