Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Frylock" data-source="post: 5493946" data-attributes="member: 38140">ClarificationsI’m the author, and I’d like to clarify a few things. 1. The conclusion of the article was simply this: You can publish 4e material outside the GSL without resorting to legal trickery due to the very nature of copyright law. 2. I’m fully aware of the OGL. I left it out because 1) the article is about the GSL, and 2) the OGL was so expansive that I don’t think anyone really needs to be told that you can publish outside it. There’s almost no difference between publishing inside or outside the OGL considering that it allows you to do so much, so most everyone (if not everyone outside of gamers writing adventures for home games) probably adopted it. Nevertheless, I've amended the article to include its mention because my statement about 'no other licenses' was technically wrong.3. The details of the GSL are outside the scope of the article. Discussing them would serve only the purpose of helping you decide whether to adopt it. That’s a business decision I’m unqualified to make for you, so with the exception of very general statements of the pros and cons of adoption the GSL (game integrity and marketing power v. encouraging creativity), I have no intention of going through a line-by-line analysis. EDIT: I did identify the three documents that make up the "GSL" because of pervasive confusion I've read/heard from gamers. Of course, if the people call for that article, maybe I have my Part VI topic now.4. I didn’t denote the SRD, “SRD (4th),” because I didn’t want to confuse the issue. The article is about the GSL, and taken within context, I don’t know how someone could possibly think I was referencing anything but the 4th edition SRD.5. As Matt pointed out, there seems to be a misconception in this thread that I’m evaluating the GSL (and by extension, WotC) as “nice” v. “not nice.” I’m not. I’m evaluating whether it is fair to say that your choice not to adopt the GSL is “nice” or “not nice.” In other words, the question is: If you publish a 4e supplement without adopting the GSL, are you guilty of finding a legal loophole and inappropriately subverting copyright law or ethical business practices? (The answer is no, no, no, no, no!)6. I added a “soapbox alert” tag due to the concern that my opinion is sprinkled throughout the article. It clearly is, but it shouldn’t be the focus. My purpose is to objectively discuss the legality of going outside the GSL. For the record, my statement of the purpose of copyright law is not mere opinion. If you read almost any court decision on copyright, you’ll see that the purpose is public in nature. The grant of a private monopoly is merely a mechanism to serve that public interest. I'd give you multiple examples of this, but they're primarily constitutional issues, and I don't want to start any political fights. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Thanks for your comments.</blockquote>

Verification