GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault

[JohnRTroy]

Keep in mind Orcus can actually see both sides of the equation, as a fan of D&D, a publisher, and a lawyer who values IP and creative works.

This is what I've always argued. I think Wizards will approve open gaming to some extent, but I also think the OGL was gave away too much of the game system. Having clauses such as the right to revoke based on gross misconduct, the right to limit some IP from being used, and setting up quality standards just makes good sense. Not to mention how people can abuse it by taking newly created work and putting it on-line for free.

Also, one thing Orcus forgot in his A-D plans, is that Wizards now has to change the OGL to the GSL if they want to prevent people from using an older version of the OGL, which section 9 allows users to use older versions if they dislike the new restrictions. So I doubt they will ever use the OGL again because of this.

 

[Orcus]

Also, one thing Orcus forgot in his A-D plans, is that Wizards now has to change the OGL to the GSL if they want to prevent people from using an older version of the OGL, which section 9 allows users to use older versions if they dislike the new restrictions. So I doubt they will ever use the OGL again because of this.

I already thought of that

Actually, the problem isnt the OGL.

But if they chose "C" they could include in the PI agreement that it is usable with OGL version 1.0a or subsequent versions.

Because I am a goober and I love these licenses I have actaully taken a stab at drafting them how I would do them. So I thought through that stuff already.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

Sorry I am blasting posts out so quick. I am just doing this over lunch.

 

[Voadam]

There are four options:

A. Close 4E. Nothing more to discuss.

B. Use the OGL. That's easy. Just create the 4E SRD and say "this is released as open game content". Then let us use it under the license.

C. License the PI and work those restrictions from the old STL back in.

This would be really really easy.

1. Designate ALL of the 4E core books and their contents as PI and require us to agree not to challenge or dispute said designation or to challenge ownership.

2. Then, give the publishers permission per OGL section 7 to use that PI under the OGL v1.0a subject to certain conditions--namely, that they follow some of the conditions from the STL/Guide:

a. no describing character creation,
b. no describing applying XP to a charcter
c. no interactive games
d. no minis
e. no using "core rules"
f. must meet community standards of decency, such as nudity, race and religion as found in the STL.

(you know, all the terms people got around by just going OGL and not using the d20 license because the d20 logo became meaningless).

3. Permit publishers to say "For use with Dungeons and Dragons, Fourth Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast" on their products.

4. Provide some version of the D&D logo, similar to the one on the back of the "Wizards Presents..." books for our use.

5. Let us refer to the name of the book and page numbers for goodness sake!

6. Require us to say "This product uses content from the Fourth Edition Dungeons and Dragons game, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc. All such content is Product Identity and is used with permission and by seperate agreement. No such content is Open Game Content."

Then create a smart SRD. Dont just retype all the stuff. All that does is slow the SRD down and prevents us from supporting their future releases. Instead, for each product, simply do a Section 15 listing like what we would for an OGL product telling us how you want us to reference that book, with a provision that we have to say the blurb above. And as each book comes out, update the smart SRD with the title of the book and add it to the PI permission document.

Its real easy to license this stuff and keep all the restrictions Wizards is likely concerned about.

D. Create a brand new license called the GSL.

This is something that could be made from scratch. So its biggest benefit is that new people who didnt do the OGL can say, "yeah, I made that." I have no idea what the issues are. But the downside is that we have been working with the OGL for about 8 years now. We know what can and cant be done. We know how to use it. I'm not sure creating a brand new license is needed when you can simply use C, above.

My Opinion

I think C is the best choice. It continues open gaming. It continues a license we all know how to work with. It works back in the restrictions that Wizards wanted in the license in the first place with the d2) STL. It ties the license back to D&D, which is really what Wizards wants to do--sell D&D books. It precents stand alone competing game systems like M&M, which arguably dont add as much to Wizards' percieved value of open gaming as do, say, products that straight support D&D. It protects their content by making it all PI which is impregnable in the OGL and, frankly, PI is protected even more solidly that regular copyright and it requires us not to challenge ownership.

Doesn't your suggested C1 violate the OGL if WotC designates the game rule mechanics from the 4e books as IP under the OGL instead of as OGC in an OGL product?

If there is new 4e IP material such as Shadowfell and Feywild that they declare as IP and license off of that and the 4e D&D statements then it seems to work no problem, but I thought under the OGL Section 1 (d) and (e) game mechanics must be OGC and PI explicitly excludes OGC.

(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic
and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to
the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity
and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional
content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the
Contributor, and means any work covered by this License,
including translations and derivative works under copyright law,
but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity"
means product and product line names, logos and identifying
marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters;
stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents,
language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses,
formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and
other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of
characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas,
likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments,
creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects,
logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or
registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the
owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the
Open Game Content;

 

[mhensley]

The only way I could see directly supporting 3.5 is if 4E wasnt licensed at all.

But this thread is about what is up with the OGL/GSL/4E, not so much my publishing plans. I can start a seperate thread for that.

No disrespect, but didn't you almost close down Necromancer due to poor sales over the past couple of years. And that was with you producing for an in-print version of D&D. I can't see how the lack of a 4e license wouldn't be fatal for you guys.

 

[catsclaw]

Sorry I am blasting posts out so quick. I am just doing this over lunch.

No worries. With the possible exception of WotC posters, you're near a lock on "most informed opinion" here.

 

[Papa-DRB]

Because I am a goober and I love these licenses I have actually taken a stab at drafting them how I would do them. Clark

Off Topic --- Oh, I just fell out of my chair laughing over this!!! Thank you Clark,

 

[Ydars]

I almost wet myself as well! What a classic.

But honestly, I agree with you Clark; if the GSL is more restrictive than OGL, then so be it. As long as 3rd parties and fans can produce SOMETHING to add to and support D&D then I am happy. It would certainly ally my fears over WoTCs internal world view and I believe, would be the smart move for them as well.

No one is asking them to allow standalone 4e based 3PP games; we already knew some time ago that they were saying "no" to this and I did not say a word. It was when they started getting all corporate and coy over GSL that I started to smell a rat and hence the acoompanying thread.

 

[HyrumOWC]

Remember, Wizards is the company that saved D&D and that provided open gaming in the first place. I, for one, support them and I believe that they still support open gaming. I have to believe that.

Hey Clark,

The problem I have with the statement above is that it implies something that isn't true. Yes WotC saved D&D, but that was a WotC run by Peter and a vision of D&D run by Ryan. It's a VERY different company right now and I'm not sure that the people in positions that matter care that much about Open Gaming.

I hope I'm wrong, because I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing if it wasn't for the OGL, but I'm starting to think I'm not. :/

Hyrum.

 

[Roman]

I have made a poll on the issue of purchasing behavior with respect to 4E and whether it is open or closed. You can find it here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4138993&posted=1#post4138993