4e D&D GSL Live

[xechnao]

So, would renaming things be a practical solution to anything?

You could license your material to other 3pp and it is OGL all over again by Wotc legal permission.
If what you said is truly correct which I am not sure it is.

That is I am not sure you can say "there are no clerics".

 

[GSHamster]

Summation of the GSL:

WotC: Less variant games based on D&D, more supplements for D&D.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Summation of the GSL:

WotC: Less variant games based on D&D, more supplements for D&D.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

I'll bet you serious money the GSL means fewer supplements for the game that WOTC are now calling D&D. (In a poll on this page, 43.26% of ENWorld respondents thought 4e wasn't really D&D any more.)

 

[Fifth Element]

(In a poll on this page, 43.26% of ENWorld respondents thought 4e wasn't really D&D any more.)

A poll to which, what, about 600 self-selected people responded?

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

A poll to which, what, about 600 self-selected people responded?

Yup. Or fewer, some of whom may have found ways to vote several times. It's hardly a scientific sample, I agree.

 

[LeaderDesslok]

To use another metaphor (ugh), they may not be able to stop the fire from starting, but they can prevent it from spreading.

But it's WOTC starting the fire?

Guess I shouldn't use metaphors. I meant that WotC can't stop a 3pp from producing specific content that Wizards will later produce using the same name but differently defined, but it can prevent that 3pp and other 3pps from ever using the original 3pp content in the future.

(As a side note, it's amazing how fast these threads grow if you leave for work!)

IF I was WOTC management and IF I was secretly infuriated by the OGL, I would not even mess with the GSL. I would contact a half-dozen reputatl third parties and offer them exclusive licences and invite other interested publishers apply for one-off licences as well. That would lead to a system that is closed while at the same time lookin accessible to third parties.

I think WOTC sincerely wants to see third parties experiment with 4e, just not in a way that jeopradizes core book sales.

I agree in principle. I am just unclear how they will deal with additions to the SRD in the future that may supercede pre-existing content with the same name from 3pps.

 

[skinnydwarf]

Well, now that I've read the entire thing word for word, one part of the GSL kinda jumped out at me, especially after Wizards expressly forbids us stealing their intelectual property.

18. Independent Development. Nothing in this License will impair Wizards’ right to acquire, license, develop, have others develop for it, market and/or distribute materials or products that contain concepts, storylines, or other content similar to, or otherwise compete with, Licensed Products.

Legalese to english translation:
Wizards may take your intelectual property you wrote using this liscence and use it themselves in part or in whole if they wish.

I mean, I still want to publish D&D material, but come on, if I write an epic adventure (Which I did) Wizards is stating that it can take the whole storyline I wrote and make their own exact copy if they want, and I can't do anything about it?

No. At least, I don't think so. The important phrase in the quoted language is "*independent* development", ie they created it on their own. As far as I can tell, WoTC is covering their behinds so if they make something similar to you, you can't turn around and claim they stole your idea.

In any event, they can steal your ideas, license or no license. In terms of copyright protection, ideas are not protected.* Only expression of a particular idea is protected. To take a simple example, a particular picture of a demon (say the picture on the cover of Fiendish Codex I) is expression. The idea of a demon is not, and the very idea of a demon can't be copyrighted.

I suspect this is why Reaper can make the Bathalian miniature which looks a whole heck of a lot like a Mind Flayer (which isn't open, right?) and not expect a letter from WoTC's lawyers. Reaper's expression of the idea of a Tentacle headed monster is different enough from WoTC's images to be protected.

The distinction between ideas (not protected) and expression (protected) is somewhat vague, but certain things are known. General ideas - the idea of a play about star-crossed lovers, are not protected. Specific expression- eg, the exact text of Romeo and Juliet would be protected (if Shakespeare were still alive and his work were not in the public domain). Essentially, the closer you get to copying specific expression, the more likely you are violating someone's copyright.

Regarding your example of WoTC making an exact copy of your adventure, you would likely have a case of copyright infringement against them. They copied your expression, not just your ideas. However, they might take the same general story (even consciously copy it), and so long as their expression is not too similar to yours, they would not violate their copyright. Now, if they took the same characters, had a similar town, had really similar pictures, similar encounters in the same order, that would get closer to being the same expression.

Think about all the really similar stories you have read over the years, or similar TV shows. They have really similar storylines, yes? In other words, they have similar ideas. But the expression of those ideas are different, so there is no copyright problem.

Disclaimer: I am almost a lawyer, (if I get off ENWorld and study for the bar) but this is not legal advice.

* I know, I may be using "idea" in a more technical way than others.

 

[LeaderDesslok]

Excellent explanation, skinnydwarf.

 

[Voadam]

Summation of the GSL:

WotC: Less variant games based on D&D, more supplements for D&D.

I doubt that.

The revocable nature of the license, the pulping of licensed products upon termination, and the permanent 1 way product line conversion for OGL stuff means this is a less attractive license IMO for publishing D&D supplements than the OGL was.

4e has already lagged behind the number of D&D support books that came out day 1 of 3e. We'll see how they do on Oct. 1.

 

[GSHamster]

I doubt that.

The revocable nature of the license, the pulping of licensed products upon termination, and the permanent 1 way product line conversion for OGL stuff means this is a less attractive license IMO for publishing D&D supplements than the OGL was.

4e has already lagged behind the number of D&D support books that came out day 1 of 3e. We'll see how they do on Oct. 1.

Hmm. I meant it differently than people are taking it. It was more along the lines of what WotC is trying to encourage people to do.

To me, this GSL is essentially WotC saying to the 3PP, "Guys, stop making variant games based on D&D, and make more supplements that all D&D players can use."

I loved a lot of the stuff that was created under the OGL. But near the end, variant rulesets started to limit the interoperability of a lot of stuff. People started making supplements not for the default version of D&D, but for their own specific variant of D&D.

The additive nature of the new GSL means that everything that is made, is made on top of the basic ruleset, and thus can be used with the basic ruleset. If you have a variant system created by removing or redefining basic elements, stuff created for that variant system has a harder and harder time being used with other systems that didn't make the same removals and redefinitions.

The GSL allows you to use the Dungeons & Dragons logo, and the restrictions of the GSL are clearly intended to make sure that whatever you make is compatible with Dungeons & Dragons. The GSL is not the new version of the OGL. The OGL is dead and gone. The GSL is a stronger version of the d20 license.