The SRD under the GSL

[szilard]

The SRD seems to serve near-opposite purposes under the GSL and the OGL.

The 3.x-era SRD was a listing of open content that you could use with very few restrictions. Things that were not in the SRD but were in Wizards' books were considered closed content and could not be republished under the OGL. This included some things that Wizards claimed as product identity, such as the Beholder and Mind Flayer.

Now, the new SRD is something different entirely. It is a list of references that you can make to content in Wizards' books. There are specific limits in the GSL as to what you can and can't do with those references. There is nothing in the GSL - as far as I can tell - that limits what you can say about things left out of the SRD.

Oddly, though, Wizards left things that it had considered product identity under the OGL out of the SRD... and I didn't see any product identity references in the GSL. Is there anything stopping me from publishing under the GSL and, say, redefining the Beholder? If there is, I am missing it...

-Stuart

 

[jaldaen]

Now, the new SRD is something different entirely. It is a list of references that you can make to content in Wizards' books. There are specific limits in the GSL as to what you can and can't do with those references. There is nothing in the GSL - as far as I can tell - that limits what you can say about things left out of the SRD.

Actually the GSL works quite similarly to the d20 SRD, except it does not actually provide you with the full texts you can use (so no easy copy-pasting from SRD to products) and instead tells you what 4e References you can use and how you can use them (this is the biggest difference b/w the two SRDs/Licenses):

4.1 4E References. Licensee may reprint the proprietary 4E reference terms, tables, and templates (each, a “4E Reference”) described in the 4E System Reference Document as presented in the file “SRD.pdf” that is available for download at http://www.wizards.com/d20 (“SRD”), incorporated herein by reference. Licensee acknowledges that Wizards has previously defined each 4E Reference. Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter the definition of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product. Without limiting the foregoing, Licensee may create original material that adds to the applicability of a 4E Reference, so long as this original material complies with the preceding sentence.

Oddly, though, Wizards left things that it had considered product identity under the OGL out of the SRD... and I didn't see any product identity references in the GSL. Is there anything stopping me from publishing under the GSL and, say, redefining the Beholder? If there is, I am missing it...

The things left out of the SRD are not "4e References" and therefore the GSL does not grant the Licensee the ability to reprint those terms. Beholders etc... are left out of the 4e D&D SRD, just as they were left out of the d20 SRD, because they are not allowed to be used by Licensee.

 

[szilard]

The things left out of the SRD are not "4e References" and therefore the GSL does not grant the Licensee the ability to reprint those terms. Beholders etc... are left out of the 4e D&D SRD, just as they were left out of the d20 SRD, because they are not allowed to be used by Licensee.

That was clearly the intent, I grant you. Unfortunately, I don't know that the license supports that intent. The GSL doesn't grant you a license to use those terms, but I don't think it limits your ability to do so either...

-Stuart

 

[Fate Lawson]

That's because WOTC claims those items either as their IP, PI or Trademark. And that is covered by a whole 'nother set of laws outside of Copyright.

So, no you can't make your own version of a Beholder, or MindFlayer. Unless your prepared to go to court and fight their claims (legit or not).

 

[szilard]

As far as I know, WotC doesn't actually have a trademark on any of those names (they aren't, for instance, listed in the notice in the Monster Manual). Moreover, one of them is the Succubus... which is a common usage term.

I suspect that this was an oversight in the drafting of the GSL (which will probably be 'fixed' soon enough).


-Stuart

 

[jaldaen]

As far as I know, WotC doesn't actually have a trademark on any of those names (they aren't, for instance, listed in the notice in the Monster Manual).

Actually trademarking is not the problem... copyright is. The GSL allows you to use their copyrighted D&D 4e References which appear in the SRD. Anything not in the SRD falls under normal copyright laws, which means you can't copy its specific expression.

Moreover, one of them is the Succubus... which is a common usage term. I suspect that this was an oversight in the drafting of the GSL (which will probably be 'fixed' soon enough).

Although Succubus is a common usage term the MM version of the Succubus is not. You can of course define your own Succubus based off of folklore, your own imagination, etc.

Alternately, it could be an oversight, but no one from WotC has indicated so as far as I know.

 

[szilard]

Actually trademarking is not the problem... copyright is. The GSL allows you to use their copyrighted D&D 4e References which appear in the SRD. Anything not in the SRD falls under normal copyright laws, which means you can't copy its specific expression.

Trademarking would make more sense in this case. I could easily use the word Beholder to refer to a totally-non-eye-tyrant sort of monster. I doubt that WotC would have a leg to stand on IP law-wise. While they could easily change the GSL (or SRD) to retroactively disallow such things, it seems cumbersome.

Although Succubus is a common usage term the MM version of the Succubus is not. You can of course define your own Succubus based off of folklore, your own imagination, etc.

Right.... but for things in the SRD, you cannot do this. You can't publish a work under the GSL that - for instance - defines kobolds as a goblin subspecies.

Things left out of the SRD don't have that protection. It seems odd to me.

Nothing I write should be construed of as legal advice, by the way. (I hate having to write that.)

-Stuart

 

[pemerton]

Is there anything stopping me from publishing under the GSL and, say, redefining the Beholder? If there is, I am missing it...

I believe that the GSL prohibits reproduction of the text of the 4e rulebooks.

That prohibition plausibly extends to proper names not expressly called out in the SRD.