GSL & SRD -- Comments, Questions, and Hopes

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I think the termination clauses and anti-OGL clauses in the GSL make it a bae choice for 3rd party companies. At this point, I think everyone shoudl just jump on the pathfinder bandwagon.

But I'm not that concerned about the stat block thing. As a consumer, when I compare a 64 page 1E module with a 64 page 3E one, I often find that the scope of the latter is much smaller, because of the enormous amount of space taken up by stat blocks. I mean , what was the original Tegel Manor... a 16 page booklet? How big would it have been had it been released for 3E?

Ken

 

[HyrumOWC]

Could they sue for damages? What would they present as the damage to them? Perhaps that is a scary enough bluff to get the job done. But am I ignorant of something of more substance?

Yes, and then you get to pay their legal costs whether or not they win in court, or the suit gets dismissed, or they settle, or whatever.

Violating the GSL is any way can potentially damage WotC (according to them) and they then have the right to see damages. What those damages are, and what their legal costs are, depend entirely on WotC.

Hyrum.

 

[BryonD]

Yes, and then you get to pay their legal costs whether or not they win in court, or the suit gets dismissed, or they settle, or whatever.

Violating the GSL is any way can potentially damage WotC (according to them) and they then have the right to see damages. What those damages are, and what their legal costs are, depend entirely on WotC.

Hyrum.

Sounds like a good argument for not signing that bargain deal the tall red guy with horns is offering.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Yes, and then you get to pay their legal costs whether or not they win in court, or the suit gets dismissed, or they settle, or whatever.

Violating the GSL is any way can potentially damage WotC (according to them) and they then have the right to see damages. What those damages are, and what their legal costs are, depend entirely on WotC.

Hyrum.

But as Clark pointed out WotC may not want to sue. By claiming damages they need to show damages. To show damages all of WotC's financials would have to be open to discovery.

 

[Jraynack]

The question you have to ask is: how much do you trust Wizards to keep the GSL around? Because once it is gone, that product you made likely cant ever be published again. Why? Because if you use the GSL you can NEVER (even after the GSL is terminated) make an OGL version of that product.

You simply must protect your previous 3rd Edition OGL material. For example, we will not produce any of our old character core classes or sub-classes (a mechanic we made for 3.x) as core classes or sub-classes. We will present them by using an entirely new mechanic we devised (personally, I am not planning to come up with 75+ new powers to make a new core class when I can do something else to accomplish the same feel.

 

[Jraynack]

Personally, it seems that true OPEN GAME CONTENT is DEAD. Unless I am mistaken, it appears that in order for any 3rd party publisher to publish any content (I am not talking about IP) of another 3rd party publisher, they must seek permission.

I am fine with this, since most of our rules are 100% - but we have supplemented if we wanted the same game effect rather than making our rules for them.

If I am correct in this assumption, you might see several "look-alike" monsters or powers or feats, etc. from 3rd party publishers which might confuse consumers. On the otherhand, consumers might also benefit by having more orginal content, thus getting more bang for their buck.

Either, I definately think the GSL will cause a reduction of smaller 3rd party publishers.

I am glad however to be rid of that bulky OGL and OGC section of a product. The OGC especially.

 

[Gilwen]

I don't see open game content dead perse but just not defined or supported in the way we were accustomed under the OGL, ie the viral nature of the OGL. The GSL doesn't say you can't have open content. It's clear that the GSL SRD isn't giving us the same amount of information that the OGL SRD did but it doesn't prevent publishers from including a "Open Content" license of their own for their new original material with their publication. However, it will be interesting to see how original IP and the GSL play together if someone get's into a termination situation or the GSL get's pulled or significantly changed in the future. Clark mentioned that your new stuff could be unusable in the future for at least release under the OGL at a later date. This will be one area that I'll be watching debate on and hopefully WOTC will weigh in with an official opinion.

Gil

 

[jmucchiello]

Or else what?

Clearly the GSL says what you are saying. But, what is the penalty?
Say I publish the Book Of Things That Go Boo under the GSL. I sell it with moderate success for three years and then WotC terminates the GSL. Then I simply ignore the the surviving terms of the GSL and publish the Book Of Things That Go Boo under the OGL.

What happens?

They terminate my license under the GSL? Hard to do since they have already terminated the GSL for everyone.

They then terminate your OGL license for ALL OGL products because you are in violation of section 5 of the OGL: Representation of Authority to Contribute.

 

[Jraynack]

The GSL doesn't say you can't have open content. It's clear that the GSL SRD isn't giving us the same amount of information that the OGL SRD did but it doesn't prevent publishers from including a "Open Content" license of their own for their new original material with their publication.

Yes, that is why I said true OGC, because it does not force publishers to have OGC material in their new 4th Edition products. As a publisher, I can see having some open game content in our material for continuity for general consumers. However, I do not see a lot of other publishers including a OC license of their own, unless for the reason I mentioned above or to intice 3rd party publishers to purchase their books.

 

[kenmarable]

Personally, it seems that true OPEN GAME CONTENT is DEAD. Unless I am mistaken, it appears that in order for any 3rd party publisher to publish any content (I am not talking about IP) of another 3rd party publisher, they must seek permission.

Just because WotC left the public pool doesn't mean we have to as well. Personally, the OGC declaration was always the 2nd thing I read in a product (the first being the back cover overview).

However, I get your point that for 4e open game content is dead unless a third party publisher comes up with their own cool license and lets others use it (given the "spirit of open gaming" among many publishers, I can see that as at least a possibility).

But, yes, for 4e there is no content sharing between third party publishers through the GSL. That is gone.

However, the water's still nice over here in the 3.5 public pool.