New GSL Announcement

[Goobermunch]

But OGL text can still be used as a legal document as a license and not a product, right? I know you can copyright products but can you claim IP rights on something if used as a legal license? In theory this could mean that even laws could be copyrighted which I know that it is not the case.

Depends.

Federal laws aren't copyrightable largely because there's specific statute that prevents the government from claiming a copyright on its works. I do not have the statute in front of me and am unwilling to speculate on whether the prohibition is limited in scope.

I know that certain IP firms do claim that their C&D letters are copyrighted and that distribution of the contents of those letters is infringement. Whether the fair use doctrine applies, I don't know.

Generally copyright can be extended to any "original work of authorship." There are some pretty broad categories that copyright applies to. But, "ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices" are not copyrightable (though illustrations, descriptions and explanations are).

I haven't done copyright law since law school, and I'm not going to opine on whether it's copyrightable. I will guess that given the circumstances under which it was released (and possibly under its own terms), Wizards would be unable to successfully make a claim for infringement (given that it is an irrevocable license that is required to be put into any document published under it).

Of course, that's not the issue. You can still use the OGL after 2009. The question is how the GSL plays with the OGL. And we can't analyze that until we have the GSL in hand.

I have a question for the legal minds posting here.

Say that IF the GSL does require you to dump all your old PDFs, could you form a second company, sell the rights to your old PDFs to the second company and then using your original company create new 4e books while the new company does nothing but sell your old PDFs?

Good question. Again, that would depend on the terms of the GSL. The problem is that no one here knows precisely how the language of the GSL accomplishes what it sets out to accomplish. There's also the question of whether such language would be enforceable. Just because a contract has certain terms, doesn't necessarily mean that the terms are enforceable. For example, contracts to commit a crime are not enforceable because that would be against public policy. But without a copy of the GSL it's hard to day. It's even harder, because the GSL may provide that disputes under its terms will be decided in accordance with the laws of certain states (choice of law provision). Without access to that data, no one can really opine in an informed manner.

--G

 

[xechnao]

Of course, that's not the issue. You can still use the OGL after 2009. The question is how the GSL plays with the OGL. And we can't analyze that until we have the GSL in hand.

--G

No, it certainly is an issue if Wotc is only worried about the SRD derivative works of OGL and the "OGLization" of 4e.
If this is not the case, then Wotc would be just playing hard competition than trying to protect itself as its representatives are claiming here. And if this happens to be the case, then we can assume anything of their intentions and processes so far -that is being much less genuine than they would want to admit.

 

[crow81]

If what Orcus reports is true and not a misunderstanding, I flat-out won't buy 4e. I understand why they might do it, but I don't have to support an action just because I understand the motivation. And the more consumers and 3pp who do likewise, and simply walk away from 4e and the GSL, the more likely WotC will do something about it in the future (which could easily be just the next 12 months)

I'll go further than that I am or now was a big collector of Star Wars figures the 3.5 inch ones.

I had been anti 4e from the start. Now this decision just makes me anti Hasbro.

 

[Roland55]

Hey everyone,

It looks like things are happening that we're not privvy to. Right now there's a big discussion about the terms of a license we've never seen. The folks involved in making decisions about the licensing have been watching the discussion, and they've indicated that we've been heard. In addition, we can infer that something further is happening because Le Rouse and Orcus had a cryptic conversation.

How about we dial back the rhetoric and rage until we get some more information? I'm seeing people here get into detailed debates of minutia and hypotheticals about hypotheticals that may never become reality. Folks are getting entrenched in positions that may not be tenable come morning.

--G

Exceptionally sound advice.

It's so easy for molehills to become mountains (well, rhetorical ones, at least).

I'm just a scientist (and engineer, program manager, educator/academic, .... etc.) and not a lawyer of the appropriate type. But I can recognize good advice when I hear it.

It's FAR too soon to draw conclusions.

 

[Roland55]

And to Scott and Linae, man, are you guys are taking a beating on this thread. I hope a lot of the snarkiness and nerd rage you guys are the brunt of doesn't keep you from posting here. I feel that you guys are genuinely concerned about the community and open gaming and I just wanted to say thanks for all your hard work and continuing to put up with the community. I know you guys handled everything the best you could, and I don't fault you for that one bit.

