4e D&D GSL Live

[2WS-Steve]

They actually did use OGC in MM2--my OGC in fact. In a hillarious twist of fate, they totally screwed up their section 15 designation and were in violation of their own license

Yah -- actually I think that's the second reason they don't use the OGL -- they're too worried about screwing it up again and some blackmail-prone publisher actually making them liquidate books!

 

[DaveMage]

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.

It's semantics too. You can look at the GSL as a contract that never ends once you sign it (potentially like an NDA perhaps - or one where trade secrets could be involved). So even though your license to use material under the contract ends, you're still bound by some of the terms.

 

[jmucchiello]

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.

And I hope those small companies are laughed out of court since you don't need the OGL to publish RPGs.

 

[Lizard]

Yah -- actually I think that's the second reason they don't use the OGL -- they're too worried about screwing it up again and some blackmail-prone publisher actually making them liquidate books!

Or making them sign over the rights to 1/2e to a company making a parody game...

 

[BadMojo]

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.

I don't know about that. The Dungeon Crawl Classics line has, over time, developed a pretty significant body of IP. Their "Gazetteer of the Known Realms" is chock full of IP that, I can only guess, Goodman doesn't want to throw in the toilet.

The earlier Dungeon Crawl Classics were a lot like you described, but wouldn't all the IP in the Gazetteer (same product line, DCC #35) run the risk of getting tied up with any Dungeon Crawl Class adventures released under the GSL?

Ugh, I can't believe I'd be this bummed out around Free RPG Day.

 

[pemerton]

I am surprised that "will survive termination" is even possible.

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

The contract is not terminated. The licence granted by WoTC to the other party is terminated. The other party's contractual obligation under clause 6 remains on foot.

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

That doesn't make it a consumer contract. Sole traders, or partnerships, are not consumers just because they're not corporations.

Let's say you did create an original setting, published as a GSL-licensed 4e product. Could you then extract your own original IP, devoid of all references to SRD-referenced mechanics, races, classes, monsters, powers, rituals, etc. -- leaving only things like country names and descriptions, NPC names and appearances and personality descriptions, original monsters, and the like -- and publish it in some other form, even as an RPG product using some other rules? Even if the GSL seems to forbid it, would WotC actually try to enforce it that way? Even if WotC tried, would they have a leg to stand on?

The only prohibition I have noticed in clause 6 is on publishing that content as part of an OGL-licensed product. Unless I've missed something else in my reading of the licence, a publisher does not contract to refrain from publishing its own IP in some other non-OGL-based form.

 

[pemerton]

Well, I guess you could always argue third party stuff is a teapot (I dont happen to feel that way but some do).

No, I think this is a huge issue. Basically, the only real way to release thrid party content now is either the OGL which is timeless or the GSL which is revocable.

<snip>

given that you have those two choices for distributing your content, if 4E native products also cannot ever be OGL products (like converted products) then essentially you are choosing by making a product in 4E to never be able to publish it again. I guess it is possible, but my guess is that the OGL is going to be the only way for you to ever publish D&D compatible game content in the future once the GSL is revoked and one day it will be revoked. So, no, this isnt a tempest in a tea pot. If 6.2 really means that I cant ever make an OGL version of a native 4E product (not a converted product), then that is a big problem in my mind.

I wasn't meaning to suggest that 3PPs per se are of no consequence. Just that it is unclear what remedies WoTC might actually have if a publisher were to breach clause 6.2. An injunction seems a little hard to imagine, and the measure of damages would be hard to prove and require WoTC to disclose financial information that they probably would rather not. Unless an account of profits is available for breach of contract under Washington law (which I do not know) it is hard for me to see exactlly how WoTC would enforce clause 6.2.

 

[see]

Just that it is unclear what remedies WoTC might actually have if a publisher were to breach clause 6.2.

Well, I've seen it suggested, if one is restricted by the GSL regarding a product, one arguably doesn't have "authority to contribute" under section 5 of the OGL. So if you published it under the OGL, you'd be in violation of the OGL, and the OGL would terminate for breach. If you used the 3.5 SRD for your work, at that point you'd possibly be in simple violation of Wizards copyright (for using the SRD without a valid copyright license). Which would suggest you'd now face remedies for copyright violation, which are generally more robust than a no-damages contract violation.

How well that holds together, well, is a matter for a lawyer to advise on. I have no idea.

 

[Greylock]

I don't know about that. The Dungeon Crawl Classics line has, over time, developed a pretty significant body of IP. Their "Gazetteer of the Known Realms" is chock full of IP that, I can only guess, Goodman doesn't want to throw in the toilet.

I've been wondering this same exact thing. I can't imagine why GG would just toss that material, or abandon the players not coming to 4th. All along GG has shown a willingness to publish the same adventures for more than one system.

 

[Elton Robb]

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

I believe that the GSL was formulated by people who just don't get D&D. Ryan Dancy did; in his own way. The whole idea behind D&D was to allow highly creative thinkers to enjoy a game where anything can happen. I highly believe that people who play D&D aren't really nerds, they are capable of solving problems.

The Spirit of D&D is creativity. The whole game sparks it and makes it grow. In the early years, this creativity made GURPS, Boot Hill, and many other games. Then the OGL happened and it was the best thing for D&D and everyone else.

This new GSL is worse than anything anyone could ever think of for the community. I think they shouldn't have put out the GSL at all, and just licensed 4e out to people who really want to produce stuff for 4e. They should have made D&D a "closed" system in my view because everyone now would stand to benefit if they did.

Several people who buy nothing but D&D will still buy D&D. But the Spirit of D&D would still be preserved. In my humble opinion, the new GSL should not be a free license, because it doesn't read like a free community license. It should cost an investment for the company to produce 3rd party product.