4e D&D GSL Live

[jmucchiello]

Just an appeal to Scott Rouse (who I hope is reading this thread) to reconsider and add specific demons and devils to the SRD. Without this there's a lot of OGL products and settings that cannot be converted over to 4th edition.

I would be surprised to see any OGL to GSL conversions at all. That part of the license is an insane minefield.

 

[jmucchiello]

I'd be interested to hear the opinion of an IP lawyer to determine what a publisher could do on their own without the GSL under the guise of current IP laws as far as fair use.

Most anything. Avoid the D&D trademarks and you're pretty safe.

BUT. The problem is can you afford to go to court if WotC sues you. Court fees? Discovery? Lawyer fees? How about the time? Do you have the time to spend defending this? Being right and being able to prove you are right are two different things.

 

[resistor]

NOTE: I Am Not A Lawyer!

True, but a ruling for WoTC would set precedent that games CAN be copyrighted, and also I don't believe they will let the OGL be used to rip off all their property if they decide not to use it anymore (as well as completely change the game system so it has little resemblance to the older game).

Of course games can be copyrighted, but it only covers the text of the game books, not the underlying concepts. Here's a relevant quote, taken from this ruling:

[T]he idea/expression dichotomy ... denies copyright protection “to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in [a copyrighted] work.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).

The idea/expression dichotomy is central to US copyright and patent law. Copyright applies to the expression of an idea, not to the idea itself. A patent, by contrast, is defined as (taken from here :

a property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.

US precedent has been very clear on the fact that patents cover inventions (more on the "idea" end of the spectrum), while copyrights cover expressions (at the "expression" end).

So where would that leave OSRIC 4e? It should, in theory, be possible to create a ruleset that implements the same underlying rules, but does so without duplicating any of the actual expression of said rules from 4e. One would want to be very thorough about proofing it for "accidental" quoting. Reproducing tables (like the class power progression) would be difficult, of course. The simplest method might be to describe the underlying mathematical progressions textually, without quoting the tables.

An interesting possibility would be that an OSRIC4e SRD might describe the progression textually, and then works derivative from that could produce the progression tables as a parallel derivation to that in the 4e core books. US precedent does recognize the possibility of independent creation (and separate copyright holding) of identical works. See the quote below, from the same ruling as above:

“if by some magic a man who had never known it were to compose anew Keats’s Ode on a Grecian Urn, he would be an ‘author,’ and, if he copyrighted it, others might not copy that poem, though they might of course copy Keats.” Sheldon, 81 F.2d at 54

In theory, one could argue that tables in a work derived from an OSRIC4e were a parallel creation of the same work, and it would be supported by the fact that the work would be a direct derivative work of the OSRIC4e rules, which would share no derivativity (as far as copyright goes) with the 4e rules. This is, of course, speculative, and I wouldn't really recommend anyone try it. But I'd definitely be interested in reading the rulings that resulted.

-----

The other major consideration is patents. WotC does have a historical precedent of patenting game mechanics (on CCGs and CSGs), so it's not completely inconceivable that they could attempt to patent some critical element of 4e's mechanics, which would put a halt to anything like OSRIC4e.

The interesting question would be: what could they patent? The core mechanics (roll a d20 and add modifers to hit a target number) are obviously not new inventions. Even the "new" stuff with class powers was previously invented in Bo9S, and possibly other RPGs.

Then again, I have no plans to go make an OSRIC4e (woot for Pathfinder!), but logic games sure are fun.

 

[pemerton]

TimeOut, that was a good series of posts.

You can't change the rules of a Defined Term (falling is one), so you can't say "it doesn't exist anymore use xyz instead".

I'm not sure that this is true. Saying "When playing this game, disregard the rules for falling and instead use those for plummetting" is not defining, redefining or altering the definition of a 4E Reference.

