New GSL Announcement

[dbolack]

OK, this is an important point. "Open" isn't a meaningless marketing term, it's a very specific attribute of a license. Here's the Wikipedia definition of open content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_license.

Point of order. If Wikipoedia said the sky was blue it is still best to check a window.

The definition you cite is the very restrictive, viral definition that the zealots push.

Viral is *NOT* a requirement for openness. Transparency to the system ( whether that's through visible and documented APIs or access and ability to resuse of the source material/code ) is what matters. Anyone could implement NFS. It was an open standard. Anyone Could build a PDF tool. It's published and royalty free. They just don't meet some NARROW views as to what means open. The debate about the harmfulness of viral is here nor there for this discussion.

 

[S'mon]

A thing just occurred to me. What about publishing D&D material without a license? We have been living with the OGL for so long that we forget that Mayfair Games worked this way for many years despite TSR's protestations.

It's possible to legally publish D&D-compatible material without a license; first off, you need to ensure your use of trademarks is non-infringing; they must not be used to indicate an association between your product and the D&D TM-holder. Second, you must not infringe any copyrights. Reproducing substantial chunks of WoTC-owned text such as a Monster Manual stat block would be literal copyright infringement. Paraphrasing such may also be non-literal copyright infringement - though a 1e style stat block (orc AC 6 hd 1 hp 4 THACO 19 dam 1-8 (sword)) - will not infringe copyright IMO, not being a substantial work. Finally, US copyright law includes the concept of 'derivative work' which can be expansive (in the UK we don't have this, only 'adaptations' of the original infringe). Derivative-work claims might conceivably succeed for an adventure centred around the detailed ecology of a fictional D&D race such as Drow*, though this would be a tough one unless the adventure was a direct adaptation of eg a Drizzt novel or of D3 Vault of the Drow. But a generic 'save the village from raiding monsters' or 'explore wizard's dungeon' type adventure wouldn't count as a derivative work of the D&D game as far as I can tell.

Edit: The safest approach is to write a generic fantasy/swords and sorcery product, and include game stats for D&D and probably for other games as well. An adventure set explicitly in eg the Dragonlance world during the War of the Lance would be much riskier. Better to create your own Dragonlance-like setting, eg Sovereign Stone.

*Edit 2: Teaching copyright I've come across some cunning tricks - eg I believe you could write an adventure about Githyanki based purely on their original appearance in White Dwarf. WoTC don't own copyright in that particular block of text, technically it's almost certainly actually still owned by Charles Stross (White Dwarf published it under license) even though he signed a contract assigning copyright in certain text describing Githyanki to TSR prior to publication of Fiend Folio. Copyright flows downhill through time and depends on copying, it's not a monopoly right like a patent. And the concept of Githyanki per se is not ownable, it's the text (and art) describing them that the copyright vests in.
This is a somewhat esoteric legal argument though - don't try this at home, folks.

 

[xechnao]

Transparency to the system ( whether that's through visible and documented APIs or access and ability to resuse of the source material/code ) is what matters.

Agreed. Fantasy and non-fantasy is not transparent though. Remains to be seen where the revocable clause could be standing.

 

[occam]

Ironically, though, if they allow the 3.5 download, it would actually get me to buy a 4E product.

Sure, a third-party 4e product, but not necessarily one from WotC, which is the whole point of the GSL from their perspective.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Edit: The safest approach is to write a generic fantasy/swords and sorcery product, and include game stats for D&D and probably for other games as well. An adventure set explicitly in eg the Dragonlance world during the War of the Lance would be much riskier. Better to create your own Dragonlance-like setting, eg Sovereign Stone.

Actually, I believe it's better if you use your own stat system than multiple ones. And the DragonLance thing would not be possible at all--you can't use settings like that without at minimum disgusing it.

Also, one thing you guys haven't considered is that, in the past, those prior game decisions were based on when there wasn't a free license. We don't see the GSL yet, but I think if there is no cost involved, it doesn't give Wizards control of your content, and other conditions are reasonable, then I could see WoTC arguing a malicious intent involved, simply because I don't think a judge or jury would look upon the reasons why you wouldn't use such a license as viable--it would look like you're trying to combat or rebel against the property owner.

 

[Zil]

Point of order. If Wikipoedia said the sky was blue it is still best to check a window.

The definition you cite is the very restrictive, viral definition that the zealots push.

Viral is *NOT* a requirement for openness. Transparency to the system ( whether that's through visible and documented APIs or access and ability to resuse of the source material/code ) is what matters. Anyone could implement NFS. It was an open standard. Anyone Could build a PDF tool. It's published and royalty free. They just don't meet some NARROW views as to what means open. The debate about the harmfulness of viral is here nor there for this discussion.

No, you are right. Open doesn't have to be viral. If we're dipping into software license pool, the GPL would be considered viral. Whereas something like Berkeley/BSD license would be an example of a non-viral open source license.

However, I do not think the GSL as we understand it so far could possibly meet the criteria for being accepted as a true open license. Rather, it's some kind of limited free/shared license with some hefty restrictions on who can use it (i.e. the "no producers of OGL based material" exclusion).

