The GSL in Common Language

[TimeOut]

Be aware, I don't think they're referring to a picture with naked breasts (Like the 1e MM), or saying "Hey, these people? They have sex!"

In Paizo's Curse of the Crimson Throne, the Queen has a relationship with her female bodyguard. In Rise of the Runelords, there are two men who have a relationship, which is the town's "Worse kept secret". In that same series, an NPC farm girl tries to seduce a PC (literally dropping her top and pushing him towards a cot in the basement; her father meanwhile is seconds from opening the door).

I don't think this is against the "community standards".

According to a strict interpretation of the GSL it would be.

Without limiting the foregoing, no Licensed Products will depict in any text, graphical or other manner:
(b) sexual situations, sexual abuse, pornography, gratuitous nudity of human or humanoid forms, genitalia, or sexual activity;

Emphasis mine. A PC seduction attempt by a NPC could be a "sexual situation".

It is weird, because it is just good characterization and opens more options for RP.

 

[Eosin the Red]

Not that I'm a lawyer or anything, but the following is how I interpret the GSL, as I read it, in straightforward language:

You are the CHEESE!!!

 

[The Little Raven]

Astoundingly, I have to do the same. I never expected I'd have to, but there are libraries to use, APIs to interface with, and all this requires you to check that you follow the license agreements for these. Damn it, Jim - I am a doctorprogrammer, not a bricklawyer!

I initially had to do this at my current job, but about 9 months back, they let me hire an assistant to deal with all of the fiddly legal bits since I kept bugging the crap out of our lawyers all the time.

 

[blindrage]

Thank you for doing this Amy. I laughed and had some good thoughts about the GSL now. Well some fine insight at least.

 

[lurkinglidda]

Thank you for doing this Amy. I laughed and had some good thoughts about the GSL now. Well some fine insight at least.

FYI - the VP of Legal at WotC thought this was a good understanding of the license as well. Nicely done - you impressed The Kraken!

 

[Orius]

Seconded!

I think I already got the gist of it, but it's nice if someone more versed in this stuff (be it just English or Legalspeak) confirms it.

Legalese is NOT English! It's an English translation of the true language of lawyers, which everyone knows is Infernal.

IMO, lawyers should be forced under pain of death by impalement to word stuff in plain speak like this rather than legalese.

7. Quality and Content Standards.

The nature and quality of all Licensed Products will conform to the quality standards set by Wizards, as may be provided from time to time. At a minimum, the Licensed Products will conform to community standards of decency and appropriateness as determined by Wizards in its discretion. Without limiting the foregoing, no Licensed Products will depict in any text, graphical or other manner:

(a) excessively graphic violence or gore;

(b) sexual situations, sexual abuse, pornography, gratuitous nudity of human or humanoid forms, genitalia, or sexual activity; or

(c) existing real-world minorities, nationalities, social castes, religious groups or practices, political preferences, genders, lifestyle preferences, or people with disabilities, as a group inferior to any other group or in a way that promotes disrespect for those groups or practices, or that endorses those groups or practices over another.

Without limiting the foregoing, Licensed Products will not contain any content that is unlawful, defamatory, harassing, threatening, abusive, inflammatory, fraudulent or otherwise objectionable or that would infringe upon or violate the rights of any third party or constitute, encourage, or provide instructions for a criminal offense.

What's wrong with this? Sounds reasonable to me. A & B are basically a matter of keeping things in good taste; kids do play D&D after all, and WotC doesn't want to rile up parents needlessly. Yes, kicking demons, devils, and assassins out of the game is asinine, but they also have a certain vested interest in keeping things relatively non-offensive. Also, some adult players might not want things graphic, while others prefer graphic. It's simply easier to market to the former group to make things happy, since a DM can easily tailor things to make the second group happy.

In particular WRT to b, 4 words come to mind: Book of Erotic Fantasy. I'm sure WotC wants to avoid a 4e version of that. Particularly since the GSL is allowing the stuff to be branded as D&D specifically rather than just d20.

Clause c is there to avoid offending various groups over issues like real world racism and the like. Again, they don't want someone publishing something that advocates white supremecy or something similar under the D&D name and harm the entire brand with bad publicity.

 

[Kesh]

Legalese is NOT English! It's an English translation of the true language of lawyers, which everyone knows is Infernal.

IMO, lawyers should be forced under pain of death by impalement to word stuff in plain speak like this rather than legalese.

As much as I hate to defend the practice… lawyers are (kinda) like scientists. They use these words that don't make sense to the layman because those words have precise meanings in the legal/scientific world that everyday English doesn't. It sucks for the rest of us, but it's the best way to prevent a bad law/contract from being written.

 

[Orius]

As much as I hate to defend the practice… lawyers are (kinda) like scientists. They use these words that don't make sense to the layman because those words have precise meanings in the legal/scientific world that everyday English doesn't. It sucks for the rest of us, but it's the best way to prevent a bad law/contract from being written.

Except that often legalese is used to write bad contracts because the average person doesn't understand it. Bad contracts in the sense the the person writing the contract knows damn well the signer doesn't understand it, and uses the contract for full advantage.

Back on subject, I don't think that's the case with WotC here.

 

[Kesh]

That doesn't make it a "bad" contract, just a malicious lawyer (or whoever employed them) taking advantage of someone. Who probably should have run it by their lawyer first.