What is it about the GSL that is really a deal breaker?

[cdrcjsn]

I have some opinions on this, but I want to see what others think before I chime in.

The GSL has some good things and some bad things for game publishers.

There are a few annoying things, like not being able to put monster stats from the MM (or even reference a page number).

Then there are are some things which people consider to be deal breakers.

Which clauses of the GSL do you consider deal breakers?

 

[Corjay]

The deal breaker is that OGL made companies dependent on d20, and subsection 6.1 in the GSL requires those companies to completely drop their d20 lines in order to adopt 4e, instead of allowing them to slowly shift into 4e and phase out d20. Thus, it costs them, especially the magazines, a LOT of money to make the switch, unable to sell old stores or selling them at a loss, and then catering to a smaller share of the market, as 4e hasn't been grown yet. A product must be grown before it can be made a force. You can't just shove it on people and expect people to swallow it without question.

 

[cdrcjsn]

The deal breaker is that OGL made companies dependent on d20, and subsection 6.1 in the GSL requires those companies to completely drop their d20 lines in order to adopt 4e, instead of allowing them to slowly shift into 4e and phase out d20.

That clause applies per line of product right? So someone like Paizo can keep on making their 3e Pathfinder adventures and start a new line of 4e Dungeon Crawl adventures? It's only if they wanted to convert their old stock of Pathfinder mods do they need to stop selling them as OGL.

Am I reading that incorrectly?

 

[Corjay]

Yes, you are correct. I'm afraid I wasn't thinking about that aspect. But that is how I believe it works, yes. On that aspect, it costs money to start a whole new line and you can't be sure it will be successful. Though it does leave room for turning to 4e as old lines die out and new ones are created.

But 4e could use the help of being able to convert product lines without having to stop selling past product in the product line.

 

[Nadaka]

IANAL:
Here are the poison pills...

1: WotC retains the right to terminate the GSL for any or no reason at all.
2: Product lines published under the GSL most stop being published under the OGL now and forever.
3: WotC reserves the right to change the terms of the GSL with no notice whatsoever.
4: WotC seems to have the right to take over IP that you publish under the GSL, but that
5: Licensees are required to cooperate with WotC in defence if its IP.
6: Licensees are forbidden from pursuing legal action against WotC for any reason. Call me paranoid, but this possibly even includes criminal charges for criminal activities performed by WotC.
7: Licensees are required to cover WotC legal costs in any event, so even if you were to sue WotC and win, you would be required to pay their lawyer fees, and the fine that they have been charged.
8: most or all of these issues continue even after the license has been terminated.

basically, it is a steaming pile of poo. And no sane person would ever agree to it. Much less any person who depended on GSL products for their livelihood.

 

[frankthedm]

Your legal battles happen on thier home turf and trial has to be by a judge.
The issues revolving around Judge vs. Jury trials and what is legal in one state Vs. another should be more than enough to make this a deal breaker.

You pay wotc's legal fees even if you win a legal fight with them.
I doubt Hasbro's megacorp lawyers will be that cheap.

Do you need others?

 

[Corjay]

IANAL:
Here are the poison pills...

1: WotC retains the right to terminate the GSL for any or no reason at all.
2: Product lines published under the GSL most stop being published under the OGL now and forever.
3: WotC reserves the right to change the terms of the GSL with no notice whatsoever.
4: WotC seems to have the right to take over IP that you publish under the GSL, but that
5: Licensees are required to cooperate with WotC in defence if its IP.
6: Licensees are forbidden from pursuing legal action against WotC for any reason. Call me paranoid, but this possibly even includes criminal charges for criminal activities performed by WotC.
7: Licensees are required to cover WotC legal costs in any event, so even if you were to sue WotC and win, you would be required to pay their lawyer fees, and the fine that they have been charged.
8: most or all of these issues continue even after the license has been terminated.

basically, it is a steaming pile of poo. And no sane person would ever agree to it. Much less any person who depended on GSL products for their livelihood.

