New GSL Announcement

[jmucchiello]

The bottom line is they are still doing something amazing--they are opening 4E. I continue to feel that is an amazing accomplishment.

No, Clark, they are licensing 4E. The level of restriction you have stated existing in the GSL means it fails to qualify as open. Yes, it is amazing they are creating a free 3rd party licensing agreement for the D&D brand. But calling it open is disingenuous. OGL is open. Creative Commons is open. The GSL is just another license.

 

[Urizen]

With the release of 4th edition, product visibility will be that much easier, and I believe that my product will have a reasonable chance of success, depending upon whether the gaming community appreciates the quality of my work.

No offense here, but the "visibility" of your product is very much in question when you consider that over 300 publishers are currently on OBS. Anyone putting anything out on or near october 1st (at least in PDF format) is going to find themselves swimming in a sea of 4e pdfs.

 

[jmucchiello]

Perhaps the biggest benefit of the GSL is that you get to clearly (albeit with restrictions)indicate compatitibiltiy with Dungeons and Dragons...

...you actually get to use the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on your cover!

This was NOT a feature of the d20STL.

Yes it was.

Mandatory Trademark Use:

You must include, on the cover or back cover (or title page of works without covers) of the Covered Product, one or more of the following text blocks:

"Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc.”

Any product using the little red, black and white d20 logo could use the words Dungeons and Dragons on the cover. This license is revoked in June.

 

[Nikosandros]

I didnt ask about MM/Traveller/RQ style products because I dont have any of those. I asked the more generic question of 3E vs. 4E. Of course, because MM/RQ etc support 3E in that they use the OGL and 3E SRD, but perhaps there will be a clause that differentiates those product lines. But I think the reasoning is the same and I dont see a way for the answer to be different. And I think we both know the one thing Wizards was targeting as wanting to do away with were the standalone spin offs based on 3E taht didnt help sell 3E. So I cant imagine a more favorable exception for the very games taht I know they didnt like.

I understand your point, but MRQ is not a D&D spin-off. It uses the OGL, but doesn't derive material from the SRD.

 

[Kesh]

No, Clark, they are licensing 4E. The level of restriction you have stated existing in the GSL means it fails to qualify as open. Yes, it is amazing they are creating a free 3rd party licensing agreement for the D&D brand. But calling it open is disingenuous. OGL is open. Creative Commons is open. The GSL is just another license.

The OGL is "just another license" as well. What arbitrary line makes a license "open" versus "not open" here?

 

[Kesh]

Yes it was.

Any product using the little red, black and white d20 logo could use the words Dungeons and Dragons on the cover. This license is revoked in June.

No, you're mixing up two different things here. The STL required the words Dungeons & Dragons on the cover. The GSL allows the use of the full-blown D&D logo, which is going to be much more recognizable on the shelf.

 

[mxyzplk]

It's not only their god-given right, in many cases, it's their statutory duty. If you don't protect your trademarks, you lose them. Trademark goes beyond names and words, and includes things like packaging and, arguably, a board game's layout and distinct board coloring. Hasbro owns trademarks on Clue and Scrabble. If they wish to maintain those trademarks, they need to sue to protect them.

Should Hasbro commit fiscal suicide by letting random people copy their IP and ideas? There's a reason why our legal system protects creative works and provides creators with protection. You may think that the system is corrupt or broken, but how else is Hasbro supposed to stop me from copying Scrabble and releasing my new board game "Spell-o-grid?" Sure, their version may be made with a higher quality board, and maybe they only use the standard 26 "english letters," but mine is substantially cheaper, and if you flip over the qy and qj tiles, you can use them like Hasbro's "blank" tiles.

Or is it your position that it's okay for people to copy Hasbro's products, but not a small company or individual designer's work?

Hasbro does what it can because Hasbro must protect those rights.

--G

Oh, wow, you're right, I never thought about that before. Must be that any company trying to "protect" anything they ever thought of is right and holy. Thanks for clearing that up for me. I guess all those people who don't like what Hasbro, the RIAA, etc. do just never thought about it with as much clarity as you.

 

[mxyzplk]

The OGL is "just another license" as well. What arbitrary line makes a license "open" versus "not open" here?

OK, this is an important point. "Open" isn't a meaningless marketing term, it's a very specific attribute of a license. Here's the Wikipedia definition of open content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_license.

For those who fear knowledge, I'll sum up here. Open content is:
- royalty free (you don't have to pay anyone to use it)
- share alike
- may or may not allow commercial redistribution (your choice).

The important part here that's probably unclear is "share alike." This means that the license has "copyleft" provisions, also described as viral openness. The Creative Commons wording is "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one." Basically you can use the open licensed stuff and your derivative work needs to be open too, and that openness can't be removed (except by self-breach).

Google any of the keywords in that spiel for more information (copyleft, Creative Commons, etc.)

The OGL was an open license. Wizards of the Coast can't revoke the OGL - everything that was declared open shall be open until the end of days. They can do things like "poison pill" the GSL to try to disincent people from using it, like computer companies try to do (Intel to Dell: don't use AMD). But they can't make it un-open. This is what makes it different from a "normal"license like the GSL, that they can revoke or change at any time.

 

[mxyzplk]

It may matter if you want to publish your own system under the OGL, or if you just want to publish it in a closed manner (or under a non-OGL open license). If the latter was okay with you, then I'd have to imagine the GSL would allow it. To do otherwise would be equivalent to saying "once you use GSL, you can't publish any product that isn't GSL", which I think would be impossible.

It's entirely possible. The current restrictions on the GSL don't say this, but it is changeable at any time unilaterally by Wizards. If they decide people doing 4e products can't do any other products, they can change the license to that and as of that moment, you have to either turn your back on 4e or turn your back on your game. There's nothing about them making people "choose between OGL and 4e" that's magic about the OGL - they could try to say that the license means that you have to wear a skirt all day if you want to publish for 4e. You don't have to but then no 4e.

 

[jmucchiello]

The OGL is "just another license" as well. What arbitrary line makes a license "open" versus "not open" here?

An open license has no owner. There is no one entity who is party to all instances of the license. There is no one who can revoke an open license except as defined within the license. Parties to the license stand on equal ground within the license.

The GSL is certainly owned by WotC. WotC is certainly always party to the GSL and always in the position of granting trademark usage. There is nothing "open" about such a license. Additionally, I am positive the GSL will contain language allowing WotC to rewrite, re-purpose and revoke the license at will. (Or maybe it will be once per encounter ability.)

I will grant to you the 99.99% of the target audience doesn't care about openness. But I do and others like me do. There are business arguments for using both kinds of licenses. All I'm asking it that we stop calling this license open when clearly it is anything but.