4e D&D GSL Live

[phloog]

We know WotC is eventually coming out with Druid, Bard, Barbarian, possibly Sorcerer. Just don't name your class what you know WotC is going to come out with. ....
.

Actually, make that "Just don't name your class anything that WOTC MIGHT come out with, and don't name your class anything that might appeal to WOTC" - - so predict what WOTC might do, and also don't use any name that WOTC might choose to take from you if it's really cool - - I believe that is absolutely possible for them to do this under the GSL...and of course even if it ISN'T possible in the GSL, it IS possible because they can change it or revoke it.

So to be safe be sure to use really lousy names that they won't want...all hail the Echinodermaster!

 

[BSF]

I'm taken aback at how many are surprised by these terms in the GSL. Didn't we know all this already?

Of course WotC wouldn't allow conversion of a product/product line to the GSL, then back to the OGL for any reason. That would permit a licensee to produce 4e-compatible products, then when the initial surge of purchases was done, republish them as 3e-compatible OGC, completely negating the intent of the GSL. You may argue with that intent, but we had already heard about this one-time conversion idea months ago, I thought.

Also, as far as the terms of conversion surviving termination of the license, that should also have been expected. Given what we know or could surmise about WotC's goals with the new license, they wouldn't set it up so that 3PPs could pull all their goodies out of WotC's sandbox and into post-3e OGC-land when, say, a new edition comes out with (potentially) a new license. Permanent conversion is necessary to keep 3PPs in the market supporting WotC's products going forward, which is the entire point of the license, after all.

Displeasure with aspects of the GSL is inevitable, but surprise? Were people really not expecting this?

In my case, the surprise is that these clauses are in effect even after termination of the license. In my niavete, I guess I had thought that WotC would have a problem with a company testing the waters with a conversion product and then deciding that it makes business sense to drop back to their original audience. Of course, such a move wouldn't be able to take 4E mechanics with it, but I had hoped that WotC would prevent the fallback.

I can argue different sides of the argument, so I can see where WotC might be coming from. But if I were a publisher, these clauses would certainly impact what products I might offer in a big, big way.

 

[BarakO]

idea under the umbrella of the GSL that looks like it might benefit WOTC, WOTC/Hasbro would not hesitate for a second to take it as their own, and bar you from using it.

How? Which part did I miss that says they don't have to follow IP laws if you sign this agreement?

If you've created somthing new, I don't see anything in the license that says they can take it and use it themselves. I guess they could add it later...

 

[LordKruge]

Actually, make that "Just don't name your class anything that WOTC MIGHT come out with, and don't name your class anything that might appeal to WOTC" - - so predict what WOTC might do, and also don't use any name that WOTC might choose to take from you if it's really cool - - I believe that is absolutely possible for them to do this under the GSL...and of course even if it ISN'T possible in the GSL, it IS possible because they can change it or revoke it.

So to be safe be sure to use really lousy names that they won't want...all hail the Echinodermaster!

I hear you, but I still think the reservations on this point may be overblown. My friend has a novel and I'm helping him decide what system would be best to express his setting in. As far as some form of D&D goes, we have a list of at least 40 classes right now we could use and none of them are one likely to be used by WotC as they all include IP in them (and none of them are Echinodermaster )

If "XXXX Barbarian" or "Barbarian of the XXXX" does conflict with WotC's inevitable "Barbarian" then yes, I agree it becomes a gigantic issue at that point.

 

[phloog]

How? Which part did I miss that says they don't have to follow IP laws if you sign this agreement?

If you've created somthing new, I don't see anything in the license that says they can take it and use it themselves. I guess they could add it later...

That last part of your was my (perhaps mistaken) interpretation of the SRD and the GSL and the ability to change it. It seems like ANYTHING you do that they like they can adjust the agreement to own - at which point you can either agree and let them have it, or they can send you a letter kicking you off GSL, and by the way you can't use that (now GSL) bit of the goodness with any other system.

You come up with the Grand Tarquinator...they like it...can't they either A) add it to the SRD, or B) adjust the GSL to say that any IP created within the GSL is theirs - - again, I think you could disagree, but then you're likely out of the GSL.

I'm not a lawyer, and few here are...the problem is that now it's far more important that you have/are a lawyer if you want to support 4e and be safe.

 

[phloog]

As an aside, I would like to publicly announce that anyone may freely use Echinodermaster in their own works, and this agreement may not be changed or revoked.

I do, however, retain all rights to Echinodermagister and Coelenterapist (don't ask)

 

[BSF]

I think Clark's objection...

Well, no, I shouldn't speak for him. My objection is the notion that I can create a D&D-based book, but set in a campaign world that I created myself, and then lose the rights to do anything with that setting--even if I wanted to publish it outside of D&D, for a different system, as part of the OGL--if and when the GSL is pulled.