1. The right to terminate was also in the OGL. It's a standard part of every license.

2. This is the 6.1 part. It is indeed flawed.

3. Again, this is another standard part of any license.

4-6. The GSL does not say WOTC can take anyone's IP. What it says at 10.3, where I think you got that, is that the licensee will not attempt to sue anyone on WOTC's behalf or in addition to WOTC's case of infringement of WOTC IP. Subsection 10.1 says that the licensee is not allowed to use any of WOTC's IP except by license or contract with WOTC.

Yes, it says that the licensee must help in infringement cases when called upon by WOTC, but it says that they will be compensated so long as whatever compensation is requested is requested BEFORE the event causing the need for compensation takes place. That's perfectly reasonable. This has only to do with infringements AGAINST WOTC, not WOTC infringement against another publisher or WOTC's own activities. The final line is saying only that the BEHAVIOR of the licensee must not CAUSE any problems for WOTC.

Another part you misunderstand about 10.1. The licensee cannot pursue a case against WOTC where the legal circumstances change. Since the license is in force prior to changes in law, WOTC can enforce the contract as written and cannot be held accountable for changes in contract law and that those laws are not retroactive.

Subsection 10.2 is referring to if a 4e licensee were to bind it with another license like Star Trek. It is saying that any problems arising between the licensee and the third party IP is theirs and theirs alone, and WOTC is not responsible.

7. I believe you're talking about subsection 11.4, but you misunderstand it. No court of law is going to enforce having the winner pay the loser's court costs. What it is saying is that the cost incurred by a rightful case, as it is referring to "injunctive relief", that is, relief that is part of the injunction imposed by WOTC's winning the case. frankthedm is also mistaken here.

8. This is another standard part of a contract. It means that any products continuing to be sold that were published under the GSL remain under the GSL. In other words, the GSL continues to retroactively apply to 4e property.

Your legal battles happen on thier home turf and trial has to be by a judge.
The issues revolving around Judge vs. Jury trials and what is legal in one state Vs. another should be more than enough to make this a deal breaker.

This is another standard part of contracts. Defining what the jurisdiction is so that they can't be challenged in 50 or even 100 different jurisdictions. Since laws are different everywhere, they can't cater to every jurisdiction, so they state what jurisdiction they do cater to and that is where you have to challenge them. Sorry guys, but you all seem to have a lot of problems not with WOTC, but with world-wide standard contract/license practice.

So, seeing as 1, 3, 7, 8, and frankthedm's points are all objections to standard contract practice, and 4-6 were misunderstood, that means 2 (subsection 6.1) is still the only point of contention.

P.S.: Juries are only used in capital cases, not civil suits.

 

[Voadam]

1. The right to terminate was also in the OGL. It's a standard part of every license.

Are you perhaps thinking of the d20 STL and not the OGL?

If not would you mind pointing out the termination clause you are referring to?

 

[Corjay]

Ah yes, you got me there. I was thinking of line 13 in the OGL. Even still that doesn't make 4e's termination clause any less standard practice, and as I said, this contract applies to any product produced under it indefinitely. So WOTC can't terminate the contract later and then say that a company must stop selling that product. The licensee just can't continue to make new product under the discontinued permission. And it would be harmful to WOTC's business reputation to exercise this without justification. Thousands of companies use such a clause, and most of them don't abuse the power of this clause. I seriously doubt any of the companies who produce 4e material are worried about this clause at all. It just makes them think twice about pissing WOTC off.

 

[Nagol]

1) WotC reserves the right to change the license at any time.
2) You agree WotC will not inform you when the license changes. The change will be posted on the Internet.
3) Terms of Service of the Internet web site prevent you from automatically connecting for the purpose of checking if the icense has been changed.
4) You agree to be bound by the changed license as soon as you sell a single item after the license changes -- whether or not you know of the change or agree to the change.