The problem with GSL is that the 4E SRD is basically nonexistent.
Ah, right, fair use.
In this case, we'd best hope for the OGL to make a return.
Licensing, OGL and Getting D&D Compatible Publishers Involved
- Thread starter dmccoy1693
- Start date
The problem with GSL is that the 4E SRD is basically nonexistent.
Ah, right, fair use.
In this case, we'd best hope for the OGL to make a return.
Because clause 5.6 of the GSL states that "Licensee will not publish or reprint (a) the contents of the SRD in their entirety; or (b) definitions of any 4E References, whether or not similar to those listed in any product published by Wizards" and clause 5.5 precludes a licenssee "reprinting any material contained in a Core Rulebook except" if it appears in the SRD. And the 4e SRD is basically a list of the names of game elements and concepts. It does not actually contain any rules or story text - quite unlike the 3.0 and 3.5 SRDs.
To be licensed under the OGL, a document must contain OGC, which is defined by the OGL as "the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines". The 4e SRD contains no OGC - no game mechanics.
dmccoy1693
Adventurer
we could, but we're not. We're playing nice. I know i had a discussion with the people of my company about making products for the playtest, but ultimately we decided to play nice, sit on the side lines and encourage Wizards to take an open route with the final version. I am sure that my company is not the only one that had that discussion with their people.
True. But it's a risk - how compatible will it actually be with the final ruleset? The game keeps changing at the moment; up until now we've seen the changes, but we're probably not going to see any more of the changes between now and release. You could end up producing something that's basically incompatible.
Nellisir
Hero
Of course it doesn't contain OGC - it's not the OGL. It's a different license. That's...look, I don't know how else to say it. The GSL is not the OGL, but it is an evolution of it.
Is the GSL a "good" license? No. Personally, I think it sucks big time donkey balls. I don't hate it, because it's an inert piece of legalese and that would be stupid, but I wouldn't bother wiping my butt with it either. Nonetheless, the GSL was intended to replace both the OGL and the d20 license with a single license that allowed a very limited amount of use, reproduction, and reference to WotC's D&D trademarks and copyrights. It is true that, even as limited as the GSL was, WotC did not take advantage of it, but the fact that they didn't fill out the SRD does not and did not mean that they could not have done so. The capability is in the license. I stand by what I said, and I'm not going to waste time arguing about how the GSL doesn't contain OGC (it doesn't), or how the GSL is worthless (not relevant), or how the only choices are those we've seen before (there are more).
Nellisir
Hero
Yup. And all the crap about WotC changing the license whenever and however they want, with no notice, and so on and so forth. That really killed it. But starving the SRD didn't help either.
My point is that it contains no candidate OGC, because it contains no mechanics.
The basic idea of the OGL is to permit reproduction of rules text in which WotC claims copyright. WotC's OGL FAQ opens with the observation that the OGL is a "royalty free copyright licence". It's all about allowing people to reproduce WotC rules text in their own games and game supplements. An the relevant text is characterised as mechanics, methods, processes, procedures and routines.
The basic idea of the GSL is to permit reprodruction of words and designs in which WotC claims trademarks, other rights related to trade dress and also copyright: the GSL FAQ describes the GSL as licensing certain "Terms, Tables and Templates". With its prohibition on defining, redefining or altering the definition of SRD references, its all about allowing people to produce material that adds to WotC's 4e world. With its permission (in clause 4.3) to create derivative 2D imagery, it allows including illustrations modelled on WotC's illustrations of its creatures, races etc. But with its contractual obligation not to reproduce any rulebook text, it forbids doing just the sort of thing that the OGL is about permitting. It allows reproduction of work that is derivative of WotC's copyrighted texts (eg encounters with bulettes or tieflings), but not of WotC's text themselves.
[MENTION=38140]Frylock[/MENTION] had a very nice blog on the issue here.
Given that - as others have noted upthread - WotC is trying to create an integrated, transmedia D&D experience, I think it's as likely with D&Dnext as with 4e that they will want to ensure story integrity by imposing the same sorts of constraints on 3rd parties. What they might try and do differently is communicate exactly what the function of any new licence is. I think with respect to the GSL there was quite a bit of miscommunication, because it was so different in nature and purpose from the OGL but people were judging it as if it was meant to be a substitute for or equivalent to the OGL.
I personally think the GSL is a very generous licence. People who are expecting a royalty-free trademark licence of unlimited duration in my view have completley unrealistic expectations, given that - as a publishing company - the only valuable asset that WotC owns is its IP.
The GSL could be improved, though, in my view by making it clearer what it permits and doesn't permit and what its rationale is. But it is always going to require legal advice for its use.
Wicht
Hero
No, that's not completely true. An IP has no value if people are not willing to pay you for it. Public goodwill, name brand recognition, and the like all have value, though they are harder to measure.
I also think that you seem to be misunderstanding an important point concerning the OGL and games in general (I know that you are responding to a point about the GSL but your comment about "unlimited" seems to imply a conflation of the two licenses and the OGL is the license most of us would want, not the GSL ): rules are never truly off limits to anyone nor are they able to be trademarked. Rules, as such, have no real legal protection (which is part of the reason there are so many Monopoly clones), though the copyrighted presentation of them might. What the OGL does, and does well, is make rules and the application of those rules, open and available in a way that allows other companies to expand upon them freely, without having to worry about the finer points of treading the line of violating copyright. Companies can actually publish compatible game material without it, but its simply, imo, going to be a little more of a headache (Judges Guild used to do it for AD&D for instance without a license). The OGL does not make company Trademarks available and publishers are free (indeed obligated under section 8 of the OGL) to delineate which parts of a book are Closed and which are Open. If publishers want to utilize Trademark, section 7 of the OGL demands a separate license to do so.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
