4e D&D GSL Live

DiasExMachina

Villager
DaveMage said:
I have a hunch that the only way you are going to get help is via an official FAQ (that's vetted by WotC legal) or through use of your own legal counsel.
My own? :)

I have faith ENWorld will have answers soon enough...
 

jmucchiello

Adventurer
Lizard said:
No specific demons or devils are listed; is this intentional? So no one can include a pit fiend or a succubus in an adventure?
More annoying is that the paragon paths and epic destinies are missing. So you can't include an NPC over 10th level without giving it a PP/ED of your own devising.
 

jmucchiello

Adventurer
Lizard said:
I can find nothing in the GSL which specifically limits GSL products to "fantasy". Would I be in violation if I created a "Gunslinger" class and added gunpowder weapons?
Yeah, I fail to see what stops you from creating alien races and futuristic weapons either.
 

jgbrowning

Community Supporter
jmucchiello said:
Yeah, I fail to see what stops you from creating alien races and futuristic weapons either.
Clause 11.1: Immediate termination of the license would be my guess.

joe b.
 

DanMcS

Explorer
jmucchiello said:
More annoying is that the paragon paths and epic destinies are missing. So you can't include an NPC over 10th level without giving it a PP/ED of your own devising.
That seems like an oversight, because the thing seems intended to allow you to create NPCs.
 
Last edited:

Nellisir

Adventurer
SandS_James said:
Regarding Section 6.1 OGL Conversion.

Here's my example situation: I've licensed Sword & Sorcery and products released for 3.X edition under the Sword & Sorcery banner by White Wolf. I'm going to release 4E versions of Creature Collection, Relics & Rituals and the Scarred Lands Campaign Setting through my company, Fiery Dragon Productions.

So... does White Wolf have to kill all of their 3.X Sword & Sorcery releases... or do they not fall under section 6.1 because they are not the licensee for the GSL in this case?
I'm not WotC, and I only skimmed the license, but I believe it says if you enter into an agreement to update OGL content to 4e, you are considered the licensee for said content - which is a long way of saying, yes, WW would have to kill their pdf sales. That (white wolf's pdf) content would be considered your content, and you can't have the same content be both OGL and GSL simultaneously.
 

DanMcS

Explorer
DiasExMachina said:
I am not one for legalese but does this mean they are prohibiting you from modifying any named class in the SRD (like Cleric) or race (like elf). Meaning you have to use their elf and could not make your own.
You apparently could not call your new elf race an "elf", since that would mean you were redefining an elf. You probably shouldn't, even if you could, you'd just confuse people trying to use your product, who'd see "race: elf" and wonder where these weird racial abilities came from. You could call it a "myworld elf" and go hog-wild.

This seems to indicate you could. If the first passage is to be taken as gospel, I must follow it with another questions: Can you simply delete? Can you create a setting where you say, "No Clerics" or must the entire SRD apply? I hope someone can help us with this.
Saying there are no clerics in your setting, or anything with a divine power source, for that matter, isn't "redefining" anything. Doesn't seem like that would be a problem.
 

Henry

Autoexreginated
JohnRTroy said:
Actually, the no viral content has a benefit now. It encourages publishers to create stuff and not worry about people ripping their products for free.
I have to ask -- were there a lot of publishers who really worried about that? I'm not a publisher, so I guess worrying about my new snazzy game mechanic getting parroted across the entire gaming community I would consider a plus, not a minus. I don't see why I'd be worried about product identity, because the publisher controls how much of his material is open content through the PI description, anyway. In fact, I consider it one of the two big keystones of the OGL archway.

But the real question -- was this something a lot of publishers spoke about negatively?
 

jmucchiello

Adventurer
jgbrowning said:
Clause 11.1: Immediate termination of the license would be my guess.
But they could also do that if you book includes words like "the" so I somehow expected the "fantasy"-ness of this license to be spelled out.
 

DanMcS

Explorer
Henry said:
I have to ask -- were there a lot of publishers who really worried about that? I'm not a publisher, so I guess worrying about my new snazzy game mechanic getting parroted across the entire gaming community I would consider a plus, not a minus. I don't see why I'd be worried about product identity, because the publisher controls how much of his material is open content through the PI description, anyway. In fact, I consider it one of the two big keystones of the OGL archway.

But the real question -- was this something a lot of publishers spoke about negatively?
Phil Reed posted on this board about this, that since he was an electronic publisher, this worried him a good bit, that people ripping and republishing his open content for free would totally replace his products and drive him straight out of business.

And Wulf, I seem to remember you once posting against people creating a "SRD" of your products, because you considered yourself a rules guy, and so basically your whole products were open content rules.
 

see

Villager
Anybody see any PHB II content in the SRD? Remember, that was the reason given us last week as to why they missed the "early next week" deadline.
 

Wulf Ratbane

Villager
DanMcS said:
And Wulf, I seem to remember you once posting against people creating a "SRD" of your products, because you considered yourself a rules guy, and so basically your whole products were open content rules.
I've never agitated for a more restrictive license, but I have certainly advocated responsible use of the permissions it grants.
 

DiasExMachina

Villager
DanMcS said:
You apparently could not call your new elf race an "elf", since that would mean you were redefining an elf. You probably shouldn't, even if you could, you'd just confuse people trying to use your product, who'd see "race: elf" and wonder where these weird racial abilities came from. You could call it a "myworld elf" and go hog-wild.
Saying there are no clerics in your setting, or anything with a divine power source, for that matter, isn't "redefining" anything. Doesn't seem like that would be a problem.
Yes, but could you create a new Cleric based on your settings fluff?
 

Shroomy

Adventurer
DiasExMachina said:
Yes, but could you create a new Cleric based on your settings fluff?
Sure, but don't call it a cleric, or favored soul, or anything you think will be remotely used by WoTC in a future product. In fact, try to link as much of you can to proper nouns out of your own IP.
 

webrunner

Villager
My concern is that:
1) the is SRD not usable as a reference
AND
2) it forbids creating a reference using the SRD (since you can only put in references to the books)
AND
3) Apparenty the compendium will also not include actual content but references to content

that a searchable, web-formatted reference tool for, say, powers, is never going to legally happen.
 

Shroomy

Adventurer
webrunner said:
My concern is that:
1) the is SRD not usable as a reference
AND
2) it forbids creating a reference using the SRD (since you can only put in references to the books)
AND
3) Apparenty the compendium will also not include actual content but references to content

that a searchable, web-formatted reference tool for, say, powers, is never going to legally happen.
Nope, not outside the DDI. At least, not legally.
 

DanMcS

Explorer
DiasExMachina said:
Yes, but could you create a new Cleric based on your settings fluff?
The parallel between "elf" and "cleric" in these examples should be pretty clear. No, you can't create a new cleric class, you'd be redefining a term from the SRD.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top