Confusion over GSL and 4e

[CapnZapp]

Just call it something else and avoid the problem completely. "Shadow Killer", "Sneaky Stabby guy", "Death Dealer", "Urban Ninja" - I'm sure you can come up with better names!

No, that doesn't avoid the problem. In fact, the better you get at coming up with a name, the higher is the risk WotC will add it sometime in the future!

If you continue down this line of though you'll see how absurd it gets: nobody but WotC will gain anything from their licensees (and competitors) applying self-censorship to only use goofy non-selling names...

Again, we're back to square one: don't publish for the current edition of D&D if you can't live with having essentially no security - where there exists a definite (but probably remote) risk you'll be shut down for no particular reason.

 

[Ranger REG]

From my limited reading of the GSL, that's exactly why I have no interest in getting involved. It can be changed any time, and your only option if you don't like any given change appears to be simply to stop publishing anything under the GSL and destroy anything you'd done to that point.

It's very much a model that says 'unless you think that you will generate all the profit you desire in the VERY short term (weeks not months), you're putting lots at risk'...you need to be confident that you can publish, sell, and profit before WOTC can (for reasons malevolent or benign) change the GSL in a way that destroys your ability to market your product.

I agree with you. 4e is more about "Rules, not Tools," a complete turnaround from 3e's "Tools, not Rules."

If the same could be said of the assassin class, then it could be said of WotC's vampire monster, especially if some 3PP want to do a different kind of vampire-based setting. While this may be good for some simple[ton] diehard D&D fans who don't want "peanut butter" varieties to choose from, this may be hard for those that want out-of-the-sandbox roleplaying experience.

 

[FormerlyDickensC]

I have a question.Say, for example's sake I create a 30 level character class: the assassin.

I publish it, but then oh, 6 months later, WOTC releases a PHB III that features the assassin as a character class.

Am I suddenly in violation of the GSL?

I would like to respond to this question. As some have said, using a different obscure name may be easier and cause less friction. But why would you want to do that? Well, that may be solution with the least friction.

However, in the end, if such a problem reaches litigation (which it won't and I will explain why) the issue boils down how the judge or jury interprets the meaning of the language of the license, ie. via rule of contract construction and interpretation. Such a case would have parol evidence out the wazoo.

But, in my humble non-laywer opinion, and the reason it would never go to actual litigaiton, is that the party who first published material will get copyright of that material (and then if the court decides that WOTC violated the 3PP's copyright by publishing it's own assassin class, which is doubtful, then WOTC would have to pay damages to the 3PP). But, the 3PP has no liability to WOTC. If there is any liability it would be to the 3PP from WOTC.

Lets cut to the chase...WOTC did NOT hire a "good lawyer" to write the GSL. They left a huge back door for anyone to lay claim to whatever intellectual property he or she can create. Now, the GSL would be something if ALL of the 4E material that was ever going to be created by WOTC had been published when the first licensee signed the contract. But it wasn't.

I would love to see a 3PP publish an assasin class for 4E and THEN have the 3PP sue WOTC for copyright infringement if WOTC published an asssasin class. I don't think the 3PP would ultimately win in such a case, but there is almost no way WOTC could prevail against the 3PP in reverse.

What I would advise WOTC to do IMMEDIATELY, is to revoke (I'm not sure to what extent WOTC can unilaterally revoke the license, depends on the terms, I need to read that) all existing GSL licensee's license. Then rewrite the GSL referencing a list of non-usable terms/language that contains any other material WOTC intends to "reserve" for itself for future use. Then have WOTC re-license their content under such newer and revised GSL referencing the list of restricted language. Basially, it becomse a provision of the license contract that the the licensee agree to not use these restricted terms in its own material published under the GSL.

But as it stands now, WOTC has reserved no material not already published (at least that I know of, and I'm sure I could be wrong). And, as such, any licensed 3PP can publish whatever they want as long as it does not presently (ie. on the date of publicaiton for the 3PP material) violate the GSL. And, agian, if you're not a licensee, then you must only worry about copyright infringment. Which is quite hard to prove, really.

If there was more money in RPGs there would be better lawyers, but there isn't so there's not.

EDIT: and I just now see that the revised GSL has been published. I will check it out now.

EDIT 2: looks like this problem has been answered somewhat sufficiently now by WOTC. so disregard most of my above post.

 

[Ourph]

I would love to see a 3PP publish an assasin class for 4E and THEN have the 3PP sue WOTC for copyright infringement if WOTC published an asssasin class.

A GSL licensee can't do that. As a licensee you agree to never challenge WotC's intellectual property rights...

Licensee will not institute any suit or take any action on account of any such infringements or imitations, or otherwise institute any suit or take any action relating to Wizards Intellectual Property. Licensee will take no action that will harm, misuse or bring into disrepute the activities, properties or products of Wizards or Wizards Intellectual Property.

... and indemnify WotC against any liability regarding copyright...

Licensee will defend and indemnify Wizards and its affiliates, and their respective employees, directors and representatives, against any claim or action brought by a third party, to the extent relating to any demands arising directly or indirectly out of or relating to (a) the Licensed Products, including without limitation, any material contained therein that is alleged to be scandalous, libelous, unlawful, or infringing or violating any copyright, right of privacy, proprietary right, or any other right whatsoever

 

[Orcus]

I would like to respond to this question....

But, in my humble non-laywer opinion, ....

....I don't think the 3PP would ultimately win in such a case, but there is almost no way WOTC could prevail against the 3PP in reverse.....

What I would advise WOTC to do IMMEDIATELY, ....

....

EDIT: and I just now see that the revised GSL has been published. I will check it out now.

EDIT 2: looks like this problem has been answered somewhat sufficiently now by WOTC. so disregard most of my above post.

Please have at least a tiny inkling of a clue before you post here.

I'm glad though that you felt comfortable doing all those things not knowing at all what you are talking about and being so out of the loop that you didnt even know there was a revised GSL.

Did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night or something? Is this one of those commercials? "I'm not a lawyer and have no clue about the OGL or the GSL, heck I didnt even know it had been revised! But I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night!" Cue the music....

Oh vey!

 

[Rel]

Please have at least a tiny inkling of a clue before you post here.

And please remember to be a lot more civil from now on.

 

[FormerlyDickensC]

Yeah, that thing about civility applies to you too, FormerlyDickensC.