You probably cannot say "When a character falls, disregard the rules for falling" - because the SRD states that "Differing forms of a 4E Reference, such as a plural form, are assumed to be part of that 4E Reference," and "falls" probably counts as a different form of "falling." So instead you'd have to say something like "If a character goes over the edge of a precipice, or Crashes, or does something similar, then disregard the rules for Falling and instead use those for Plumetting."

in that case you are allowed to post the new stat block, if you use the stat block template that is presented in the SRD.

You are not obliged to use the template: all the words that occur in it are 4E References, I think, and the GSL permits you to use them whether or not they occur in the template.

The templates are simply an additional permission, to allow Licensees to produce material that is visually compatible with 4E. Hence the advice in the SRD Usage Guide to "Use the stat block templates identified and included in the SRD as guidelines (not constraints) for producing your own original content requiring such formatting. Since your content will resemble like content in the Core Rulebooks, it will be more readily usable."

 

[Mercule]

I would be surprised to see any OGL to GSL conversions at all. That part of the license is an insane minefield.

Most of the license is an insane minefield. As someone who isn't a lawyer, but has studied some law, and supports (in a way) WotC's right to tighten their license, I found myself still saying "What is this crap?" while reading the license.

 

[Korgoth]

"It's a trap!"
[/Akbar]

 

[Darrin Drader]

I would be surprised to see any OGL to GSL conversions at all. That part of the license is an insane minefield.

And yet the license expressly covers conversions of 3.x products. So, either they didn't think this all the way through, or they did think it through and they expect publishers to completely overhaul all of their IP to conform with the new license. Or maybe they just wanted to take a wrecking ball to existing IP. Right now I'm glad I'm not a publisher.

 

[The Sigil]

I'm currently busy with many other things in my life, so it's not like I'm an active publisher at the moment (I don't think I've put anything new out in a couple of years). That said, if I *were* still actively publishing, it is likely that I would not touch the GSL with someone else's ten foot pole. The legal ramifications that have been discussed here are reason enough to give me pause.

But more importantly, I strongly believe in "Open Gaming" and "Open Source" and the like. The GSL is the antithesis of this movement. As a matter of principle, I would support the "Open" option.

 

[TimeOut]

Or they'll just change the name of the critter.

I think you would have to list the monster like "MyNewMonsterName is equal to the Bugbear Strangler (see the D&D 4E MONSTER MANUAL)" in that case.

TimeOut, that was a good series of posts.

Thanks

I'm not sure that this is true. Saying "When playing this game, disregard the rules for falling and instead use those for plummetting" is not defining, redefining or altering the definition of a 4E Reference.

You probably cannot say "When a character falls, disregard the rules for falling" - because the SRD states that "Differing forms of a 4E Reference, such as a plural form, are assumed to be part of that 4E Reference," and "falls" probably counts as a different form of "falling." So instead you'd have to say something like "If a character goes over the edge of a precipice, or Crashes, or does something similar, then disregard the rules for Falling and instead use those for Plumetting."

Well, according to the SRD, the whole chapter on "Falling" is a 4E Reference. I'm really unsure if your wording doesn't redefine the 4E Reference of "Falling". I think the same would apply if I wanted to dublicate effects of the Heal skill in another skill. You are adding something to the skill, but you are infringing on another skills usability and are changing it in that way.

But I think that this point isn't clearly worded in the SRD and GSL. :/

You are not obliged to use the template: all the words that occur in it are 4E References, I think, and the GSL permits you to use them whether or not they occur in the template.

Use the stat block templates identified and included in the SRD as guidelines (not constraints) for producing your own original content requiring such formatting.

I don't see a "you may" or "if you wish" here. I think it is mandatory to use the provided templates.

Edit: And it is early in the morning... Of course they are just guidelines not mandatory constraints, it even says so directly in front of my eyes. Gah.

 

[pemerton]

If you look at Section 6.3, the punishment for re-publishing something back under the OGL is having your GSL license terminated. So, in the case that your license was terminated for other reasons, they can't exactly re-terminate it to punish you.

But under various clauses you agree that WoTC are entitled to get an injunction against you, or specific performance, or other equitable remedies, to enforce your obligations under the licence. Termination is not the end point of remedies to WoTC for breach, it is the starting point.