It would be terribly, terribly wrong to fault either of them.

They are just doing their jobs ... and keeping their families fed. They've acted very professionally and they certainly have my respect.

Colleagues -- imagine yourselves in their positions. Try to have a little more understanding.

 

[S'mon]

But OGL text can still be used as a legal document as a license and not a product, right? I know you can copyright products but can you claim IP rights on something if used as a legal license? In theory this could mean that even laws could be copyrighted which I know that it is not the case.

As far as I know, off the top of my head:

1. Legal documents are fully copyright protected, copyright owned by their creator or other copyright owner. Laws in the US are not copyright protected by special dispensation, but here in the UK laws are copyright protected - they're Crown Copyright.

2. The OGL's own licensing provisions allow anyone to use it, WoTC can't control who uses it.

 

[xechnao]

I haven't done copyright law since law school, and I'm not going to opine on whether it's copyrightable. I will guess that given the circumstances under which it was released (and possibly under its own terms), Wizards would be unable to successfully make a claim for infringement (given that it is an irrevocable license that is required to be put into any document published under it).

--G

As far as I know, off the top of my head:

1. Legal documents are fully copyright protected, copyright owned by their creator or other copyright owner. Laws in the US are not copyright protected by special dispensation, but here in the UK laws are copyright protected - they're Crown Copyright.

2. The OGL's own licensing provisions allow anyone to use it, WoTC can't control who uses it.

So could these people that are worried about GSL conflict with their OGL games that do not rely on Wotc's IP copy paste the OGL to make a new license named OGL 2 and release their games under OGL 2 and still be compliant with the GSL as intended by Wotc?
This is what I am trying to ask here.

 

[S'mon]

So could these people that are worried about GSL conflict with their OGL games that do not rely on Wotc's IP copy paste the OGL to make a new license named OGL 2 and release their games under OGL 2 and still be compliant with the GSL as intended by Wotc?
This is what I am trying to ask here.

I wouldn't advise that - most likely they'd both be infringing copyright in the OGL and in breach of contract re the GSL.

But they could create a new license which worked the same as the OGL. The d20 SRD would not be covered by it, of course.

 

[Ourph]

So could these people that are worried about GSL conflict with their OGL games that do not rely on Wotc's IP copy paste the OGL to make a new license named OGL 2 and release their games under OGL 2 and still be compliant with the GSL as intended by Wotc?
This is what I am trying to ask here.

1) No they couldn't. The OGL is copyright WotC and grants others the right to copy it as part of the terms of its own use.

2) They don't need to. If a company has a game that doesn't rely on OGC (WotC's or otherwise) for any of its writing, but was originally published under the OGL to allow 3rd party publishers to make compatible products for it, the original creators of that game, as owners of the copyright, can at any time, publish that game without including the OGL. Just because a game was originally released as OGL doesn't mean the original authors have to continue publishing it that way. The original authors cannot withdraw the permissions they gave to 3rd parties to continue accessing their IP through the OGL (and those 3rd party publishers must continue using the OGL to publish compatible materials), but the copyright owners do not have to rely on the OGL to publish, because they own it.

 

[Goobermunch]

No, it certainly is an issue if Wotc is only worried about the SRD derivative works of OGL and the "OGLization" of 4e.
If this is not the case, then Wotc would be just playing hard competition than trying to protect itself as its representatives are claiming here. And if this happens to be the case, then we can assume anything of their intentions and processes so far -that is being much less genuine than they would want to admit.

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

There are a number of different publishers out there publishing under different documents.

There's the OGL, which is an irrevocable license granted by WotC to do certain things.

There's the SRD, which contains the core rules of 3.5.

There's also the D20 STL, which (I think) allows publishers to use a mark indicating that their products are compatible with D&D 3.x.

I'm not sure which of these documents you're referring to. And honestly, I haven't read them all closely enough to tell you how they link together. My understanding is that the OGL will continue to be a valid document post-1/1/09. If the SRD is released under the OGL, then it also should continue to be open content and useable. The D20 STL is being revoked on that date, and so its use will end.

--G