GSL-What happens when someone uses my OGC?

[Ourph]

So does this mean a publisher who prided themselves on using OGC IP (now I've got it right) with long section 15s will be having a nightmare with their conversions because they essentially have to get the "okay" of every single company they use OGC from in the product they want to convert to 4e?

Yeah, it's going to be a real headache if some people choose to go this route.

 

[jaldaen]

Yeah, it's going to be a real headache if some people choose to go this route.

The sad thing is that many publishers choose to go this route because of the spirit of the OGL... hopefully WotC will clarify if this is the case because if it is there are certain publishers who might want to convert to 4e, but can't because of all the 3PP OGC in their products.

 

[madelf]

WotC doesn't have the right

I never said they did. It may not hold up to legal scrutiny (I actually suspect there are several things in that license that wouldn't). All I pointed out was what the GSL seems to say. It's either their intent that things can be converted that way, or it's really badly worded and poorly thought out (which wouldn't be a big surprise given their handling of everything else).

And even if the OGL doesn't allow it now, what is to prevent WotC from releasing a revised OGL that states any open content that has been released under the OGL can be converted to use under the GSL?

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

And even if the OGL doesn't allow it now, what is to prevent WotC from releasing a revised OGL that states any open content that has been released under the OGL can be converted to use under the GSL?

By my admittedly limited understanding of the OGL, while WoTC could release a revised OGL it can't revoke or change the OGL that the previous publications were released under. Those would continue to operate under the previous version.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Here's a slighty different question.

Suppose BobCo uses KenCo's OGC (the Dreaded Hephaflumph) in their OGL/3.x CastleDeathskull adventure. BobCo intends to upgrade to 4e and the GSL KenCo doesn't. BobCo wants to upgrade CastleDeathskull, and gets KenCo's permission to 4e-ize the Hephaflumph. In the meantime, KenCo releases a new OGL product containing the Hephaflumph, while continuing to sell the original Hephaflumph products as well.

When BobCo releases Castle Deathskull 4, does KenCo now need to stop selling their stock of Hephaflumphs? If KenCo later revisits their decision and moves to 4e, do they now need to license the 4e Hephaflumph from BobCo?

Worse, suppose KenCo decides to start a new 4e product line. The OGL Hephaflumph is part of Ecology of Flumphs, which includes magic items, PrCs, and other flumphs. The new 4e line contains Adventures in GelloLand, which uses a 4e version of the Hephaflumph (but nothing else from Ecology of Flumphs). Does KenCo now need to pull Ecology of Flumphs?

 

[smetzger]

Here's a slighty different question.

Suppose BobCo uses KenCo's OGC (the Dreaded Hephaflumph) in their OGL/3.x CastleDeathskull adventure. BobCo intends to upgrade to 4e and the GSL KenCo doesn't. BobCo wants to upgrade CastleDeathskull, and gets KenCo's permission to 4e-ize the Hephaflumph. In the meantime, KenCo releases a new OGL product containing the Hephaflumph, while continuing to sell the original Hephaflumph products as well.

When BobCo releases Castle Deathskull 4, does KenCo now need to stop selling their stock of Hephaflumphs? If KenCo later revisits their decision and moves to 4e, do they now need to license the 4e Hephaflumph from BobCo?

KenCo didn't agree to the GSL so they cannot be restricted by it.
As for the second question I would say no they do not need to license it from BobCo, but this would be spelled out in their agreement between each other for allowing BobCo in the first place to use the monster.
This is a big weakness in the GSL, the need to make an additional agreement in order to use another companies stuff. Those that want to use the GSL and want to share should come up with an additional viral license that could sit on top of the GSL. I don't remember anything in the GSL that would forbid this 'rider' license, but I only read it quickly.

Worse, suppose KenCo decides to start a new 4e product line. The OGL Hephaflumph is part of Ecology of Flumphs, which includes magic items, PrCs, and other flumphs. The new 4e line contains Adventures in GelloLand, which uses a 4e version of the Hephaflumph (but nothing else from Ecology of Flumphs). Does KenCo now need to pull Ecology of Flumphs?

Don't know I only read the GSL once and quickly.

 

[Ourph]

I never said they did. It may not hold up to legal scrutiny (I actually suspect there are several things in that license that wouldn't). All I pointed out was what the GSL seems to say. It's either their intent that things can be converted that way, or it's really badly worded and poorly thought out (which wouldn't be a big surprise given their handling of everything else).

It's only unclear if the person reading it doesn't have a clear understanding of what the OGL does and doesn't allow someone to do.

And even if the OGL doesn't allow it now, what is to prevent WotC from releasing a revised OGL that states any open content that has been released under the OGL can be converted to use under the GSL?

The same thing that prevents Mike Mearls from coming to your house and stealing your car. The law.

 

[jmucchiello]

And even if the OGL doesn't allow it now, what is to prevent WotC from releasing a revised OGL that states any open content that has been released under the OGL can be converted to use under the GSL?

The same thing that prevents Mike Mearls from coming to your house and stealing your car. The law.

Open Gaming License 2.0
16.) Sections 6 and 8 of OGL 1.0 are void.
17.) All existing OGC is covered by this license. This license may only be used in conjunction with the GSL. All OGC can be converted to GSL as stated in the GSL.
18.) No content of converted products as defined in the GSL is Open Gaming Content.

There, I think that covers it. It probably needs a bit more legalese but this would be the framework for pulling OGC into GSL without contaminating 4e with OGC. (16) removes the need for designations and ownership details. (17) puts all existing OGC in position for use in conversion products. (18) prevents conversion products from adding to the OGC pool.

Didn't even have to hotwire your car to do that.

 

[see]

Under section nine of the OGL 1.0a, Wizards can release an OGL 2.0, and anybody can use your open content under the OGL 2.0.

The legal question is, is it transitive? That open game content released under OGL 1.0a can be used under any version of the OGL does not necessarily mean that, if OGL 2.0 allows open content to be used under the GSL, that open content released under the OGL 1.0a can be used under the GSL via the OGL 2.0.

The judge in such a case might hold that the intent of licensing under the OGL 1.0a holds and that since the GSL isn't the OGL, it doesn't allow release under the GSL, only versions of the OGL. On the other hand, he might conclude that section nine allows the terms of the OGL 2.0 to fully succeed the OGL 1.0a, and thus allow licensing under the GSL.

I don't think Wizards is interested in opening that can of worms, so I don't think the issue will ever actually come up. But until a professional lawyer with licensing expertise comes along and cites some cases that are on-point, I don't think the resolution can be predicted in advance with any accuracy.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

The OGL also states that if there are ever newer versions of the OGL that publishers can choose which version of the license they want to use. Anything to be made available under the license is OGC and that OGC pool would be available to use under any version of the OGL that the publisher wants. The OGL 1.0a also requires that any derivative OGC also be considered OGC so that any conversions of OGC to 4e rules would mean that those 4e rules would then be OGC as well.

It seems to me that the GSL only allows others OGC to be converted under a separate license from the owner of the OGC is to allow that material to be converted without it it still being OGC. Since the original owner of the OGC still has full legal rights they are allowed to relicense that material outside of the OGL and any derivative material created outside of the OGL license that way would not be OGC. By ever allowing anything OGC into the GSL they then open just about everything to be converted without using the GSL.



This is most likely the main reason that the GSL was created instead of a OGL 2.0.