You reap what you sow - GSL.

[jdrakeh]

Without getting into a whole lot of stuff that's gone on in this thread, I fail to see what the GSL really offers.

It allows you to claim compatability with D&D and not have to worry about being sued for doing so, if I'm not mistaken. Without the GSL, you can't claim compatability with the World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game and avoid the possibility of being sued into bankruptcy.

 

[2WS-Steve]

Thats fine. But it isn't hard. I know, because I searched. Try it some time. Start with colleges and universities.

Dude, he's already at a university -- he teaches law there.

 

[woodelf]

So what publishers kept who from using what?

Seriously, I'd like to hear this. I've spent quite a bit of time offline and away from the gaming scene and from writing, so I'd really like to hear about who asked which company for what and was denied.

Has anyone ACTUALLY been denied?

Denied? Dunno. But there shouldn't be any need to ask--that sorta defeats the whole point of open content. I can ask even under standard IP laws. The biggest problem, IMHO, is "crippled" OGC--the most annoying of which is OGC widgets with PI labels. And, given the vagueness of both the WotC OGL and many OGC and [especially] PI declarations, it's often very hard to tell. Frex, Malhavoc usually declares some variation of "all original [widget] names" as PI. Who knows what constitutes an "original feat name", as per the WotC OGL? And, for that matter, how enforceable such a restriction is?

Mongoose's "Pocket Player's Handbook" is the cardinal example of the sowing, IMO. The simple existence of that book is pretty much a slap in WotC's face. It's insulting and shows a company that is crass and disrespectful.

I don't get many 3rd party supplements, and generally regard Mongoose as one of the lowest quality, anyway. But, publishing that book pretty well sealed that there's no way I'd buy anything from the company.

When publishers are pulling crap like that, I can't blame WotC for thinking the OGL was a bad idea.

Wait, so WotC produces a poorly-organized, ugly, hard-to-read book, releases the textual content under an open-content licens, and you're blaming Mongoose for creating a competitor? AFAIC, it's WotC's fault for (1) producing a book that was sufficiently deficient that something else could easily compete against it, and (2) not producing a stripped-down cheap version when there obviously was demand. And i'd be amazed if the Pocket Player's Handbook stole any real sales: the three reasons i can see to buy it are (1) you already have a PH but want something smaller/more portable, (2) the PH is overpriced for your needs (whether because you're broke, cheap, or have access to multiple copies in the game group already), or (3) you find the PH unreadable and/or unreferenceable.

[Though, personally, i don't consider the Pocket Player's Handbook much of an improvement in case 3--but then, i appear to be in a significant minority in my highly negative opinions of the graphic design and organization/writing of the D&D3[.5]E PHs.

WotC was never gonna get the category 2 sales--those people would go without, or use a digital version of the SRD, if given no alternative. Category 1 & 3 sales, likewise, were never gonna happen, either, with the existing books.

And don't forget that Dancey, at least, expected right from the start that things like the Pocket Player's Handbook would occur--he said outright [i paraphrase]: "go ahead, it won't matter to the bottom line"--implicitly because nobody else could compete directly, so they'd have to be going for a different market (as i suggest above).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Yep. I am neither. Clark isn't a Copyright lawyer either. At least I did my own research. Maybe you guys should too? That way you might be as aware of certain points of copyright law as I am. Not to mention international law.

So I am an intelligent guy who researched copyright law on his own and e-mailed a few legal law professors for some specific answers, who isn't a lawyer, and isn't a game publisher.

So if you really want to know research it. Clark is a criminal law lawyer, and he has never said he researched copyright law to find out the specifics. So he is far from giving any legal advice. Just ask him, he'll tell you.

So if you really want to know research it yourself. Ask lawyers who claim to know copyright law. e-mail professors who have written up articles and taught courses on copyright law. They are surprisingly willing to converse.

Trying to belittle and discredit me changes nothing. You want to know? Find out for yourself.

What gives Clark's opinions weight is not the fact that he is a lawyer, but the fact that he runs Necromancer games, one of the more successful 3rd party publishers.

 

[woodelf]

It allows you to claim compatability with D&D and not have to worry about being sued for doing so, if I'm not mistaken. Without the GSL, you can't claim compatability with the World's Most Popular Roleplaying Game and avoid the possibility of being sued into bankruptcy.

Of course, given the well-established history of, say, after-market auto parts, i'd be amazed if such a lawsuit even got past the initial filings. Surely, all you'd have to do is show that you were using the D&D trademark in a non-confusing, non-ownership-claiming, factual manner, and bring a Ford and non-Ford air filter as your example (or cite any other category of product where this has been long since decided in no uncertain terms), and the case would be dismissed. I mean, i know our court system is driven entirely too much by who's got the most money, but a lawsuit has to pass a *certain* level of plausibility before it even gets to the stage of it mattering how well you can afford to defend yourself.

