GSL CopyRight Theivery Clause

[TheWyrd]

The GSL Reads:

6.1 OGL Product Conversion. If Licensee has entered into the “Open Gaming License version 1.0” with Wizards (“OGL”), and Licensee has previously published a product under the OGL (each an “OGL Product”), Licensee may publish a Licensed Product subject to this License that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents as such OGL Product (each such OGL Product, a “Converted OGL Product”, and each such Licensed Product, a “Conversion”). Upon the first publication date of a Conversion, Licensee will cease all manufacturing and publication of the corresponding Converted OGL Product and all other OGL Products which are part of the same product line as the Converted OGL Product, as reasonably determined by Wizards (“Converted OGL Product Line”). Licensee explicitly agrees that it will not thereafter manufacture or publish any portion of the Converted OGL Product Line, or any products that would be considered part of a Converted OGL Product Line (as reasonably determined by Wizards) pursuant to the OGL.

Here's the thing. This is all fine and good if you only entered into the OGL with Wizards. The fact of the matter is that most people entered into the OGL with every single company that is in its Section 15.

If I happen to have a product that has Open Content taken from Green Ronin, Necromancer, and Mongoose in addition to the SRD then I have a responsibility to maintain the copyright for each of those companies as well. They were placed into Open Content and just because I'm entering into an additional agreement with WotC doesn't invalidate the need for that previous contract.

Of course WotC is immune to any implications here because:

10.2 Third Party IP. To the extent any Licensed Product contains third party content or any content that is otherwise subject to the intellectual property rights of any third party, including without limitation any patents, copyrights, trademarks, rights of privacy or publicity (“Third Party IP”), then, as between Licensee and Wizards, Licensee is the licensee of all Third Party IP contained in such Licensed Product. Licensee will obtain all required licenses and permissions for its use of Third Party IP in the Licensed Products.

So the GSL itself actually serves as a combination D20STL and OGL. If you're going to be starting fresh, then all you need is the GSL. However, it looks to me that if you're going to convert, you're still going to need to include the OGL designation otherwise you're screwing over the other companies that you are borrowing OGL copyrighted information from.

 

[jmucchiello]

No, it just means if you want to convert OGC that you don't own, you need explicit permission of the original owner. If your product pulls OGC from many sources and those sources pull OGC from still more sources, you end up with a Gordian knot of permissions to obtain, but that is not WotC's problem. It's your problem.

 

[TheWyrd]

No, it just means if you want to convert OGC that you don't own, you need explicit permission of the original owner. If your product pulls OGC from many sources and those sources pull OGC from still more sources, you end up with a Gordian knot of permissions to obtain, but that is not WotC's problem. It's your problem.

In which case wouldn't it be easier for you to continue using the OGL rather than having to go get each and every one of those permissions?

 

[Scribble]

In which case wouldn't it be easier for you to continue using the OGL rather than having to go get each and every one of those permissions?

Yeah... but then you're not using the D&D brand to make money.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

To Quote myself from another thread on this topic.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=232088&page=1&pp=15

The OGL also states that if there are ever newer versions of the OGL that publishers can choose which version of the license they want to use. Anything to be made available under the license is OGC and that OGC pool would be available to use under any version of the OGL that the publisher wants. The OGL 1.0a also requires that any derivative OGC also be considered OGC so that any conversions of OGC to 4e rules would mean that those 4e rules would then be OGC as well.

It seems to me that the GSL only allows others OGC to be converted under a separate license from the owner of the OGC is to allow that material to be converted without it it still being OGC. Since the original owner of the OGC still has full legal rights they are allowed to relicense that material outside of the OGL and any derivative material created outside of the OGL license that way would not be OGC. By ever allowing anything OGC into the GSL they then open just about everything to be converted without using the GSL.

This is most likely the main reason that the GSL was created instead of a OGL 2.0.

 

[TheWyrd]

To Quote myself from another thread on this topic.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=232088&page=1&pp=15

Yeah. That looks about right. At first it looked like WotC might be shooting themselves in the foot.. but if they are, it is by making it a lot harder for 3rd parties to convert and not through any legal thing they're doing.

 

[Scribble]

Yeah. That looks about right. At first it looked like WotC might be shooting themselves in the foot.. but if they are, it is by making it a lot harder for 3rd parties to convert and not through any legal thing they're doing.

Thats their deal not WoTC's...

