GSL vs. no GSL Forked From: Where are all of the campaign settings?

[aboyd]

Plus Kenzer keeps all rights to their ideas by not signing on to the GSL, and makes WOTC have to stay on their toes to make sure they don't copy any 3rd party publisher who gets certain ideas into print first.

I kinda wonder how the WotC head honchos feel about that part. I mean, it appears that OGL/d20 was too open for them, and they tried to tighten it up when 4th edition came around. But instead, they made it so tight that some publishers felt that just raw copyright laws with no contracts was a better option. So in attempting to gain a bit more control, WotC lost some control. Now there are publishers out there who run so independently of WotC that WotC might have no idea what's in their publishing lines. It's possible that two companies could publish something similar all at once.

Since my alignment falls pretty much into the "chaotic" spectrum, I find that turn of events amusing. But I just wonder if the WotC people are thinking, "Who cares?" Or maybe, "Damn, we tightened our grip and companies slipped through our grasp!"

I bet mostly likely they just think, "This is just a business problem that will be addressed when we get around to it. No lessons to learn, not even really worth classifying as a problem. Is simply is, and it will be solved."

 

[S'mon]

Ideas aren't protected, two companies can publish on the same concept. In fact two companies can publish the same expression of the same concept, as long as one didn't copy the other.

 

[Treebore]

Ideas aren't protected, two companies can publish on the same concept. In fact two companies can publish the same expression of the same concept, as long as one didn't copy the other.

Yep, and that is probably the most dangerous line to walk. If you can prove you absolutely did not see the others work and copy it, even then you would be OK. However that would be very difficult to prove.

So even if you wish to express the same idea in similar fashion, you better present it as uniquely as possible.

As for aboyd's questions, I think WOTC may find it much more of a headache to police people who don't go the GSL route. Or they may just decide to act like everyone else is so small of a blip on their radar they aren't even worth policing. Hard to say, since we'll never be told.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Using the OGL to print 4E compatible products is probably the smartest/safest way to go. However, Kenzer, owned by an IP lawyer, who successfully sued WOTC over IP, decided just going old school with no license was the best way for him to go.

I disagree with that because of the following.

1) Note that the big publishers are avoiding referencing the OGL altogether for 4e compatible products. Those that are still publishing 3.x compatible rules are still using the OGL.

2) The GSL exists for 4e compatible rules, so there is a legal license available, though more restrictive.

3) Based on the GSL's statement about the OGL, I suspect that WoTC will want to prevent the OGL from being used for "conversion" purposes. They won't care about general copyright, which is a much tougher battle for them, but any attempt to take the OGL and "force" 4e rules to be converted to OGL will be fought vigorously in court.

I think Lawyers see this possibility. Necromancer's Clark Peterson was concerned about OSRIC not being that defensible in court, and I think Troll Lord chose the smarter route for "old school" compatibility (that is, start with the SRD as a base, not release rules not based on the SRD and just using OGL for things like game names, etc). I think the only reason OSRIC has been untouched is that it's a small press thing. If somebody tries to use the OSRIC method to "reverse engineer 4e", they are asking for a lawsuit. I think Wizards will see this as trying to take copyright and turn it into "copyleft", and any attempt to use the OGL against new products which are not published under that license will be defended to prevent this scenario.

Also, Ryan Dancey actually stated that he was concerned that if Wizards actually tried to put this stuff and make the argument that RPGs are more "books" than "games", because of the complex rules, verbage, etc., that precedent could be set for RPGs to be put in a different category than games under the law. I still think this could happen.

I suspect practical publishers will do the "copyright neutral" method of publication for 4e.

 

[S'mon]

I think Lawyers see this possibility. Necromancer's Clark Peterson was concerned about OSRIC not being that defensible in court

While I haven't gone through all of OSRIC with a fine tooth comb, from what I have looked at it looks like the author took considerable care to avoid putting in anything that could raise a prima facie claim of copyright infringement, given its use of the OGL. Some of the other retro clones sail rather closer to the wind, although even there the possible infringement claims are for non-literal copying of the expression in certain areas of the 'inspirational' texts, and look rather trivial. But OSRIC in particular would be an extremely tough nut for anyone to crack, even for a technical infringement finding.

