4e D&D GSL Live

[phloog]

First off, I'm not of the camp that thinks the GSL is insane...just shrewd and frightening.

Next, I also don't completely agree with the idea that the only thing that will come out is substandard stuff that publishers don't care about....but it's definitely a possibility, and seems to be really a knife in the back of not just the large 3pp, but the small startups.

You've been running a campaign in your own world, with your own backstory, major players, classes, spells, etc. It's been playtested and revised as your own group's campaign, to the point that it works well, is balanced, and awesomely fun.

Under the OGL, you can publish this thing, and 'give' (for a fee) it to the world to experience, and potentially make money. All your work might pay off.

Under the GSL, you now have to ask yourself some questions:

- Despite my high opinion of some employees at Hasbro, am I certain they won't decide to exercise their contractual ability to *yoink* my stuff?

- If the first answer is yes, am I certain that those employees have contracts guaranteeing them jobs forever, and no one will come in later who will want to exercise their contractual *yoink* potential?

- Am I certain that I can make all the money I feel I should under the GSL before they introduce 5E or (in my mind equally likely) before they pull the GSL rug out from under me because 3p stuff is selling too well?

To me the thing that will drive the premature dumping of the GSL is not that one little publisher has something so sweet that they damage sales, but that it turns out that the GSL was not enough to stop the 3pps from AS A GROUP selling enough to constitute a share of the market that Hasbro thinks is too large. I am of the opinion that if multiple 3pp are successful using the GSL, that will actually make it more likely that the revise/revoke it.

I still believe most PEOPLE are ethical - companies are driven by too many external variables to have their own personalities (particularly publicly held companies)...so whatever credit we give the individuals for their ethics, a larger entity does only what drives shareholder value.

 

[Klaus]

Because he agreed.

But how can a clause remain in effect if the contract it is a part of is revoked?

I (obviously) don't know much about US Law, but Consumer Defense down here would slap that clause down in no time. No OGLing while GSLing, okay. Once out of the GSL, you'd be no longer bound by its restraints.

And how about this: GamerCompany signs the GSL and releases products. After these don't pan out, they license/sell the original OGL products to CompanyGamer, who never signed the GSL in the first place. Could CompanyGamer bring back the OGL-version of the products?

 

[DaveMage]

I didn't even know it was possible to have clauses in a contract that apply after the contract is terminated...

I see them many times in my line of work for transition periods - meaning the time a contract ends with one vendor until it begins with a second vendor, or if there is a period after a contract ends when "clean up" is required. For example, when we change banks, there is generally a 6-month window where there is still money on deposit with the old bank while checks clear, even though we will now primarily do business with the new bank. We still want certain terms and conditions to apply for the purposes of fees, etc. rather than use a bank's "standard" terms, which can be much more expensive.

 

[Lizard]

I was. I think I'm not the only one.
I didn't even know it was possible to have clauses in a contract that apply after the contract is terminated...

Many employment contracts include "non compete" clauses that extend after the employee has left the company. Granted, these tend to be time limited, not infinite -- one year, two years, etc. The GSL has no limit. Thirty years from now, you still can't release an OGL version of a GSL product.

 

[Yair]

I see them many times in my line of work for transition periods - meaning the time a contract ends with one vendor until it begins with a second vendor, or if there is a period after a contract ends when "clean up" is required. For example, when we change banks, there is generally a 6-month window where there is still money on deposit with the old bank while checks clear, even though we will now primarily do business with the new bank. We still want certain terms and conditions to apply for the purposes of fees, etc. rather than use a bank's "standard" terms, which can be much more expensive.

Many employment contracts include "non compete" clauses that extend after the employee has left the company. Granted, these tend to be time limited, not infinite -- one year, two years, etc. The GSL has no limit. Thirty years from now, you still can't release an OGL version of a GSL product.

Aren't such clauses formally part of the process of terminating the contract? So that both sides are still are under the contract throughout the period in question? (And both sides have to benefit for a contract to be valid, so some compensation would be required?)

