GSL & SRD -- Comments, Questions, and Hopes

[pemerton]

Gilwen, if the RQ SRD mentions the d20 SRD in its s15 then what I said would be wrong. I was assuming that the RQ SRD is d20-independent. I've never read it.

 

[see]

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.

There is nothing to think about because the GSL doesn't actually have any terms to consider. It's revise-at-will, terminate-at-will. You either trust Hasbro not to pull the rug out from under you, or you don't. The text of the license is irrelevant, because they can change every single term overnight.

You need to get questions answered? Less than two weeks ago you were told that the reason the SRD was delayed was they were adding PHB II material to the SRD. I have no reason to believe that the people who gave that answer were lying . . . but that doesn't change the fact that there is no PHB II material in the SRD. Why expect answers about the GSL to be any more reliable?

Maybe you do trust Hasbro. But don't delude yourself that there's any point in examining the license; it has no guarantees and no reassurances. Publishing under the GSL is an act of pure faith.

And that is why people are considering ways to get around the GSL. Because even the murky quagmire of fair use looks to many of us like much more solid ground than trusting in what a Hasbro-appointed executive is going to see as Hasbro's business interest in January 2011.

 

[robertsconley]

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.

Too bad that it wouldn't be cost effective just to strip all the OGL stuff out from the Wilderlands and do a pdf re-release. The rules section of the players guide would be hosed but the Wilderlands itself is nearly systemless (or edition neutral D&D) as anything can be.

Since it is really a Judges Guild product what would happen if you just simply sold the entire lot to another company and then release Tegal. James has annouced plans for new Player's Guide so that is coming from a source not connected to Necromancer.

Rob Conley

 

[PatrickLawinger]

There is nothing to think about because the GSL doesn't actually have any terms to consider. It's revise-at-will, terminate-at-will. You either trust Hasbro not to pull the rug out from under you, or you don't. The text of the license is irrelevant, because they can change every single term overnight.

You need to get questions answered? Less than two weeks ago you were told that the reason the SRD was delayed was they were adding PHB II material to the SRD. I have no reason to believe that the people who gave that answer were lying . . . but that doesn't change the fact that there is no PHB II material in the SRD. Why expect answers about the GSL to be any more reliable?

Maybe you do trust Hasbro. But don't delude yourself that there's any point in examining the license; it has no guarantees and no reassurances. Publishing under the GSL is an act of pure faith.

And that is why people are considering ways to get around the GSL. Because even the murky quagmire of fair use looks to many of us like much more solid ground than trusting in what a Hasbro-appointed executive is going to see as Hasbro's business interest in January 2011.

I guess my point was that each publisher has to decide this on their own. A majority of the truly vitriolic posts here and on other message boards are not from publishers.

Yes, portions of the GSL are not favorable, several publishers are already discussing those with WotC. In the end, it will come down to how badly WotC really wants the larger 3rd party publishers to adopt the GSL, and, for those that do, how fully they'll commit to it. WotC WILL have to answer some of those questions quite clearly and in a legally binding fashion to get some of those publishers involved.

Questions and discussions by fans about how to bypass the GSL, or outright flames against Scott, Linae, or WotC in general are not helping.

The GSL is a license, it is not "open gaming." This is clearly an adjustment publishers and fans need to make. I have worked under license agreements in the past and the GSL, while not what I would like to see, is not that bad. I wouldn't call it "good" either, but that is just my opinion. I don't know if I would agree to it as-is, except to publish only more generic adventures and players' material. *I* wouldn't spend a lot of money and effort on a full blown 4e setting with the risks of somehow losing the ability to publish or use that work in the future.

I am guessing you'll see plenty of the 3rd party publishers involved and that their product lines will be very "generic" but clearly identified as separate from any other product lines.

Patrick

 

[lkj]

. . . *I* wouldn't spend a lot of money and effort on a full blown 4e setting with the risks of somehow losing the ability to publish or use that work in the future.

Patrick

Just out of idle curiosity (I not being a publisher), am I right that you'd only be losing the ability to publish it under the OGL? You could use it in another non-d20 system, yes?

I realize that market considerations might make the difference moot (i.e., the only market large enough for a given work might be the OGL one). But that's still a bit different than losing any right to do anything with it whatsoever.

AD

 

[PatrickLawinger]

Just out of idle curiosity (I not being a publisher), am I right that you'd only be losing the ability to publish it under the OGL? You could use it in another non-d20 system, yes?

I realize that market considerations might make the difference moot (i.e., the only market large enough for a given work might be the OGL one). But that's still a bit different than losing any right to do anything with it whatsoever.