Wizards protects its brand, but allows others to support it as well, drawing a bigger crowd to D&D, while letting them make money on the deal.

If the big names don't want a piece of the pie, others will step up.

 

[jaldaen]

In which case wouldn't it be easier for you to continue using the OGL rather than having to go get each and every one of those permissions?

The question is:

When you convert your OGL product are you really converting its OGC or just your PI (Product Identity, which is not released as part of the OGL)?

After all the OGC rules work with the old d20 SRD and not with the new 4e D&D SRD... so are you really using the OGC mechanics as anything more than inspiration for your 4e mechanics? If so, then as long as you are not expressing the concepts in the same mechanical ways (phrasing, etc.) as you did under the old OGL couldn't you use the OGC under standard copyright laws as pertains to game mechanics?

Just a thought... and no IANAL

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If the big names don't want a piece of the pie, others will step up.

This seems to me the fantasy of a man who believes in free-market capitalism with a pure, irrational faith. The RPG market is a small one at the best of times. The pool of GENUINE talent involved with RPGs is pretty small, too (even Mike Mearls hints at this in his comments about the OGL's successes).

So I mean, sure, it's a happy belief, it's optimistic to think "others will step up", but you keep repeating it like some kind of mantra in various threads, and I don't think there's really any reason to believe it. Are any of the "big names" who emerged in the 3E days people who first came to prominence with a d20 STL product? I mean, I'm actually interested to know when I say this, because maybe there are several, and thus your optimism is less irrational.

Just going on vague memories, though, it seems like all the big names in the 3E days were either already involved with the industry, or came in via the OGL (not the d20 STL). The GSL's notable restrictiveness seems extremely likely to me to put off most more creative individuals and companies.

Personally, I hope WotC see sense and tone done some of the more aggressive and off-putting parts of the GSL. It's not like we're in a super high budget industry full of thrusting young companies and into which a tremendous amount of talent is pouring.

 

[Scribble]

This seems to me the fantasy of a man who believes in free-market capitalism with a pure, irrational faith. The RPG market is a small one at the best of times. The pool of GENUINE talent involved with RPGs is pretty small, too (even Mike Mearls hints at this in his comments about the OGL's successes).

If that's what you want to believe go for it...

Why is something "irrational faith" just because you dissagree?
I could call your beliefs irrational fears, but I'm not going to.

So I mean, sure, it's a happy belief, it's optimistic to think "others will step up", but you keep repeating it like some kind of mantra in various threads, and I don't think there's really any reason to believe it.

Yep, I generally find it better/easier on my life to be optimistic and happy? Is that bad?

My belief in the D&D thing is generated by:

1. D&D makes money.

2. Making stuff for D&D has the potential to make money, and people like money.

3. We've already seen interest in the idea. (Both through people saying they want to, and one guy already releasing a product.)

4. Yeah I generally believe capitalism for the most part works in a familiar way.

5. Even if the good designers are a small lot, they all seem to want to do freelance work half the time anyway...

Are any of the "big names" who emerged in the 3E days people who first came to prominence with a d20 STL product? I mean, I'm actually interested to know when I say this, because maybe there are several, and thus your optimism is less irrational.

Just going on vague memories, though, it seems like all the big names in the 3E days were either already involved with the industry, or came in via the OGL (not the d20 STL). The GSL's notable restrictiveness seems extremely likely to me to put off most more creative individuals and companies.

I'm working off of memory here as well, but it seems like a lot of them to me... Sure they could have been using people who had done things in the past RPGwise... But overall their companies started out supporting D&D.

Aside from that, a lot of the new games are based of of concepts originated in D&D. Even the numbers in 4e are based off of the concepts in the OGL version of D&D. The new version just wasn't released as OGL, so people can't directly use the D&Dness without agreeing to WoTC's terms.

Cool, OGL still exists, if those games are doing well enough to compete, word.

Personally, I hope WotC see sense and tone done some of the more aggressive and off-putting parts of the GSL. It's not like we're in a super high budget industry full of thrusting young companies and into which a tremendous amount of talent is pouring.

Personally I don't think it's quite as restrictive as people are claiming it to be. It's a lot of leagalese. Legalese, to me at least, always seems to come off kind of brash.

It's in my opinion saying: No our brand isn't OGL this time, but you can still use it to make money. Here's how. But we're also watching our own backs to guard against people using us to work against us.