4e D&D GSL Live

[IanB]

When does ENWorld get a cease & desist notice? <-- Ok, that's a bit too sarcastic, but still - the way I read this no one can sell PDF's because you sorta have to have a website in order to sell a PDF don't ya think?

Websites will be covered under the not-yet-released fansite policy, per the FAQ.

 

[Lizard]

I am very disappointed that there is no viral content.

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?

Section three says:
"Licensed Products. The license granted in Section 4 is for use solely in connection with Licensee’s publication, distribution, and sale of roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that contain the Licensed Materials and are published in a hardcover or soft-cover printed book format or in a single-download electronic book format (such as .pdf), and accessory products to the foregoing roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that are not otherwise listed as excluded in Section 5.5 (“Licensed Products”)."

Section 5.5 says:
"5.5 Licensed Products. This License applies solely to Licensed Products as defined in Section 3 and to the specified uses set forth in Section 4. For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example only, no Licensed Product will (a) include web sites, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators; (b) describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character; (c) use the terms “Core Rules” or “Core Rulebook” or variations thereof on its cover or title, in self-reference or in advertising or marketing thereof; (d) refer to any artwork, imagery or other depiction contained in a Core Rulebook; (e) reprint any material contained in a Core Rulebook except as explicitly provided in Section 4; or (f) be incorporated into another product that is"

Nothing here seems to rule out modern, superhero, horror, or science fiction games, provided one is willing to make all new classes and races, create new feats, etc.

Can you ignore aspects of the templates -- for example, create a race which gains a bonus to no, or to 3, ability scores?

No specific demons or devils are listed; is this intentional? So no one can include a pit fiend or a succubus in an adventure?

 

[DanMcS]

When does ENWorld get a cease & desist notice? <-- Ok, that's a bit too sarcastic, but still - the way I read this no one can sell PDF's because you sorta have to have a website in order to sell a PDF don't ya think?

ENWorld is not a licensee of Wizards (that I'm aware of). You don't NEED to license the game to discuss it.

That clause says that you CAN'T produce a GSL-licensed website. Not that you can't mention the game online without being a licensee.

People had this same misconception about the OGL- that online discussion of it needed to obey the license. How do you think people discuss games that aren't available for license at all?

You can sell PDFs, which are themselves licensed products, but your website which sells them isn't one.

 

[Lizard]

ENWorld is not a licensee of Wizards (that I'm aware of). You don't NEED to license the game to discuss it.
.

However, how are things like the Druid class (currently on the front page) treated?

 

[Michael Morris]

Websites will be covered under the not-yet-released fansite policy, per the FAQ.

Little to no consolation there. I'm dead certain the fansite policy will prohibit any site that has any commercial component. Once sites hit a certain size though they must either charge a fee or die under the weight of their own bandwidth.

 

[Alzrius]

I am very disappointed that there is no viral content.

This worries me too. Looking through the GSL, I don't see any mechanism by which original content, created by a Licensee, can be reused by someone else writing a GSL product.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

My concern deals with this passage:

To remain in compliance with the GSL, you may not
reproduce any running text, statistics block, or table from
the Core Rulebooks, nor may you define, redefine, or alter
the definition of any 4E Reference. Nothing in these
guidelines should be taken as contrary to these GSL
requirements.

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. Later there is this passage:

While you may not reproduce running text and tables from
the Core Rulebooks, you may create original material that
reflects the influence of rules and guidelines in the Core
Rulebooks.
For instance, you may create powers that resemble
those in D&D 4E Player’s Handbook.

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.

 

[Shroomy]

This worries me too. Looking through the GSL, I don't see any mechanism by which original content, created by a Licensee, can be reused by someone else writing a GSL product.

Its in section 10.2. You have to make separate arrangements with the 3rd Party IP holders.

 

[DaveMage]

I hope someone can help us with this.

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.

 

[JohnRTroy]

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 know a lot of people would defend that by saying "they knew about that when they agreed to the OGL license", but that was the only license available.

Then again, those that miss the "viral nature" might be able to encourage people to use their products by allowing others to reference their game products--I assume the other third party would have to agree to the GSL terms, but sharing the created content among companies seems possible with this license.

Now, let the publishers choose, don't force one way on them.

ETA--Yes, Section 10.2. Missed that. Good for WoTC.