A Clarification on the two new GSLs

[FormerlyDickensC]

WOTC’s press release was inadequately written, and misunderstanding has [Edit by Morrus: removed profanity. Do not use profanity on EN World, even when you cleverly disguise it with a couple of asterisks.] run rampant around here.

First, I want to say that a person cannot revoke a license anymore than they can un-publish a work. So the statement in the release saying, “This royalty-free license will replace the former d20 System Trademark License (STL),” I would interpret as meaning that it will fill the same role as the original STL or OGL. The material published under the OGL or STL will remained licensed under the license in which it was published…THEREFORE this so-called “replacement” will not affect 3.5E publishers. It will only affect content referencing the 4E line of products. 3.5E publishers fear not....go about your lives as normal.

Second, the distinction between “fantasy” and “non-fantasy” is going to be a legal quagmire. While we here may all understand the distinction, articulating this distinction in court will be onerous at best. And where exactly is this a problem?? Assuming that the need for a split license b/t fantasy and non-fantasy is instigated by inherent (and subtle) differences in the application (and therefore the declaration of) of each license, there are going to be pros and cons to using one over the other in any given situation. So for example, for my purposes, I may prefer the fantasy license (regardless of whether my setting is “fantasy” or not); while another person may prefer the non-fantasy license simply due to some subtle nuance dictated in the definition of the license (again, regardless of whether or not his setting meets some arbitrary definition of “non-fantasy”). Bottom line: determining which license applies to a given third-party product will, in my opinion, be a huge legal problem should any legal action be taken by WOTC or others.

Lastly, I want to point out that there is no “updating” old content for the new license. Only products using content from the new 4E system will have to abide by the D&D GSL or d20 GSL…at least as I understand it. But, definitely, WOTC (nor anyone) can “revoke” a license under which content has already been published anymore than they can “un-publish” the original content.

The specific details of each license will make or break this effort. While openness is a laudable goal, if these licenses are implemented poorly then publishers could have a mess on their hands. I’m also curious to know if there was ever any action brought about in court concerning the original OGL…does anyone have any info on this? B/c my understanding was that there was not, and therefore the stability of the OGL was never tested. If I was WOTC, I would reach deep in my pockets and hire a top notch IP firm to write the license, and then find two more firms to try to "break" it and refortify it.

So, if I'm missing something please let me know.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Are you a lawyer?

Are you a publisher?

Who are you and how in the world does this post get flagged as 4e news?

EDIT: I mean, pardon my alarmism, but WTF? Serious RED FLAG on polluting the "official news" feed with this.

 

[buzz]

Why is this on the ENworld home page?

Wulf: Jinx!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Edit: double post, no red voice for an old newshound.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I just moved out of the news forum (and off the front page) and into the 4e forum.

 

[Morrus]

Heh - at the same time as I was moving it to the OGL forum!

Apologies, everyone - there's some permissions bug we can't track down that allowed dickensider to post his opinions directly to the news page. Thank you to those who jumped on it and reported it - it was only there for twenty minutes.

 

[Blacksway]

It appears to have already been moved, so that's good.

I think WOTC probably have hired IP lawyers for the purposes of writing these agreements (or Hasbro probably has some on retainer!)

And to say that any licence cannot be revoked is a strange thing to say - the D20 STL includes details of how this licence may be revoked (admittedly only when the terms of the licence are breached). So any licence can be revoked provided the terms of that revocation are included in the licence, surely.

However a small point to note is that the D20 STL does not actually refer to a specific version of D&D, 3, 3.5 or 4E, so if it is updated with a new version then under the terms of the licence all parties must adhere to it. The system guide does makes reference to both 3E and 3.5E though.

Finally, I think all we can say for definite is that the licenses are coming (which IS good news), and we wont know what till we see them - which hopefully for all involved will be soon.

 

[Morrus]

The d20 STL may absolutely be revoked. The OGL cannot be.

Basing legal opinions on a press release is somewhat premature; a press release is not a legal document. Not having seen the license, who knows if the definition concerns mentioned above are relevant?

 

[JohnRTroy]

Guys, I suspect the two different licenses are based on the fact that there's a new D20 modern (or whatever it will be called) coming out. Since we have no details on that, my guess is that you will choose the license based on what original base game you take it from. We don't yet know how compatible both rulesets will be--it's possible the new d20 modern will be different from D&D 4e in some significant mechanical ways.