 

[La Bete]

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You are disregarding a fact that doesn't suit your arguments? GR cannot bring any product to market. True20 and GSL products being the case in point.

That you don't really care about that fact, doesn't really improve the point you're trying to make... if any.

Disregarding facts that don't suit one's argument? On the Internet? Talking about a game where you pretend to be an elf? Sir, you slander me - I demand satisfaction!

Quite correct. I disregard that fact becuase I don't really care. GR can bring whatever products to market they wish - based on the market they work in.

You missed the bolded part - the market in which GR work is one in which as a licensee, they (will) have restrictions on their behaviour. They're big boys (and/or girls), I'm sure they can look after themselves.

Ewww.. I just quoted myself. I feel dirty now.

DISCLAIMER - I've used GR as an example - I in no way know how they feel about all this (I imagine they're unhappy), and in no way wish them or their products ill. They in fact produce some very Rousetastic stuff, some of which is part of my collection. Green Ronin, I want your manbabies.

 

[Ydars]

If I can summarise what we seem to have "learned" so far;

It APPEARS, from posts by Orcus, that WoTC has created a legal entity (the GSL) whose aim is to FORCE 3rd party publishers to choose between making products for 3.5E (OGL) OR 4E (GSL); note, I mean on a company by company basis i.e. company X accepts the GSL and can only make 4E products whereas company Y chooses not to adopt GSL and so retains the right to make 3.5E products but not 4E products.

Note that it has also been suggested;

i) that the GSL is more narrow than the OGL in that 3rd parties cannot produce stand-alone games (this appears to be true from WoTCs rubrik about NO character generation in 3PPs products under GSL)

ii) that the GSL is revokable, by WOTC, at any time (this is unattributed at present).

iii) that the GSL allows use, by 3rd parties, of the words "Dungeons and Dragons" and the trademark.

If ALL the elements of the above are true then I can only conclude either that WoTC, despite their public statements, DO NOT want 3rd party publishers involved in 4E OR they do want 3rd party publishers AND are staggeringly and mind-bendingly inept!

I would suggest instead that perhaps one of the above "facts" is not true;

a) Orcus got it wrong and GSL does not require a company to choose to either support EITHER 3.5E OR 4E (I think this EXTREMELY unlikely).

b) GSL is non-revokable by WoTC and guarantees that 3rd parties can use the GSL for as long as they like.

c) There is some other factor in play, that we don't know about, that makes the GSL significantly more attractive to 3PPs; more so than even the OGL.

Even if b AND c are true, if I were a successful 3rd party company, I would NOT be adopting the GSL and I suspect this is what will happen in most cases. I will leave you, the reader, to decide if this is deliberate or not. I confess I can't decide at present.

I suspect that WoTCs policy may have changed by Monday anyway, given the reaction here!

 

[S'mon]

Actually, I believe it's better if you use your own stat system than multiple ones. And the DragonLance thing would not be possible at all--you can't use settings like that without at minimum disgusing it.

Also, one thing you guys haven't considered is that, in the past, those prior game decisions were based on when there wasn't a free license. We don't see the GSL yet, but I think if there is no cost involved, it doesn't give Wizards control of your content, and other conditions are reasonable, then I could see WoTC arguing a malicious intent involved, simply because I don't think a judge or jury would look upon the reasons why you wouldn't use such a license as viable--it would look like you're trying to combat or rebel against the property owner.

Re Dragonlance - the plaintiff has to show that you have infringed their copyright in the literary and artistic works (the novels and art) in which the Dragonlance setting is embodied. You don't own copyrights in settings and characters per se, you own copyright in the (eg) books in which they appear. It's at least theoretically possible to set a story in a fictional universe without infringing copyright; eg I once read a story nominally set in the Babylon-5 universe, but the use of specific setting elements from the TV show was minimal, I didn't see anything I'd think could possibly amount to copyright infringement of B5.

Re 'malicious intent' - (again, off the top of my head, and it's getting late here): if you haven't done anything wrong, intent is not an issue. Malicious intent becomes an issue once the court finds infringement has occurred, and affects damages. Maliciously doing something non-tortious doesn't make it tortious. The availability of the OGL cannot limit the legal rights of parties who chose not to use it, even if they're being 'malicious'. You always have the freedom not to enter into a contract.

 

[S'mon]

Also, one thing you guys haven't considered is that, in the past, those prior game decisions were based on when there wasn't a free license. We don't see the GSL yet, but I think if there is no cost involved, it doesn't give Wizards control of your content, and other conditions are reasonable, then I could see WoTC arguing a malicious intent involved, simply because I don't think a judge or jury would look upon the reasons why you wouldn't use such a license as viable--it would look like you're trying to combat or rebel against the property owner.

This kind of argument makes sense if we were talking about a fair use defence vs a claim of copyright infringement, with WoTC arguing the use wasn't fair because malicious. I'm saying it's possible to write a D&D-compatible product without using a substantial amount of WotC-copyright work to begin with, so fair use doesn't arise.