GSL & SRD -- Comments, Questions, and Hopes

[Darrin Drader]

Well, at least now we know why they dragged their feet for so long on this one. I guess I won't put my 3.5 books away just yet.

 

[Cassandra]

"6.2 No Backward Conversion. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that it will not publish any product pursuant to the OGL that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents of a Licensed Product."

They did not say "May not use the D20 SRD". They said "any product pursuant to the OGL".

(Standard disclaimer - IANAL.) I read through the GSL very carefully on this point, because of concerns people had been raising over licenses such as Spirit of the Century/FATE. Notice how "OGL" is defined:

6.1 OGL Product Conversion. If Licensee has entered into the "Open Gaming License version 1.0" with Wizards ("OGL")...

The term "OGL" in the text of the GSL refers only to use of the Open Gaming License with Wizards - not with any other company. According to the way I read that, if the other games cited use an Open Game License that doesn't involve Wizards of the Coast, they aren't restricted by the GSL.

 

[Flynn]

(Standard disclaimer - IANAL.) I read through the GSL very carefully on this point, because of concerns people had been raising over licenses such as Spirit of the Century/FATE. Notice how "OGL" is defined: The term "OGL" in the text of the GSL refers only to use of the Open Gaming License with Wizards - not with any other company. According to the way I read that, if the other games cited use an Open Game License that doesn't involve Wizards of the Coast, they aren't restricted by the GSL.

But the OGL is owned by Wizards. No matter who uses it, the OGL is still owned by Wizards and anyone using it could be considered to be entering into the OGL with Wizards because of that fact. Check out the first few lines of the OGL, from any source.

THIS LICENSE IS APPROVED FOR GENERAL USE. PERMISSION TO DISTRIBUTE THIS LICENSE IS MADE BY WIZARDS OF THE COAST!

OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a

The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.

By using the OGL, you are at least accepting WOTC's permission to distribute the license. In fact, you are required to copy that part of the OGL (since you have to quote it in its entirety) as part of the requirements for using the OGL, so it's very easy for someone to point to that and say "Oh, you must be using the OGL in agreement with Wizards, since they own it and all."

IANAL, but to me, using the OGL does seem to imply that you are effectively in an agreement with Wizards based on the terms of the OGL, whether your product is D20 based, Traveller, Runequest, Fate, Fudge, Action, or whatever system you care to implement, simply by using the license.

I don't know if this is a particularly legal argument, but it makes sense to me that someone could probably stretch it that way.

Thus, using the GSL does seem to remove your ability to use any other OGL gaming system to release the same IP in the future, not just those based on the D20 SRD.

My Two Coppers, Anyway,
Flynn

 

[Lizard]

(Standard disclaimer - IANAL.) I read through the GSL very carefully on this point, because of concerns people had been raising over licenses such as Spirit of the Century/FATE. Notice how "OGL" is defined: The term "OGL" in the text of the GSL refers only to use of the Open Gaming License with Wizards - not with any other company. According to the way I read that, if the other games cited use an Open Game License that doesn't involve Wizards of the Coast, they aren't restricted by the GSL.

This might be true, but since the OGL is copyright to Wizards (it basically means the license text itself is not public domain), I am not sure how to interpret that. A much better phrasing would be "does not include any version of the D20 SRD in the S.15 section", or words to that effect, which makes it much more clear.

 

[pemerton]

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.

WoTC do not claim the right, under the GSL, to measure their own damages.

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.

The GSL states you will no longer publish the GSL material using the OGL.
The GSL states that this clause survives termination of the GSL.
The OGL requires that you have the right to publish material using the OGL.
If you publish the former GSL material with the OGL you are doing so without authority.
That is a violation of the terms of S.5 of the OGL.

I don't think that this is quite right.

First, clause 5 of the OGL only applies to OGC (in respect of which the OGL therefore confers "viral" rights). Thus, a proper declaration of OGC within the backwards-converted product would avoid the issue.

Second, clause 5 of the OGL requires sufficient authority to confer the viral rights in respect of the OGC. I don't see how being in breach of contractual obligations to WoTC under the GSL would mean that one lacked sufficient rights in one's own IP to comply with clause 5 of the OGL. One does not need WoTC's permission to licence other's to use one's own IP, whether or not one is party to the GSL.

Note: I am not advocating that any party breach contractual obligations under the GSL. I am just trying to work out the legal implications if such a breach were to occur.