Regardless, yeah - a limited time I can accept, even though I didn't saw that one coming either. An unlimited time.... that's harder to accept.

 

[Urza]

Bottom line: the guy laughing all the way to the bank is Joe Goodman. Individual, stand alone, non-setting specific adventures without a ton of individually valuable IP (such as a setting book would have) are CLEARLY the best type of product under the GSL.

Which is exactly what they want when you consider they couldn't sell adventures to anyone during 3.0, canceled their adventure line just before 3.5, and by the displeasure of the late 3.5 adventures and H1.. I would speculate will continue to have difficultly selling under 4e.

 

[pedr]

Note that some people are discussing consumer contract protection and referencing legal principles which restrict the terms which a consumer can agree with a supplier of goods or services, usually in an attempt to enforce some standard of 'fairness'.

The GSL is not a consumer contract. It is a contract between two businesses of some sort or another, as even a sole trader producing Licensed Product is doing so in the course of some kind of business, even if unincorporated. No-one is entering into this contract as a consumer of goods or services produced by WotC. This means that many of these legal principles which restrict terms in consumer contracts and give courts the right to interfere with the plain words of the agreement will not apply to consideration of the terms of the GSL.

I'm not saying that all terms of the GSL are enforceable - whether in Washington state or elsewhere in the US or world - but that questioning the 'fairness' is probably not going to help much, legally - while many jurisdictions now prevent consumers entering into unfair contracts, not many restrict freedom of contract generally so that no-one can enter into an unfair contract.

 

[Klaus]

Note that some people are discussing consumer contract protection and referencing legal principles which restrict the terms which a consumer can agree with a supplier of goods or services, usually in an attempt to enforce some standard of 'fairness'.

The GSL is not a consumer contract. It is a contract between two businesses of some sort or another, as even a sole trader producing Licensed Product is doing so in the course of some kind of business, even if unincorporated. No-one is entering into this contract as a consumer of goods or services produced by WotC. This means that many of these legal principles which restrict terms in consumer contracts and give courts the right to interfere with the plain words of the agreement will not apply to consideration of the terms of the GSL.

I'm not saying that all terms of the GSL are enforceable - whether in Washington state or elsewhere in the US or world - but that questioning the 'fairness' is probably not going to help much, legally - while many jurisdictions now prevent consumers entering into unfair contracts, not many restrict freedom of contract generally so that no-one can enter into an unfair contract.

Note that you can sign up with the license as an individual, not a company.

 

[PatrickLawinger]

Many employment contracts include "non compete" clauses that extend after the employee has left the company. Granted, these tend to be time limited, not infinite -- one year, two years, etc. The GSL has no limit. Thirty years from now, you still can't release an OGL version of a GSL product.

In some states "non-compete" clauses are difficult to enforce unless an employee is hired directly by a major competitor. Now, it might still require a lawyer and some litigation, but, I know one particular individual that had a non-compete clause tossed (here in Texas) by the judge before anything went to trial. His attorney argued that the company laid him off and that he had a constitutional right to earn a living at the type of job he does best (and is paid best for), the judge agreed. He then sued his former employer for the legal fees he incurred, and won.

Now that was a very specific case where a company laid someone off and then got mad when he got a job with a competitor and compounded their own stupidity. It doesn't really apply here, however, if WotC pulled the GSL I am sure that certain small US companies and individuals could argue that they should be allowed to republish material under the OGL because otherwise WotC is trying to prevent them from earning a living.

That, like a lot of other arguments presented in this thread and others on various message boards, would require significant legal expenses. I can't imagine anyone wanting to fight that battle.

 

[HyrumOWC]

Individual, stand alone, non-setting specific adventures without a ton of individually valuable IP (such as a setting book would have) are CLEARLY the best type of product under the GSL.

You're dead on with this one Clark. If/when we do anything under the GSL it will be along these lines.

Hyrum.