 

[Cadfan]

Also, Ryan Dancey actually stated that he was concerned that if Wizards actually tried to put this stuff and make the argument that RPGs are more "books" than "games", because of the complex rules, verbage, etc., that precedent could be set for RPGs to be put in a different category than games under the law. I still think this could happen.

I think so as well.

I think the current intellectual property regime for games is inherently unstable.

Courts are mostly influenced by business practicalities in interpreting copyright law, in my opinion. Right now it is technically possible to seriously loot another company's game products and publish them under your own name. But no one actually does this, so this legal "flaw" is going unaddressed. If someone DID loot another company, and litigation occurred, I could easily see a different ruling.

Intellectual law for computer programs provides an example of this process. By any sane interpretation, a computer program is a process. And yet its copyrightable, largely because the courts decided to interpret the law in the way that they felt best facilitated the regular course of business of the computer industry at the time.

 

[S'mon]

3) Based on the GSL's statement about the OGL, I suspect that WoTC will want to prevent the OGL from being used for "conversion" purposes. They won't care about general copyright, which is a much tougher battle for them, but any attempt to take the OGL and "force" 4e rules to be converted to OGL will be fought vigorously in court.

But the OGL does not give them a leg to stand on here - there is no possibility of a claim for breach of the contractual license*, which is what the OGL is. Therefore any claim would have to be for breach of copyright law for areas not covered by the OGL license. That's an incredibly daunting prospect even for Hasbro legal. And my impression is that Hasbro-WoTC's lawyers, unlike old TSR's, actually know enough copyright law to have a good idea what the legal position is.

*Assuming the work sticks to the OGL's terms, eg no use of Product Identity like beholders & mindflayers. The OGL does not say "No use of 4e rules!".

Incidentally, AFAIK Clark Petersen is not an IP specialist as such, whereas Kenzer is.

 

[S'mon]

NB The law does not say "Games are not protected", it says "mathematical processes are not protected". And that's Statute law, not something a court can overturn.

1. There's no way a court can stop me using a particular mathematical process in my game, even if another game used it first.

2. Legislating that mathematical processes can be covered by (c) opens up a huge can of worms. Imagine owning the copyright on E=mc2. I can't see that happening.

 

[Cadfan]

S'mon- look at the copyright law surrounding computer programs for an example of what I'm talking about. It would be hard to claim that a computer program is anything other than a process, even a mathematical process. But, they're mathematical processes designed to create certain visual, auditory, and aesthetic experiences. That's an easy hook that led to copyright being applied to computer programs. Now, there's a lot of money in computer programs, and the process wasn't entirely court driven- there was a lot of congressional lobbying and the eventual passage of a series of bills that codified most of this. But the end result was the same- computer programs, even source code and not merely the aesthetic experiences of the user, are copyrightable. And the courts continue to interpret intellectual property law (in my opinion and in the opinion of some commentators) largely based upon a general feel for whether someone is "cheating" within the norms of business and their industry.

RPGs are different from computer companies because 1. there's less money, so no lobbying congress, 2. there's less money, so less litigation, and 3. there's less money, so there's less "cheating." But if there were more money and there were more cheating, then I think that the current system where games have almost no intellectual property protection whatsoever but no one steals them anyways, would change.

 

[S'mon]

S'mon- look at the copyright law surrounding computer programs for an example of what I'm talking about. It would be hard to claim that a computer program is anything other than a process, even a mathematical process. But, they're mathematical processes designed to create certain visual, auditory, and aesthetic experiences. That's an easy hook that led to copyright being applied to computer programs.

No, software code is protected as a literary work. Not as an artistic work.