[Gleemax]Another thing not to like.

[Raven Crowking]

Of course, people said the same things back when guys like Dancey were in charge of WotC and the OGL and d20 license were part of an evil plot to steal everyone else's IP. And since then WotC has undergone about two turnovers of personnel and the shibboleth hasn't materialized.

Not I. Nor, honestly, have I ever heard such a complaint. I think that publishing the D&D SRD under the OGL was the best thing WotC could have done. Of course, whatever rights WotC might have gained from your publishing under the OGL, you certainly could republish your work, nor did it prevent you from designating Product Identity that you owned, nor did it prevent others from using the work that you designated as open.

I think that this is very different, personally.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

You ahve a couple of options here.

1) Post a brief synopsis of what you're talking about and provide a link to the games specific (blog, myspace clone, whatever) that exist under different TOS.

2) Obtain a publishers account and link from your brief synopsis to that area.

Either way, you're more protected than if you post everything to the boards outright. WotC provides this functionality and the protection in the other two areas. It's the best of all worlds.

Why would I not simply not post anything of substance to Gleemax?

 

[Vocenoctum]

Not I. Nor, honestly, have I ever heard such a complaint. I think that publishing the D&D SRD under the OGL was the best thing WotC could have done. Of course, whatever rights WotC might have gained from your publishing under the OGL, you certainly could republish your work, nor did it prevent you from designating Product Identity that you owned, nor did it prevent others from using the work that you designated as open.

I think that this is very different, personally.

RC

I'm missing something, but where does it say that you can't publish your own material after you put it on Gleemax?

Even if your fictional UberPlot to steal IP worked, it doesn't give WotC exclusive rights to anything. You can still publish it, and the worst that is possible is that they also publish it.

OTOH, I still haven't seen a solution from those that dislike the current TOS on a way to prevent WotC from false accusations of copying material.

 

[ThirdWizard]

IMHO, the question isn't about the motives of WotC, but about the motives of the posters. What would motivate me to post to a board where, by posting, I automatically lose the right to publish content elsewhere, ever, or to protect or profit by that content should it be published at any point in the future by WotC?

Remember, you can only not use Wizards' IP outside of Gleemax.

 

[Xyxox]

Why would I not simply not post anything of substance to Gleemax?

Because that's not the purpose of the Gleemax forums but is the purpose of the games area and the publisher accounts maybe?

 

[I'm A Banana]

It sounds like the best thing for you (if you so choose to embrace Gleemax) is to get a publisher account and then you are not subject to the public TOS. If you post stuff to a message board you would just provide a small overview with a re-direct top your personal page so as to not put up work WOTC would have access to.

I would guess this is what a lot of established (Ari, Mona, etc) writers would do since they typically get paid for their work.

The wording of the public ToS does not give me much confidence. And I could post stuff to a message board now with an overview and a link in Gleemax, even with a public account. That's actually the very heart of the criticism: Gleemax will be less useful (and less frequently used) because not everyone wants to give WotC the ability to indiscriminately use their ideas (even if WotC only does discriminately use them).

Unless Gleemax was already established as the Next Big Thing, why would I bother doinking around on it with a link to another message board? Why wouldn't I just use that other message board?

If the Gleemax fantasy of a "MySpace for Gamers" comes true, then the audience may still be worth it. But for every MySpace there's a Facebook. In other words, Gleemax's use is diminished because of a draconian cookie-licking ToS. And it doesn't really NEED to be.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The wording of the public ToS does not give me much confidence. And I could post stuff to a message board now with an overview and a link in Gleemax, even with a public account. That's actually the very heart of the criticism: Gleemax will be less useful (and less frequently used) because not everyone wants to give WotC the ability to indiscriminately use their ideas (even if WotC only does discriminately use them).

Unless Gleemax was already established as the Next Big Thing, why would I bother doinking around on it with a link to another message board? Why wouldn't I just use that other message board?

If the Gleemax fantasies of a "MySpace for Gamers" comes true, then the audience may still be worth it. But for every MySpace there's a Facebook. In other words, Gleemax's use is diminished because of a draconian cookie-licking ToS. And it doesn't really NEED to be.

Look at it this way, the Gleemax ToS make me agree with Kamikaze Midget completely and without reservation. Surely this is indication enough that, unless changed, they will make the Interweb implode?

 

[Storm Raven]

Not I. Nor, honestly, have I ever heard such a complaint.

It was a pretty common complaint when the OGL and d20 license were revealed. The theory was that WotC would hook a bunch of companies into putting material out and then somehow change the terms of the licenses and pull the rug out from under them. From there, various theories had them running competitors out of business, publishing books containing the now unlicensed material, or extorting huge fees for giving the compaines the right to publish material they had already prepared. It was a silly set of theories, but treated just as seriously as everyone is treating the whole Gleemax ToS thing. And they proved to be entirely groundless.

The setting search was accused of similar stuff - one poster here famously stated that the potential for $120,000 was just not enough to give WotC a shot at his ideas. A lot of people said that WotC just wanted to get a pile of submissions so they could steal the ideas in them. Once again, this fear was entirely groundless.

Really, the potential down side for WotC mining Gleemax for material is so much higher than the potential upside, that worrying about it seems downright paranoid. You might as well worry about bear attacks in downtown Chicago, because that seems just about as likely.

 

[JustinA]

It was a pretty common complaint when the OGL and d20 license were revealed. The theory was that WotC would hook a bunch of companies into putting material out and then somehow change the terms of the licenses and pull the rug out from under them. From there, various theories had them running competitors out of business, publishing books containing the now unlicensed material, or extorting huge fees for giving the compaines the right to publish material they had already prepared. It was a silly set of theories, but treated just as seriously as everyone is treating the whole Gleemax ToS thing. And they proved to be entirely groundless.

The difference is that, when the actual text of the OGL and D20 Trademark License were released, these fears were found to be baseless. In the case of the Gleemax TOS, the concern is being created by the text.

Ultimately, people should just be aware of what the fine print says and what they're agreeing to when they post stuff to Gleemax. I fully accept that WotC's intention here is not to cackle nefariously while they steal the ideas of naive gamers. They even seem to be trying to construct alternatives so that people can avoid some of these issues. But that doesn't change what the TOS says and it doesn't change what you agree to by using Gleemax.

If you've got no problem with signing over a perpetual and non-revokable license to WotC for your IP, then use Gleemax with a clean conscious. If you do have a problem with that, then don't use Gleemax.

However, I do feel that WotC's TOS is in obvious conflict with the stated goals of Gleemax: It's difficult to be an open forum for gamers when you've put meaningful limitations on just how "open" your forum really is.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

The difference is that, when the actual text of the OGL and D20 Trademark License were released, these fears were found to be baseless. In the case of the Gleemax TOS, the concern is being created by the text.
Ultimately, people should just be aware of what the fine print says and what they're agreeing to when they post stuff to Gleemax. I fully accept that WotC's intention here is not to cackle nefariously while they steal the ideas of naive gamers. They even seem to be trying to construct alternatives so that people can avoid some of these issues. But that doesn't change what the TOS says and it doesn't change what you agree to by using Gleemax.

If you've got no problem with signing over a perpetual and non-revokable license to WotC for your IP, then use Gleemax with a clean conscious. If you do have a problem with that, then don't use Gleemax.

However, I do feel that WotC's TOS is in obvious conflict with the stated goals of Gleemax: It's difficult to be an open forum for gamers when you've put meaningful limitations on just how "open" your forum really is.

Just to be clear the Gleemax TOS have not yet been posted. The Terms of use are the same as they have been on the WOTC site before Gleemax.