GSL-What happens when someone uses my OGC?

[Brown Jenkin]

I think I was misunderstood. I was answering the question of how WotC could "steal" everyone's OGC. The OGL 2.0 I was proposing was designed to allow WotC to do anything with any and all existing or future OGC. It had no benefit for other publishers.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. The OGL 1.0a allows WotC to do anything with any and all existing or future OGC already. Because the OGL 1.0a allows publishers to use it instead of any future OGL and the OGL1.0a says that any OGC derivative content is also OGC it doesn't matter if the OGC is created under 1.0a or 2.0. What WotC is trying to do is prevent any OGC from ever becoming 4e because that would allow every publisher to bypass the GSL and produce 4e product under the OGL. If that was WotC intent they wouldn't have gone to the bother of the GSL.

 

[madelf]

A new version of the OGL doesn't have any impact on products published with the GSL unless WotC alters the GSL to allow publication of a product under both licenses.

Unless WotC states in the new OGL that content released under the OGL may also be used under the GSL. Then they don't have to alter the GSL to allow use of both licenses. The GSL only works with the GSL, and the OGL works with either the OGL or the GSL. And you have easy one-way conversion (to 4th Edition) of any open content, without the risk of backward conversion (from 4th Edition to 3.X).

This is what I've been saying all along. I never said that Ken's OGC won't necessarily show up in Bob's 4e product, just that Bob can't do that without including some version of the OGL in his product. As things stand right now, that can't happen, because the GSL specifically says you can't use it in conjunction with another license. If you posit a reversal of that restriction in the GSL, of course what I'm saying doesn't apply.

They don't have to change the GSL to do what I'm talking about. They could just revise the OGL to state that a copy of the OGL does not need to be included in the product if (and presumably only if) the content is being used under the GSL. How would it be any different than getting someone's direct permission to use their IP?

The GSL requires you to obtain appropriate permission for any 3rd party IP you are using. In order to use someone else's OGC that means including the OGL in your product. None of the changes you propose above change that in any way. The only change that makes any difference is WotC allowing someone to use the GSL and OGL at the same time for the same product.

Again, the GSL says that a publisher may convert OGL products they have previously published to 4th Edition. They may feel that having used the content under the OGL previously (thereby essentially creating a new product of their own) that already constitutes such permission. If it turns out that they're (legally) wrong, a quick revision of the OGL makes them right.

I completely agree, but this isn't contradicting anything I've been saying.

If what you are positing happens, then nothing really changes for Ken. Bob is still using his OGC as OGC by the terms of the OGL. Of course, since you can use any version of the OGL you want, Ken and everyone else can still use that OGC in other OGL products, using an earlier version of the OGL, without including the GSL. In the situation you propose, it looks like the only person whose rights are limited in any way is Bob.

Well, your insistence that they "can't do that" sure seemed to contradict what I've been saying.

And I don't see how anyone's rights are restricted any more than they already would be. The GSL would simply be used in the same way the OGL already is. And I do suspect that just such (one-way) use is probably what WotC intended.

 

[pemerton]

Unless WotC states in the new OGL that content released under the OGL may also be used under the GSL. Then they don't have to alter the GSL to allow use of both licenses.

<snip>

They don't have to change the GSL to do what I'm talking about. They could just revise the OGL to state that a copy of the OGL does not need to be included in the product if (and presumably only if) the content is being used under the GSL. How would it be any different than getting someone's direct permission to use their IP?

The OGL requires that a copy of the OGL with a correct s 15 be affixed to any OGC that is used and/or distributed by someone who did not contribute that OGC.

Section 9 of the OGL allows distribution of any OGC under any authorised version of the licence. It doesn't permit the OGL to be varied so as to permit OGC to be used independently of the licence.

The GSL only works with the GSL, and the OGL works with either the OGL or the GSL. And you have easy one-way conversion (to 4th Edition) of any open content, without the risk of backward conversion (from 4th Edition to 3.X).

This doesn't quite make sense to me. Unlike the OGL, the GSL does not create a special class of content. It simply licenses the use of certain material found in the 4e SRD. The notion of using the GSL to distribute OGC makes no sense - the GSL is not a version of the OGL, and (unlike the OGL) it doesn't vest any rights in 3rd parties in respect of other 3rd parties' intellectual property.

the GSL says that a publisher may convert OGL products they have previously published to 4th Edition. They may feel that having used the content under the OGL previously (thereby essentially creating a new product of their own) that already constitutes such permission. If it turns out that they're (legally) wrong, a quick revision of the OGL makes them right.

<snip>

And I don't see how anyone's rights are restricted any more than they already would be. The GSL would simply be used in the same way the OGL already is. And I do suspect that just such (one-way) use is probably what WotC intended.

The GSL can't be used in the same way as the OGL is, for the reason that it does not create rights in 3rd parties.

Material distributed as OGC under the OGL is not material which one is free to use at large - it is only to be used under the OGL (some version or other thereof). Release of material under the OGL certainly does not give anyone permission to use that material in a product that is released under the GSL with affixing a copy of the OGL (including a proper section 15). And no alteration of the OGL could change this, a any such alteration would still require OGC to be distributed only under (some version or other of) the OGL.

 

[madelf]

The OGL requires that a copy of the OGL with a correct s 15 be affixed to any OGC that is used and/or distributed by someone who did not contribute that OGC.

