4e D&D GSL Live

[Orcus]

Exactly. I'd love to see them respond to my discovery request for them to produce all financial records in that law suit. LOL. [shakes head]

They are seriously trying to stop a problem that probably will only exist on the margin of cases at best, and in trying to address that marginal issue they are scaring off or pissing off those who would likely adopt the licsese. Poor planning. But thats what happens when the lawyers get involved. I can say that, since I am one.

 

[pemerton]

They are seriously trying to stop a problem that probably will only exist on the margin of cases at best, and in trying to address that marginal issue they are scaring off or pissing off those who would likely adopt the licsese. Poor planning. But thats what happens when the lawyers get involved. I can say that, since I am one.

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but given your sceptical tone about the availability of remedies for a breach of the backwards conversion clause, does that mean you think that it is a bit of a storm in a teacup (from the point of view of liability, as opposed to WoTC marketing)?

 

[Keith Robinson]

As soon as I heard that there would be no backward compatibilty with the OGL I decided that The Kyngdoms wouldn't be shifting to 4ed and neither would I. That coupled with the termination clause has confirmed my worst fears.

Of course, what I do is neither here or there to anyone else, but what should be a major concern to everyone else in the industry is that by embracing the GSL they are losing control over the future of their own product lines. Should a new edition be released at some point in the future, it is highly likely that products released under the GSL will be terminated, meaning they will have to be withdrawn - and since you can't go back to the OGL, you're left whistling in the wind in the unlikely hope that a new license will allow future compatibility. Once you've attached yourself to this horse, it looks like you're on for the duration.

Imagine how many great products and lines we'd now be losing to the termination clause if it had been written into the OGL?

Sad days.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Of course, what I do is neither here or there to anyone else, but what should be a major concern to everyone else in the industry is that by embracing the GSL they are losing control over the future of their own product lines. Should a new edition be released at some point in the future, it is highly likely that products released under the GSL will be terminated, meaning they will have to be withdrawn - and since you can't go back to the OGL, you're left whistling in the wind in the unlikely hope that a new license will allow future compatibility. Once you've attached yourself to this horse, it looks like you're on for the duration.

I've been saying that since details of the GSL started coming out. If I were a publisher, the only thing I would put out for 4E would be adventures. Anything else and you risk the rug getting yanked out from under you.

edit: granted, the rug can still get yanked out with adventures, but they rarely involve lasting IP that you would want to reuse.

 

[Lizard]

Clause 11.1: Immediate termination of the license would be my guess.

joe b.

On what grounds?

Nothing IN the license hints at "fantasy only". To claim that a licensee must be aware of comments made on web forums which did not, in fact, end up as license text strikes me as legally dubious.

There's a lot of legalese in there. Can anyone show me what in the GSL/SRD combines to form a "fantasy only" license? 'Cause I ain't seein' it, and WOTC saying "We want this for fantasy only" *outside* the license doesn't make it legally binding. Only what's in the license counts -- and for it to stand up in court, there needs to be a definition of fantasy beyond "We know it when we see it".

 

[Lizard]

I'm not sure that there was actually anyone mainstream that had any reasonable belief they would be able to make computer products for 4E.

That was a no brainer in my mind.

To my mind, the question is -- would WOTC be dumb enough to try to shut down people making things liks PCGen for 4e as non-profit, not-for-sale products?

Manu shc products for 3x (not PCgen in particular, but others) either skirted the bounds of the OGL or danced merrily across them. WOTC ignored them, recognizing the cost in goodwill of shutting down non-commercial enterprises that didn't directly compete with their products was too high. But now (well, a few months from now....) there's DDI and Gleemax and suddenly Happy Bob's Cool Character Spreadsheet becomes, if not an actual threat to profits, at least something which is the teensiest tiniest bit competitive..,.and that can make companies do stupid things.

 

[Pinotage]

Update an old OGL product, you cant keep selling the old OGL version (though you can sell off stock that is already printed).

What is more troubling is coupling this with 6.2, which says "though shalt not make an OGL version of a product you make under the GSL" and that provision apparently survives the termination of the GSL as well. That mean whatever you make for 4E can never be OGL--if you update it from OGL to 4E you are out of luck, and if you make it for 4E originally you cant go back and make an OGL version of it later even after the GSL is terminated.

Clark

It doens't look like there's anything stopping one from going with the 4e GSL, and then getting another company (owned by you or even license your material to) that doesn't use the GSL to convert your GSL content to OGL. Or am I reading things wrong?

Pinotage

 

[jmucchiello]

It doens't look like there's anything stopping one from going with the 4e GSL, and then getting another company (owned by you or even license your material to) that doesn't use the GSL to convert your GSL content to OGL. Or am I reading things wrong?

Pinotage

As Joe b said, clause 11.1 where they can terminate the GSL by mailing you a letter.

On what grounds?

Clause 11.1 does not require grounds, just someone with WotC letterhead and a postage stamp.

 

[AZRogue]

Reading the license, which is really a pretty insulting document, I was wondering why they even bothered making a GSL since they made sure in a lot of ways that no one far enough on the evolutionary scale to stand upright would ever use it. Why just not have a license and save the lawyer fees?

 

[philreed]

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.

I'm still of the opinion that the GSL should have stuck with the $5,000 buy-in, only with the change that the buy-in would be a permanent requirement to accessing and using the license.

And yes, I still think the OGL -- as it was released and as it has been used -- is potentially damaging to PDF publishers.