Not that anyone wants to find out the hard way that this is not true, but, frankly, if i had any legitimate interest in doing this, i'd *gladly* put my finances on the line. Problem is, i don't, and never have--the only reason i'd create such a product would be to deliberately provoke WotC in the hopes of creating a test case. And that's not likely to sit well with a judge, even if it doesn't in and of itself call into question the legitimacy of my case.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am not giving conjecture. As I have insinuated I have researched copyright law and conversed via e-mail with several law professors, so I do have some idea of what I am talking about. I am just not a lawyer.

So instead of taking my, or Clarks, OPINION for it, look into it yourself. Its not hard.

Yes, you have researched and sent e-mails, but that doesn't make what you are saying any better than an opinion, and one that may be pretty harmful to the gaming community if someone goes forward with it. I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, I'm just saying that on this issue, unless you can get an actual lawyer to give you actual paid-for legal advice on the issue that you can then re-post here, the theory is making things more difficult to talk about, and not less so.

I have looked into it myself, but I am not a lawyer, nor have I legally consulted one, so I am choosing to keep my lack of information to myself, which is probably wiser than fueling the fires with anything less concrete than that, in my eyes.

Plus, y'know, already another thread for it.

 

[pemerton]

Of course, given the well-established history of, say, after-market auto parts, i'd be amazed if such a lawsuit even got past the initial filings. Surely, all you'd have to do is show that you were using the D&D trademark in a non-confusing, non-ownership-claiming, factual manner, and bring a Ford and non-Ford air filter as your example (or cite any other category of product where this has been long since decided in no uncertain terms), and the case would be dismissed.

I don't know enough IP law to say that you are outright wrong in the above, but I think (like a number of other posts on this thread) you are ignoring certain complexities.

Unlike the case of auto parts, RPG publishing involves the interaction of both trademark and copyright law. Any non-licensed D&D supplement therefore faces two possible sorts of legal problem: the tortious use of WoTC's trademarks and/or the tortious attempt to use WoTC's goodwill for the 3PP's benefit; and the infringement of WoTC's copyrights. The latter issue depends in part upon the applicable law of derivative works (I think that this is the relevant term in US copyright law) or adaptations (I think that this is the relevant term in Australian copyright law).

I am by no means saying that it would be impossible to produce an unlicensed 4e supplement (or 3E supplement, for that matter) which did not infringe WoTC's rights in either of the above fashions. But working out the parameters of what would or would not be an infringement is (IMO) not a trivial matter.

An example to try to make the issue more concrete: anyone who published an unlicensed adventure module would be intending that anyone who read it would understand that the Kobolds that it refers to are the very same Kobolds referred to in the Monster Manual. Does this mean that the adventure's text about those Kobolds is in some sort of complicated derivative relationship to WoTC's text about Kobolds in the Monster Manual? And if so, does this mean that the adventure publisher is infringing on WoTC's copyright? And/or trading on the goodwill that WoTC has established in respect of the "Monster Manual" trademark?

Until those who are saying how easy it is to OSRIC 4e start to address these sorts of concrete concerns, and explain how the rulebooks and adventures that they are envisaging are not in violation of any of WoTC's rights, it's a little hard for me to believe that their claims are well thought out.

 

[Treebore]

What gives Clark's opinions weight is not the fact that he is a lawyer, but the fact that he runs Necromancer games, one of the more successful 3rd party publishers.

OK, if you say so.

 

[jdrakeh]

Of course, given the well-established history of, say, after-market auto parts, i'd be amazed if such a lawsuit even got past the initial filings.

Your example comparing aftermarket auto air filters to RPG trademarks is not unlike comparing apples and oranges. Such a lawsuit has already been won versus Mayfair games back in the day. Using somebody else's trademark to promote your own game without their permission generally results in a judgement against the infringing party.

 

[der_kluge]

Seems all the best threads are on ENWorld these days...

As a freelancer working for a company that tried getting in on the ground floor (Thunderhead Games) I agree with Matt that the general consensus regarding OGC has changed over the years. Early on, most companies felt like they had to follow the letter of the license. So, the license stipulated that things derived from the SRD had to be open, and everything else could be closed. Or open, it was our choice, basically.

So, if you track these kinds of things (I don't), I bet you'd find that the earliest d20 products followed this exact model - rules and crunch were open, and everything else was closed. Freeport trilogy was the rare exception.

Later on, people figured out that - hey, no one is using my stuff anyway, so I'll just open it all up and see what happens. And by and large, no one still used any of it.

Fact is, a lot more companies nowadays just open up everything because it doesn't really matter. There's always been kind of a gentleman's agreement regarding using another companies OGC anyway.

But I'm pretty sure if you look up "Crippled OGC" in a dictionary, it says "See Malhavoc Press".