4E GSL - non core references

[nittanytbone]

The GSL makes it pretty clear that you can use (A) anything in the SRD or (B) the given logo.

Say I wanted to make a product that incorporated material from a splat. Perhaps I am writing a module and want to include "Armor of Resistance" from the Adventurer's Vault as part of the treasure horde, or describe an NPC as being a "swordmage" from the FR book.

Obviously you can't reprint the swordmage class in your module. Nor can you give the properties of Armor of Resistance. But could you get away with saying:

The dragon's treasure horde includes:
1303 Copper Pieces
2 x 100 GP gems
Armor of Resistance (Scale mail) - See Adventurer's Vault
+2 mace - See PHB

 

[Gilwen]

I don't think that would be allowed under the license. Until the license gives you permission to include material I would pretend anyother WOTC source didn't exist. Talk to a lawyer to be sure....

Gil

 

[Jraynack]

Much as I would like to as a publisher, you cannot reference anything not in the SRD.

 

[nittanytbone]

That's what I thought as well. Is there any rumor that the SRD will be updated?

 

[Jraynack]

That's what I thought as well. Is there any rumor that the SRD will be updated?

No, but we are all waiting on pins and needles. However, I am not sure whether they will include many books outside the core three (plus their other volumes). Early on, WotC said that more books would become "open", but seeing the little that was "open" in 3.x I am not holding my breath.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

No, but we are all waiting on pins and needles. However, I am not sure whether they will include many books outside the core three (plus their other volumes). Early on, WotC said that more books would become "open", but seeing the little that was "open" in 3.x I am not holding my breath.

Give how long the revised GSL is taking I don't see much more being added to the SRD either.

 

[Ranger REG]

That's what I thought as well. Is there any rumor that the SRD will be updated?

That's the idea, so says WotC. They will add future references from future books, since they don't need to add OGC as before (which is like practically giving away game mechanics).

 

[FormerlyDickensC]

If there is something you really want to use from a canonical wotc source, just take the idea and express it in different language...I know, I know....either your saying "duh!" or "what the heck does that mean?"

if its a magical item, you can create your own item with basically the same stats/effects using your own words. if its a character archetype even easier. if its...anything, just re-express it functionally the same but aesthetically different.

how different is different enough....just don't use the same words. it will all be governed by copyright law, and words are all that it protects (in this case).

I would say that I'm not a lawyer, but it has no bearing anyway. everything you do you do at your own peril...I think that is a part of being an adult...but maybe I'm just a cynical jerk.

...no being banned for calling out mods has made me cynical.

but seriously, you're free to steal ideas. no one can own an idea...only can own the expression of an idea. ...at least in US law.

EDIT - on further thought, I realized that it might be better to be able to rely on the reader's preexisting understanding of a particular thing (item/class/character/power/whatever), but the beauty this way is that you can open the material to ppl who don't have the splat that you intended to refer to. plus you can add your own flare to it. I mean, whats better than that...take an already good idea, use it for basically free, and maybe even tailor slightly to your own needs. ...stealing ideas...its what makes America great!!

 

[pemerton]

but seriously, you're free to steal ideas. no one can own an idea...only can own the expression of an idea. ...at least in US law.

Before acting on this suggestion, remember that for any party to the GSL the principal constraint on action is not copyright law but contract law. And in entering the contract that is the GSL a publisher agrees to grant WotC more rights with respect to its published material than it would enjoy under copyright law.

 

[phloog]

Before acting on this suggestion, remember that for any party to the GSL the principal constraint on action is not copyright law but contract law. And in entering the contract that is the GSL a publisher agrees to grant WotC more rights with respect to its published material than it would enjoy under copyright law.

One more reason why I wish more publishers would dare to take the copyright route.

I agree that the 'make something essentially the same with a different name' is a neat idea (though perhaps not allowed under GSL - - what DOES constitute a no-no reworking?), I think even if this was allowed under the GSL it is one more reason why as a PLAYER I don't like 4Es way of working.

I don't want to have to keep track of 4,435 names for a Cloak of Protection, just because WOTC is circling the wagons on IP.