GSL No Shared Third-Party Content Option in the GSL?

[Listlurker]

I can't seem to find any sort of open-content sharing guidelines in the GSL details I've reviewed.

Specifically, if I create a monster called a Slobbering Facelicker and publish it in a 4e product, can other 3rd-party publishers use it in their products without things getting into a horrible legal mess?

Likewise, if Bob at Bob's Game Publishing features a really cool daily power for Wizards called "Sticks to Pizza", and I would like to use that in my next product, is this still possible with proper citation -- or am I going to have to take the dire weasel's path, and create a (cough) very similar (cough) spell I call "Branches to Pizza"?

Is there any sort of option for easy third-party content sharing under 4e, or has that all gone away now?

Thanks for your attention,

LL

 

[JohnRTroy]

I think it's covered by this item

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, if you want to create products yourself that you want people to be able to use freely, I believe you can use a license like creative commons, and as long as the other party agrees to use the GSL, they can benefit as well. As long as you aren't ripping off another third party content or WoTC, and are dealing with your own content, you should be fine

But it's now the author's and publisher's choice now. Nobody is "forced to share" due to the license. It gives authors more control over their own work, and prevents others from cheaply repackaging all their work.

So those who want to share will add their own CC or other liceneses. But those who don't won't be forced to either.

 

[CapnZapp]

The "force to share" clause happens to be the most valuable clause of any open license.

It gives authors more control over their own work, and prevents others from expensively repackaging all their work.

 

[JohnRTroy]

The "force to share" clause happens to be the most valuable clause of any open license.

It gives authors more control over their own work, and prevents others from expensively repackaging all their work.

Not really, because Authors don't have the choice to opt-out of it--they must share, there's no free choice involved (except to opt-out). What ends up happening is it can hurt the author because others can take what they are charging for and release it for free.

Open isn't always the most optimal. I appreciate the MIT license rather than the GPL for software. One gives people the choice, the other forces one way.

 

[Scribble]

I think it would be interesting to see someone come up with a sort of "sub" license that people signed onto the GSL can sign into, that allows for sharing between groups.