Section 9 of the OGL allows distribution of any OGC under any authorised version of the licence. It doesn't permit the OGL to be varied so as to permit OGC to be used independently of the licence.

And for about the sixth time.... a revised OGL could say anything they wanted. Quoting the existing OGL is ignoring my a large part of my point.

This doesn't quite make sense to me. Unlike the OGL, the GSL does not create a special class of content. It simply licenses the use of certain material found in the 4e SRD. The notion of using the GSL to distribute OGC makes no sense - the GSL is not a version of the OGL, and (unlike the OGL) it doesn't vest any rights in 3rd parties in respect of other 3rd parties' intellectual property.

C'mon.... the GSL has an OGL conversion clause. That clause is what we're talking about. The GSL say a publisher can convert anything they've previously published.

The GSL can't be used in the same way as the OGL is, for the reason that it does not create rights in 3rd parties.

Not really relevant. We're not talking about third party rights in the GSL.

Material distributed as OGC under the OGL is not material which one is free to use at large - it is only to be used under the OGL (some version or other thereof). Release of material under the OGL certainly does not give anyone permission to use that material in a product that is released under the GSL with affixing a copy of the OGL (including a proper section 15). And no alteration of the OGL could change this, a any such alteration would still require OGC to be distributed only under (some version or other of) the OGL.

The GSL says otherwise. It says a publisher can convert a product they've previously published under the OGL. A new version of the OGL could also say so, rather effortlessly. I habe no idea why you think the OGL could not be revised to say anything WotC wants it to say. If they want it to allow use of content under the GSL then that's what it will say.

 

[pemerton]

And for about the sixth time.... a revised OGL could say anything they wanted. Quoting the existing OGL is ignoring my a large part of my point.

<snip>

A new version of the OGL could also say so, rather effortlessly. I habe no idea why you think the OGL could not be revised to say anything WotC wants it to say. If they want it to allow use of content under the GSL then that's what it will say.

The point of quoting the OGL is to indicate the limited consequences of any such revision. However the OGL was amended, that wouldn't change the terms on which OGC contributors had licensed their OGL. Under existing clause 9, they have agreed to let their OGC be distributed under any version of the OGL. They have not agreed to let it be distributed independently of the OGL.

Future revisions to the license don't change the terms on which existing OGC contributors have licensed the use of their OGC.

C'mon.... the GSL has an OGL conversion clause. That clause is what we're talking about. The GSL say a publisher can convert anything they've previously published.

<snip>

The GSL says otherwise. It says a publisher can convert a product they've previously published under the OGL.

That clause does not grant any special permission to convert product published under the OGL. Such a permission is unnecessary given the rest of the GSL. The point of that clause is to place restrictions on conversions.

And, as I and others have said, WoTC has no right to confer authority on you to reproduce my IP without my permission. And if my IP is OGC, then the only way that you can reproduce it is under some version or other of the OGL.

Not really relevant. We're not talking about third party rights in the GSL.

Except that you keep arguing that the GSL does, or could, give publisher X the right to print a work incorporating publisher Y's OGC, without publisher Y's express permission, and without including the OGL in the publication. And that assertion is, in my opinion, false.

 

[jmucchiello]

Under existing clause 9, they have agreed to let their OGC be distributed under any version of the OGL. They have not agreed to let it be distributed independently of the OGL.

Read that again. If a future OGL says, "you don't need to include the OGL in a work distributing OGC" that doesn't mean you are distributing OGC independent of the OGL. It just means the license doesn't have to be printed in the work. Notice that the GSL does not have to be included in a product licensed under the GSL. That doesn't mean the license isn't being used. It just isn't a requirement of the license. Similarly, the requirement in the OGL could be rescinded in a future version of the license and someone using your OGC could use that future version to release your OGC without printing the license in their work.

 

[Belen]

I think the question isn't about PI (Product Identity), but OGC and how it is converted to 4e. From my understanding you can convert anything to 4e that once was OGC. However, if your product included another company's IP you would have to seek specific permission. The thing is not many people used each other's PI, but a lot of people used each other's OGC.

So is this the perfect time to ressurect Blessed Suns?

 

[jaldaen]

So is this the perfect time to ressurect Blessed Suns?

Wow... I haven't heard someone mention that project in a long long time

Feel free to email me at: joseph.dm.miller@gmail.com (we can chat about the old and the new).

 

[Belen]

Wow... I haven't heard someone mention that project in a long long time

Feel free to email me at: joseph.dm.miller@gmail.com (we can chat about the old and the new).

Those were some good times. I was always sorry that the project failed.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Read that again. If a future OGL says, "you don't need to include the OGL in a work distributing OGC" that doesn't mean you are distributing OGC independent of the OGL. It just means the license doesn't have to be printed in the work. Notice that the GSL does not have to be included in a product licensed under the GSL. That doesn't mean the license isn't being used. It just isn't a requirement of the license. Similarly, the requirement in the OGL could be rescinded in a future version of the license and someone using your OGC could use that future version to release your OGC without printing the license in their work.

True, but I fail to see the relevance. Yes there could be a OGL 2.0 that could be released that loosened the section 15 rules but that would still have no impact on the GSL. The purpose of the GSL is to keep OGC out, if they had wanted OGC in they wouldn't have bothered with a GSL. If we are talking just hypotheticals of changing the OGL then the question comes up as why. Why would WotC ever release a OGL 2.0 that would allow other folks to release SRD content without crediting WotC.