AD

That is the way I see it. The problem is, you have no idea what the future will bring. You could create the setting as system independent, and then try to create additional support products with the stats. The question is, if you do that, do those products prevent you from later making completely different OGL products supporting that same, non-OGL setting? I would say that it is a gray area, WotC could claim that you can't. It is something to have a lawyer answer. I don't think that they'd be successful with that claim in court, but what do I know, and, who would want to risk the legal fees to find out?

The setting "fluff" is something they can't take away from you or prevent you from using in another way, with the exception of the OGL based on what you agree to if you accept the license. NOTHING about the license would prevent you from, say, writing a series of short stories or novels for your game world. I can't remember where I saw a post that someone was actually worried about that.

Right now I am a small enough publisher that I haven't put out any products yet, and my first planned products are system independent anyway. I am focused on having enough finished products for that line to begin staggered, regular releases. If, probably when, I do any material for 4e I will most likely write up proposals for companies like Necromancer Games or Goodman Games. Like a lot of people, I have many, many ideas for 4e products, but I am waiting to play the game a bit more and get more used to the actual in-game use of the rules before I actually write anything up.

As for the GSL, I am just waiting a while to see if the license is the "final say" or not. Right now, I have my doubts that WotC is going to change the clause about going back to the OGL because a) I am sure someone at WotC insisted on it and b) if they DID change it the message boards would fill with posts saying, "see, they really will change the license at a moment's notice, we can't use this, WotC is so screwed up!"

Basically, my viewpoint as a "publisher" is a bit skewed toward patience. I have plenty to keep me busy right now and I have freelance writing and editing relationships with several companies that ARE going to make 4e/GSL material and have an avenue to publish material with them if I want to. I do think that some of the discussions have gotten far more heated than they really need to be.

Patrick

 

[lkj]

(. . . lots of interesting stuff . . .)

Patrick

Thanks for the reply. Being a relatively non-involved party (other than being very interested in seeing who will provide support material for me to buy), I find these discussions pretty interesting.
On the other hand-- and this is just my opinion-- I suspect a lot of the discussion around this right now isn't very informative. There's just too much (in my opinion) crazy speculation, often based on tenuous interpretations. And though some say they have consulted lawyers or lawyer friends, I find myself skeptical. By and large, I kind of get the sense that a lot of people really don't know what they are talking about. I can't know that for sure. It's just a suspicion.

Were I a publisher, I probably would have read the GSL carefully. Perhaps consulted a lawyer. Composed a list of questions and concerns, and then emailed that list to Linae. Right now I'd be waiting for answers.

I very much doubt I'd be involved in lengthy arguments or rants on messageboards. That's me. Clark is of course an exception, as he seems to enjoy the thought exercise of rambling through this stuff publicly.

At any rate, I'll bow out now. I'm just an interested observer and will probably avoid cluttering up these threads with my own random thoughts any further.

Thanks again.

AD

 

[CapnZapp]

That is the way I see it. The problem is, you have no idea what the future will bring. You could create the setting as system independent, and then try to create additional support products with the stats. The question is, if you do that, do those products prevent you from later making completely different OGL products supporting that same, non-OGL setting? I would say that it is a gray area, WotC could claim that you can't. It is something to have a lawyer answer. I don't think that they'd be successful with that claim in court, but what do I know, and, who would want to risk the legal fees to find out?

Why do people think the GSL is a law, which can be beneficial to both parties?

GSL is a license which the licensor can yank at any time for any reason.

If WotC "claims you can't", you'll feel that by losing the license, plain and simple.

No courts, no legal fees. Just no license.

If you then persist in using WotC's IP, that's a whole other business - and potentially a much more painful experience...

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

That assumes some nefarious evildoers rubbing their palms in giddy delight about how their wicked plans have been so perfectly set.

So on that, I believe you are jumping the gun. In the end, they don't own your setting, so the worst they can do is terminate your license. Nowhere did I get the impression they would chase a company down for abandoning 4ED and going to another system. I am fairly certain WOTC did not create a "no take backsees" rule, lest we have all fallen into tall grade school

On the other hand, your alternate assumption is that you can place unconditional trust in people you don't even personally know. And possibly, a different set of people you don't even personally know in another week or year, if the first set is replaced in any way.

There are 3 people I can think of who I trust unconditionally. From my experience, trusting anyone outside that select circle is inadvisable. This is particularly true when money is involved AND when you're putting your signature on something that gives them any kind of power over you without reciprocal, equal leverage over them -- both of which conditions apply in this case.

 

[tomBitonti]

A question about the "revise-at-will" property of the license: Is this real?

If I made an agreement to paint your house for $5000, but I put in that "I can change the amount at any time, at my discretion", then you don't really have much of an agreement. Unilateral "Revise-at-will" seems so much to break a fundamental to contracts, which (entirely in my understanding) is that they are specific, that I'm having trouble believing that you can really have that in a contract. So either it is not quite so broad as that (per contract law and precedents) or the provision is invalid from day one.