Company Mitosis, GSL and OGL

[Particle_Man]

Could a company create a new legal entity, a separate company in every legal way (but with the same people in similar jobs), that signs on to the GSL, while the original company keeps going with the OGL? I am assuming there would be no "crossing the lines" so that you would not get "Splurge OGL" and "Splurge GSL" but rather "Splurge OGL" and then "Rumtug GSL".

I am not a lawyer so I don't know if this is at all feasible. Would it work as a safety net to keep some stuff OGL while allowing people to take GSL out for a spin?

 

[Wik]

Isn't that what Paizo is doing with Necromancer? Paizo produces 3.5E stuff, while Necro goes for the 4e? Though, I guess they're different development teams.

Really, though, I can see how easy it'd be to do.

 

[jmucchiello]

I am not a lawyer so I don't know if this is at all feasible. Would it work as a safety net to keep some stuff OGL while allowing people to take GSL out for a spin?

It works until Wizards decides too many people are doing and closes the loophole in the GSL. Then it doesn't work.

 

[Tarek]

Could a company create a new legal entity, a separate company in every legal way (but with the same people in similar jobs), that signs on to the GSL, while the original company keeps going with the OGL? I am assuming there would be no "crossing the lines" so that you would not get "Splurge OGL" and "Splurge GSL" but rather "Splurge OGL" and then "Rumtug GSL".

I am not a lawyer so I don't know if this is at all feasible. Would it work as a safety net to keep some stuff OGL while allowing people to take GSL out for a spin?

Considering that the decision is by product line and not by company, there's no reason that a company cannot produce both OGL and GSL books.

The only conflict is that they cannot produce OGL *and* GSL versions of the *same* product.

 

[Wik]

Considering that the decision is by product line and not by company, there's no reason that a company cannot produce both OGL and GSL books.

The only conflict is that they cannot produce OGL *and* GSL versions of the *same* product.

*sigh* this is a bad day for Savage Worlds' fans, then....

 

[Particle_Man]

Savage Worlds? What do they have to do with all of this?

 

[Olaf the Stout]

It works until Wizards decides too many people are doing and closes the loophole in the GSL. Then it doesn't work.

Or until WotC revokes the GSL of the companies it feels aren't adhering to the GSL like they should be.

For example if you created company A and B and produced the same material (using 3.5E for company A and 4E for company B), I imagine WotC would be very quick to revoke the GSL for company B.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Savage Worlds? What do they have to do with all of this?

Nothing that I know of. Savage Worlds opened up their license significantly, but it's not done under the OGL that I know of.

http://www.peginc.com/Licensing.html

 

[SavageRobby]

AFAIK the Savage Worlds license has nothing to do with either the GSL or the OGL.



As far as the OP goes, I don't think you could actually structure two companies that way, manage their IPs _properly_ and not "cross the lines". If one company was producing essentially the same product as the other company, unless there was some kind of arrangement between the two (which would be crossing the lines), there would be some kind of IP or copyright conflict.

 

[Spinachcat]

Let's say you published a game called Glorp back in 2005 under the OGL. You could keep selling Glorp forever and even do Glorp 2e, Glorp 3e, Glorp: Even Glorpier Edition under the existing OGL.

However, if you OR anyone chose to publish Glorp under the GSL, then there could not be any other Glorp version in the marketplace. AKA, they don't want there to be "Deadlands and Deadlands D20" on the market at the same time like there was last time. It would not matter if you owned multiple companies because the GSL is based on product line.