Revised GSL TODAY!

[Lizard]

I still have one issue that I'd really appreciate solid legal advice on, ideally from Clark or someone else.

The GSL does not apply to websites.
The GSL also requires that it be accepted.
Given that I have not accepted the GSL, is there any reason existing copyright law would not cover this? (IOW, since I am not a party to the GSL, the fact it does not cover websites doesn't seem to affect me, and normal copyright law WRT games should permit me to create original monsters so long as I do not wholesale C&P WOTC text, which I have not.)

Now that Gleemax is dead, WOTC is not in "competition" with other websites offering game-related content, so I can't imagine they'd care. However, the lack of any kind of "fansite license", promised shortly after the initial release of 4e, is a bit irksome; I really do not understand how it can be a complex process.

 

[Henry]

True innovation comes from thinking outside the box, not in the same d20 rule-set.

Theodore Geisel, William Shakespeare, and "Weird Al" Yankovic might disagree. Sometimes, truly creative works are written by performing within a certain meter and frame or other limitation, and the result is more rewarding than a work that "throws all the shackles off." In the case of gaming, personal anecdotal evidence tells me that I can get more people to at least try a game with mechanics they are familiar with, than one where they have to learn how to succeed or fail, how to track damage, what the basic building blocks for their characters are, etc.

I'm certainly not saying that all games should have the same six stats, hit points, feats, etc. but having a common resolution mechanic at the very least seems to give gamers a common point to come back to in their cycle of trying new games.

And before I forget: My thanks also to Scott Rouse and his co-workers who put a lot of time and evergy into a GSL that reassures a lot of the 3rd peraty publishers that were once alienated. I've liked what I've seen for 4e from WotC thus far, but a lot of what I liked about 3e didn't come from WotC, but from other publishers who filled in the gaps that WotC just couldn't fill.

 

[Roger]

A comparison of the two GSL versions

I've written a side-by-side comparison of the two GSL versions. (BTW -- the new version of the GSL is now out.)

http://stirgessuck.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/gsl_comparison_v1.pdf

I feel compelled to point out that it should not be taken as legal advice, yadda yadda yadda. But it might be interesting to some people.


Cheers,
Roger

 

[Scribble]

Interesting that they went from a corporation in washington to an LLP in delaware.I assume it was done for tax purposes (Delaware doesn't have very high corporation fees and taxes) and just happened to happen between the two licenses?

I wonder if that had anything to do with the delay? IE they needed to wait until their LLP paperowrk was done before putting it on the GSL?

 

[mxyzplk]

I still have one issue that I'd really appreciate solid legal advice on, ideally from Clark or someone else.

The GSL does not apply to websites.
The GSL also requires that it be accepted.
Given that I have not accepted the GSL, is there any reason existing copyright law would not cover this? (IOW, since I am not a party to the GSL, the fact it does not cover websites doesn't seem to affect me, and normal copyright law WRT games should permit me to create original monsters so long as I do not wholesale C&P WOTC text, which I have not.)

You are right that if you don't sign the GSL, it has nothing to do with you. You fall under the "normal" law. Which isn't all that simple unto itself.

You are probably all right from a copyright standpoint, as game rules can't be copyrighted and you're not copying text.

The trick is that there's a bunch of other kinds of IP law that make this more complex. The GSL even lists them - "patent, copyright, trademark, trade dress, trade name, trade secret, or anything else we can think of.” (I'm paraphrasing.)

Are any of those terms trademarked? Could the stat block format be justified as trade dress? These aren't black-letter law, it's more "what you could argue in court if you felt inclined."

Several companies have published 4e products without signing the GSL - Adamant and Goodman for sure, and probably others - and we haven't heard of them being crushed yet.

In your case, the worst that can happen is they tell you to take it down and/or get your ISP to delete your stuff. So I think it's reasonably safe.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Theodore Geisel, William Shakespeare, and "Weird Al" Yankovic might disagree. Sometimes, truly creative works are written by performing within a certain meter and frame or other limitation, and the result is more rewarding than a work that "throws all the shackles off." In the case of gaming, personal anecdotal evidence tells me that I can get more people to at least try a game with mechanics they are familiar with, than one where they have to learn how to succeed or fail, how to track damage, what the basic building blocks for their characters are, etc.

I don't think they would disagree, actually, because I don't think any of them would claim to be "true innovators", and high-quality creative work is not necessarily tightly linked to innovation.

The OGL certainly did do what you're discussing to some significant degree. The GSL, including this new GSL, utterly forbids it. Which is sad, really, and I think it kind of supports claims that WotC have damaged the industry, as the OGL/d20 was helpful in some ways, but served to focus the market on d20-style products, and now the new GSL doesn't allow them to be "updated" as it were to being 4E-style. I'm sure some overzealous defender of WotC will be along to explain, slowly and carefully, that no 3pp has a right to kind of continuing support, but I think if the claim is "Overall, OGL/d20 has damaged the RPG industry and reduced diversity", then I think some support can be found for that argument.

I mean, for my part, I'd love to see 4E-ized versions of quality OGL/d20 things like Spycraft, but given the GSL, I seriously doubt that we will. So we're almost back to square one, with a host of inconsistent and incompatible systems, only now there's a whole bunch of confused and semi-compatible d20-based ones in the mix too.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Interesting that they went from a corporation in washington to an LLP in delaware.I assume it was done for tax purposes (Delaware doesn't have very high corporation fees and taxes) and just happened to happen between the two licenses?

I wonder if that had anything to do with the delay? IE they needed to wait until their LLP paperowrk was done before putting it on the GSL?

I'm guessing that has to do with WotC as an independent company when the OGL came out and Hasbro being the parent company now. Most big corporations are Delaware corporations (if they're not Bermuda by this point). I can't imagine it had any impact at all.

 

[Mistwell]

That is terrible advice.

Everyone please disregard it.

The revised GSL is a huge improvement and includes many of the changes and suggestions that I specifically, and I am sure others as well, have been calling for for a long time.

One of the biggest changes is the "opt out" clause which the old GSL didnt have. In other words, if they change something you are bound by it. Now, if they change something you can opt out. Can they still change things? Sure, but that is the nature of just about any license and it was the nature of the d20 license that we all used for many years.

Plus, think about this. As I told Scott--wouldnt it be cool if the first revsion was an expansion that allowed us to do more with more freedoms and more content? what would the naysayers say then? Shure, they "could" make it more restrictive, but look what they have done.

This is a big WIN for all involved.

Clark

And, as both a lawyer and someone who has disagreed with Clark in the past a lot, let me just say I heartily agree with Clark on this topic. I think Joe's analysis and advice was, well, not what I would offer on this topic. This new version is a huge improvement, and I would personally be very comfortable operating under it.

 

[dmccoy1693]

*applause to both Scott and Wizards* Thank you!

 

[Scribble]

I'm guessing that has to do with WotC as an independent company when the OGL came out and Hasbro being the parent company now. Most big corporations are Delaware corporations (if they're not Bermuda by this point). I can't imagine it had any impact at all.

Huh? Not the OGL.

On the GSL v 1.0 WoTC was listed as a corporation in Washington.

On the GSL v 2.0 WoTC islisted as a Limited Liability Company in Delaware.

So at some point between the two versions of the GSL, they changed the location of their company documents, as well as their business type.

I'm wondering if that could have caused part of the delay in the GSL 2.0 comming out. (Because the lawyers that drew it up wanted to wait until the paperwork moving them to Delaware was complete and approved so they wouldn't have to draw up ANOTHER GSL just to make the Delaware change part.)

It might have had nothing at all to do with it though. I was just curious.