Loremaster Article: To GSL or not to GSL?

[Matt James]

IP attorney Rob Bodine talks about the GSL after being inspired by many new hot topics started here. It's a good read, if you feel so inclined.

Loremaster - Protection from Chaos, Part V: To GSL, or Not to GSL

 

[Alzrius]

I'll be honest - I don't think it's that good of a read. Not a bad one, certainly, but nothing too informative to anyone who knows what they're talking about (though there are certainly many people who could stand to brush up in that regard!).

For one thing, he starts off on a poor note:

A post on a recent ENWorld thread expressed the notion that publishing D&D content without using the GSL was “not playing nice.” This couldn’t be further from the truth, and the reasoning is instructive for people looking to be published in every other gaming system, as there are no other licenses (of which I’m aware) like the GSL for any other game.

So he's never heard of the OGL?

The rest of the article is basically a treatise on what copyright is and why it's a good thing. Now, nothing he's stated is wrong (that I can tell, at least) but much of the article is just his opinion (which, to be fair, he calls out) on a number of points.

He also doesn't talk about any number of points that people don't like about the GSL, such as how it lets WotC shut down all content produced under it if they so choose.

Basically, the article is talking about copyright and game publication, with only a little GSL discussion.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I'm sure he's heard of the OGL, but he's specifically talking about D&D in its current incarnation, which only has a single license. As far as the current model of D&D is concerned, the OGL is in the past.

He's talking specifically about the pros and cons of either doing the GSL or just making a compatible adventure with current copyright laws. (And if you do the latter you don't even need the OGL.)

He also doesn't talk about any number of points that people don't like about the GSL, such as how it lets WotC shut down all content produced under it if they so choose.

That's par for the course with most licenses. The OGL was a very unusual license, very permissive (almost to a fault in some eyes), and most licensed content has an "end of life" clause.

 

[Mark CMG]

The "naming conventions" section could probably use a side note regarding trademarks. And it might be worthwhile to include a parenthetical after the "SRD" to denote the edition "SRD (4E)"

 

[Alzrius]

I'm sure he's heard of the OGL, but he's specifically talking about D&D in its current incarnation, which only has a single license. As far as the current model of D&D is concerned, the OGL is in the past.

That's the article's topic, yes. But he specifically says that he's not aware of any other licenses like the GSL for any other game - which seems to imply that he isn't aware of the OGL's existence. I agree that'd be odd, but that seems to be the most reasonable conclusion to draw from his statement.

He's talking specifically about the pros and cons of either doing the GSL or just making a compatible adventure with current copyright laws. (And if you do the latter you don't even need the OGL.)

Mostly he's saying how copyright works and how it applies to game materials. He does talk about the nature of using or not using the GSL, but he doesn't seem to delve very deep into the pros and cons of those choices.

That's par for the course with most licenses. The OGL was a very unusual license, very permissive (almost to a fault in some eyes), and most licensed content has an "end of life" clause.

I was expecting someone to say this, but I really don't understand why people keep bringing it up. Institutionalization proves...what exactly? It's not a statement towards the virtue of a practice, certainly, since plenty of bad things can be standardized as much as something good.

The subject is whether or not the GSL is "nice," not if it's "unusual," and (and I think this is the rub) comparing it to the OGL, the GSL isn't nice.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I was expecting someone to say this, but I really don't understand why people keep bringing it up. Institutionalization proves...what exactly? It's not a statement towards the virtue of a practice, certainly, since plenty of bad things can be standardized as much as something good.

The subject is whether or not the GSL is "nice," not if it's "unusual," and (and I think this is the rub) comparing it to the OGL, the GSL isn't nice.

Because, in effect, you're implying that having tight control over IP is somehow "wrong", and are making a moral judgement on WoTC. And I think that author's point was it's not that black and white.

 

[Alzrius]

Because, in effect, you're implying that having tight control over IP is somehow "wrong", and are making a moral judgement on WoTC. And I think that author's point was it's not that black and white.

That's not what I'm implying - I'm implying (or rather, outrightly stating) that, when you compare them side-by-side, the GSL offers licensees worse terms than the OGL did, and that WotC's decision in that regard was less generous, and hence not nice.

The author's point had nothing to do with that at all.

 

[JohnRTroy]

That's not what I'm implying - I'm implying (or rather, outrightly stating) that, when you compare them side-by-side, the GSL offers licensees worse terms than the OGL did, and that WotC's decision in that regard was less generous, and hence not nice.

"Worse terms", or terms that are more restrictive than the last license, does not equal "not nice". Sometimes there are reasons for that.

 

[Alzrius]

"Worse terms", or terms that are more restrictive than the last license, does not equal "not nice". Sometimes there are reasons for that.

Whether or not they equal "not nice" is a matter of opinion. There are reasons for someone not to be nice, but it's still not nice.

 

[Matt James]

Fascinating responses. I e-mailed Rob to try and pull him over to this thread (if he wants).