Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mxyzplk" data-source="post: 4201562" data-attributes="member: 16450">So the Q&amp;A results is &quot;better than feared, worse than it could have been.&quot;&nbsp; It's still Wizards turning their back on open gaming, just now they're going to be less hostile towards other companies still pursuing it.The remaining issues:1.&nbsp; They're not releasing the actual GSL until June 6, so there's a lot of &quot;take our word for it&quot; going on; also the definitions of &quot;product line&quot;, &quot;fantasy&quot;, etc.&nbsp; 2.&nbsp; The &quot;non-fantasy&quot; GSL that is supposed to cover other genres (modern, supers, scifi, etc.) won't be coming out even then.&nbsp; And the definition of &quot;fantasy&quot; vs &quot;other&quot; is going to be a difficult point. 3.&nbsp; How &quot;product line&quot; is defined is hazy. When looking at Wizards vs. Paizo, it's hard to believe they will really allow them to publish any 4e material while still publishing Pathfinder. Will they say that &quot;your fantasy products&quot; is the definition of a product line?&nbsp; Does &quot;product line&quot; have a legal definition?&nbsp; &quot;What RPG publishers generally consider it o be&quot; and what a judge would think are two entirely different things.4.&nbsp; It's still of questionable legality, of course.&nbsp; All legal precedent indicates that someone is legally able to produce D&amp;D supplements and say &quot;For use with Dungeons &amp; Dragons&quot; on them without entering into any agreement with WotC at all (cf. Hasbro vs. RADGames re: Monopoly, <a href="http://boardgames.about.com/b/2005/12/03/radgames-selling-monopoly-add-on.htm);" target="_blank">http://boardgames.about.com/b/2005/12/03/radgames-selling-monopoly-add-on.htm);</a> and entering into this agreement (though it gets you the ability to use their D&amp;D compatibility logo) gives up those rights and gets you &quot;on the hook&quot; with them.&nbsp; Remember, back in the day when TSR sued Mayfair for putting out D&amp;D supplements, they didn't get them on any IP points - they got them on violation of a specific license they had signed with WotC.&nbsp;&nbsp; <a href="http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_mayfair.html" target="_blank">http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_mayfair.html</a>5.&nbsp; It's a huge step back from open licensing.&nbsp; WotC's up front about this at least, this license and the ones to come are all proprietary change/revoke at will licenses.&nbsp; If they decide they don't like you personally or want to change the terms, then you're screwed.&nbsp; People truly looking at open gaming should move to Creative Commons or other open licenses.&nbsp; But at least they are only killing open gaming for themselves and not trying to kill it for everyone else, which is &quot;within their rights&quot;...&nbsp; Sad and stupid, but that's big business for you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mxyzplk, post: 4201562, member: 16450"] So the Q&A results is "better than feared, worse than it could have been." It's still Wizards turning their back on open gaming, just now they're going to be less hostile towards other companies still pursuing it. The remaining issues: 1. They're not releasing the actual GSL until June 6, so there's a lot of "take our word for it" going on; also the definitions of "product line", "fantasy", etc. 2. The "non-fantasy" GSL that is supposed to cover other genres (modern, supers, scifi, etc.) won't be coming out even then. And the definition of "fantasy" vs "other" is going to be a difficult point. 3. How "product line" is defined is hazy. When looking at Wizards vs. Paizo, it's hard to believe they will really allow them to publish any 4e material while still publishing Pathfinder. Will they say that "your fantasy products" is the definition of a product line? Does "product line" have a legal definition? "What RPG publishers generally consider it o be" and what a judge would think are two entirely different things. 4. It's still of questionable legality, of course. All legal precedent indicates that someone is legally able to produce D&D supplements and say "For use with Dungeons & Dragons" on them without entering into any agreement with WotC at all (cf. Hasbro vs. RADGames re: Monopoly, [url]http://boardgames.about.com/b/2005/12/03/radgames-selling-monopoly-add-on.htm);[/url] and entering into this agreement (though it gets you the ability to use their D&D compatibility logo) gives up those rights and gets you "on the hook" with them. Remember, back in the day when TSR sued Mayfair for putting out D&D supplements, they didn't get them on any IP points - they got them on violation of a specific license they had signed with WotC. [url]http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/copyright/cases/tsr_vs_mayfair.html[/url] 5. It's a huge step back from open licensing. WotC's up front about this at least, this license and the ones to come are all proprietary change/revoke at will licenses. If they decide they don't like you personally or want to change the terms, then you're screwed. People truly looking at open gaming should move to Creative Commons or other open licenses. But at least they are only killing open gaming for themselves and not trying to kill it for everyone else, which is "within their rights"... Sad and stupid, but that's big business for you. [/QUOTE]

Verification