This might be true, but since the OGL is copyright to Wizards (it basically means the license text itself is not public domain), I am not sure how to interpret that. A much better phrasing would be "does not include any version of the D20 SRD in the S.15 section", or words to that effect, which makes it much more clear.

Except that other material has been released under the OGL by WoTC, such as D20 modern and UA.

On the substantive point: entering into the OGL with Mongoose in respect of Runequest does not constitute entering into the OGL with WoTC. By reproducing the copyright notice (which mentions WoTC), you are not entering into the licence with WoTC, as far as I can see. If you look at Clause 4 of the OGL, the licence obtains between You and the Contributors. I assume that, when it comes to doing RQ under the OGL, WoTC is not a contributor.

 

[Orcus]

Clark, please give us an OGL Tegel Manor. Don't let the manor get locked up forever with the GSL key!!

I dont see a way for it to "get locked up forever". That is just hyperbole. It would just mean that if I did a 4E Tegel I couldnt go back and do a 3E Tegel. It wouldnt tie up JG or the content at all since JG likely wont be adopting the GSL. The only one who could have a problem is me.

My concern about a GSL version of Tegel is actually based on the "converted product" problem--since Tegel will definately refer to content from our Wilderlands products, how much of that stuff can I mention before I run the risk of those products being considered converted products and thus, in the process of publishing Tegel 4E I wind up yoinking my right to sell the OGL backlog of 3E Wilderlands stuff.

 

[2WS-Steve]

... in the process of publishing Tegel 4E I wind up yoinking my right to sell the OGL backlog of 3E Wilderlands stuff.

Which is a sad side-effect of the GSL.

The Wilderlands and City State are great points of light (er, or darkness) settings for 4e.

I can probably just ignore the stats for Wilderlands -- but for city supplements I really prefer to have the NPC stats too.

 

[jmucchiello]

Second, clause 5 of the OGL requires sufficient authority to confer the viral rights in respect of the OGC. I don't see how being in breach of contractual obligations to WoTC under the GSL would mean that one lacked sufficient rights in one's own IP to comply with clause 5 of the OGL. One does not need WoTC's permission to licence other's to use one's own IP, whether or not one is party to the GSL.

Interesting. My original reading of s.5 was a bit loose. One could argue that not being able yourself to publish something as OGC is still against the spirit of s.5. But that isn't the slam dunk of my original line of logic.

 

[PatrickLawinger]

Which is a sad side-effect of the GSL.

The Wilderlands and City State are great points of light (er, or darkness) settings for 4e.

I can probably just ignore the stats for Wilderlands -- but for city supplements I really prefer to have the NPC stats too.

Honestly, there really aren't that many "stats" in City State or the Wilderlands products.

Stats for City State NPCs were as abbreviated as I could get away with. The sewers beneath the city do have stat blocks for the monsters you can run into down there but with 4e it is pretty easy to create stats for those guys.

For actual playability in the hands of a moderately experienced DM, I honestly think that 4e is FAR easier to convert for than 3.X. A number of things can actually be converted on the fly.

As an aside:
I do not understand why so many fans are jumping up and down on message boards discussing how "evil" WotC is, and/or proposing ideas for ways to "get around" the GSL. When it comes to publishing under the GSL publishers have to look at various aspects of the license and get a few questions answered. The GSL is a license, anyone that enters into a licensing agreement has to be extremely careful and insure that all clauses of the license mean the same thing to both parties.

Yes, publishers entering into the agreement have a lot to think about and consider. ANYONE entering into a licensing agreement has to do the same thing. Decisions like this shouldn't be made over night.

Patrick

 

[Gilwen]

On the substantive point: entering into the OGL with Mongoose in respect of Runequest does not constitute entering into the OGL with WoTC. By reproducing the copyright notice (which mentions WoTC), you are not entering into the licence with WoTC, as far as I can see. If you look at Clause 4 of the OGL, the licence obtains between You and the Contributors. I assume that, when it comes to doing RQ under the OGL, WoTC is not a contributor.

Do you hold that to be true even though the RQ SRD has references to the MSRD and SRD in the S.15 of their OGL? All OGC published under the OGL also will have their S.15 contain references one both of those SRD's by the viral nature of the OGL even if you didn't directly use the SRD's yourself.

Does that muddy the water any? It looks like it would from my perception.

gil