I have zero objection to WotC taking back their IP when they choose. But the fact that I published my IP in conjunction with theirs shouldn't prevent me from later doing something else with the portions that were always mine.

Well, here is a question - what if that is mostly their intent? Does WotC want third parties publishing anything that doesn't directly support their vision? Support products might be OK, but maybe they don't want third party IP muddying up the D&D waters.

 

[Jraynack]

heh
But surely you could produce a product that conforms to the GSL and release your contributions in that document as public domain? If I create a Fightar then it's a class not defined by Wizards (allowing me to define it) and if the flavour text, powers, etc. are all original, then it's entirely my property.

Actually, the only thing that is your property are the names, flavor text, etc. but not the rule mechanics - that is owned by WotC and they are letting you use those with the GSL/SRD royalty free.

For example, you make up the power "My Power Not Theirs." Here's how it looks:

My Power Not Theirs
Your Flavor Text
4th Edition Rules Mechanics
Target: 4th Edition Rules Mechanics
Attack: 4th Edition Rules Mechanics
Hit: 4th Edition Rules Mechanics
Special: 4th Edition Rules Mechanics

Now, you want to place your power into the Public Domain. This is what it looks like - even if you made up your own 4th Edition Rules Mechanics for the power (and I mean 100% original 4th Edition rules) and did not reference anything from the SRD:

My Power Not Theirs
Your Flavor Text
Target:
Attack:
Hit:
Special:

And their you have it - because the GSL only gives you the right to make additional 4th rules for their game and not the right to make up new rules for the game and then claim them as your own (even if you are the sole creator).

My understanding was that some of the 3e publishers did something similar - they'd release a product, and reference the SRD where necessary.

In the legalese at the front they had words to the effect of "Some of the text in this book is part of the SRD, owned by Wizards of the coast and freely available. The remainder is owned, copyrighted, trademarked, whatever to us. We will break your legs if you reproduce it."

They were referring to their product identity. It was no different in 3rd Edition. In 3rd Edition, we could have - and some publishers did keep a strong hold on their IP:

Spell Name
Flavor Text
3rd Edition Rules Mechanics (even if they are your own creation, 100% original content).
Spell Description and effects

Now, the product identity is as follows:

Spell Name
Flavor Text

Everything else is OGL and others must follow the rules to reproduce it (except WotC).

Now the big difference between 3rd and 4th for 3rd party publishers is now other 3rd party publishers cannot reproduce anything from your 4th Edition products (rule mechanics included) without express permission from you (oh, and if they also agree to the GSL and sent in their own conformation card to WotC). Except, again, for WotC - who can reproduce your 4th Edition rules without permission, but still needs your permission to reproduce IP (names, flavor text, artwork, etc.)

So, again - the short answer is no. I wish it was just that easy. It would make my job as a publisher in a 4th Edition world a little more promising.

Oh - here is a little more trivia - 3.x edition posted on websites (except WotC owned websites because they have a disclaimer saying anything posted about their products: new rules, classes, etc. is theirs - this goes for Gleemax too) was also up for grabs. But with 4th Edition (though the fan site GSL is not available yet), they are no longer up for grabs without express permission from the author of that post, blog, etc.

I know it might look like I am ranting, but I truly do not mind the new restrictions since it has no bearing on our company - but do sympathize for those in which it does.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I think Clark's objection...

Well, no, I shouldn't speak for him. My objection is the notion that I can create a D&D-based book, but set in a campaign world that I created myself, and then lose the rights to do anything with that setting--even if I wanted to publish it outside of D&D, for a different system, as part of the OGL--if and when the GSL is pulled.

I have zero objection to WotC taking back their IP when they choose. But the fact that I published my IP in conjunction with theirs shouldn't prevent me from later doing something else with the portions that were always mine.

This here is one of my biggest problems with the GSL.

The other biggie for me is the fact that WotC can add to the SRD at a later date and make you stop selling a product you released just days earlier.

Sure, they may not do this (and probably won't due to consumer backlash) but the fact that they have the ability to do so would scare me from a publisher perspective.

If you agree to and sign up to this GSL you are putting a lot of power in WotC's hands. If you sign up to the GSL then WotC can basically kill off your business if they choose to do so.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Knightfall]

It depends on whether the company is trying to publish the same material under both systems. If not, there would be no problem - but no real reason to do it, either.

I wouldn't say that. Green Ronin has designed the new Freeport line to be compatible with multiple game systems. They've done Freeport companion sourcebooks for True20, d20/3.5, and Savage Words, and they've wanted the ability to do one for 4e as well.

However, if they do so then they'd have to stop making the True20 and d20/3.5 versions. (Is Savage Worlds based on the OGL or something else? I don't know very much about it.) They wouldn't be able to sell those products any more.