New GSL Announcement

[Angellis_ater]

Any sensible businessman looking at entering a contract needs to consider various scenarios; "What happens if the other party decides to end the contract" is an obvious scenario. In this case the answer is "You go bust, no recourse, no damages". That makes entering it a big gamble.

Not only that, but it does seem like we've been put into this position while there is a viable license still available, for a system that isn't dead yet. To me, it feels like a given which way to lean, but I'll reserve final judgement until we DO see the GSL.

 

[Kesh]

Okay, here's something Scott probably can't answer until Monday:

What if I decided to write a new 4e-GSL-compatible product, but wanted to include someone else's OGL content? For instance, an artifact from a sourcebook published under the OGL, rewritten for 4e stats.

My current understanding is that this is not possible, as we can't mix OGL & GSL in the same product. Which basically means unless the publisher themselves update the product to use the GSL, I cannot use that material at all in my own product.

That would be my biggest disappointment in this development: all that old content that's ripe for mining ideas here and there gets cordoned off into "OGL only" land. Still, it's understandable why that would be the case.

Also, that leaves us with the one question not fully clarified yet: is a publisher required to publish GSL material only, or can they publish separate OGL & GSL content (ie, not the same product at the same time)? For example, I could publish a "Dungeon Snacks" OGL supplement and a "Dungeon Weapons" GSL supplement at the same time as separate products, but not publish a "Dungeon Weapons" OGL at the same time my GSL version of the product is on the market?

I think getting those two questions clarified would do a lot to settle this thread down a bit.

 

[xechnao]

Or they could say, "WotC can't revoke the OGL," which gets across the point they really want to get across much faster, without being inaccurate, and without making light of WotC's legitimate rights.

Copyright means something. Yes, it's worth getting worked up over.

Also, since WotC has copyrighted the wording of the OGL, if anyone wants to create a new OGL-like open license for games they'll need to write a new one thats sufficiently different from the OGL.

But OGL text can still be used as a legal document as a license and not a product, right? I know you can copyright products but can you claim IP rights on something if used as a legal license? In theory this could mean that even laws could be copyrighted which I know that it is not the case.

 

[Goobermunch]

Hey everyone,

It looks like things are happening that we're not privvy to. Right now there's a big discussion about the terms of a license we've never seen. The folks involved in making decisions about the licensing have been watching the discussion, and they've indicated that we've been heard. In addition, we can infer that something further is happening because Le Rouse and Orcus had a cryptic conversation.

How about we dial back the rhetoric and rage until we get some more information? I'm seeing people here get into detailed debates of minutia and hypotheticals about hypotheticals that may never become reality. Folks are getting entrenched in positions that may not be tenable come morning.

--G

 

[Wicht]

I have a question for the legal minds posting here.

Say that IF the GSL does require you to dump all your old PDFs, could you form a second company, sell the rights to your old PDFs to the second company and then using your original company create new 4e books while the new company does nothing but sell your old PDFs?

 

[S'mon]

Hi - perhaps I wasn't clear. Whenever the "Rules aren't copywriteable" comment comes out, its generally by someone who isn't a publisher.

(I teach copyright) - Rules per se are not copyrightable, but text does not cease to be copyrightable just because it embodies rules. If your OGL work includes a chunk of rules text from the SRD, you can't just "rewrite" that chunk and discard the OGL. That just turns literal copying into non-literal copying. Copyright protects literary works - text. I'd advise a whole new edition of the game with the rules expressed in a different manner, one not derived from the text of the previous OGL edition. Even then it's risky, because there is clear evidence your work derived originally from WotC's copyright work. This is very different from creating a D&D compatible non-OGL adventure, where WoTC's claim would be very weak. In this case you've clearly derived a substantial amount of your work from the SRD, in which WoTC owns the copyright. I would advise OGL publishers to stick with the OGL, or do what Mongoose is doing and phase out their SRD-derived works.

 

[Morrus]

I have a question for the legal minds posting here.

Say that IF the GSL does require you to dump all your old PDFs, could you form a second company, sell the rights to your old PDFs to the second company and then using your original company create new 4e books while the new company does nothing but sell your old PDFs?

Sure. And then WotC would say "Hey, what, are you trying to pull a fast one on us?" and use whatever discretional revocation clause they have in the license.

That asumes the text of the license doesn't already cover that contingency, which is probably does.

 

[GMSkarka]

Whenever the "Rules aren't copywriteable" comment comes out, its generally by someone who isn't a publisher.

Most of the commentary and questions posted in threads like these are from non-publishers, and, in fact, from folks who don't particularly have a strong grasp on licensing issues, publishing, or much else beyond some half-formed ideas of what's going on.

Given the frustrations brought about by that, and given that specific information appears to be forthcoming on Monday (which, I hope, will be emailed to the publishers, rather than posted publicly), I'm bowing out of the thread -- and I suspect other publishers are doing so as well.

 

[xechnao]

(I teach copyright)

So can you please comment on my issue raised just above? That would be very helpful
Thanks.

 

[Nellisir]

Having thought about it more, I find myself in agreement with S'mon and Oldtimer. The GSL with the "poison pill" clause is worse than no GSL at all.
...
As it stands now, the GSL is designed to try and shut down the OGL, essentially attempting to squeeze Open Gaming to a fraction of its former self - not in terms of the size of the publishing community, but in terms of how open Open Gaming is.

Ditto. If WotC had gone with a closed system, the 3pp would stay with the OGL & the 3.5 ruleset by necessity. If WotC had gone with an open license without the "non-compete" clause, companies would probably cheerfully support both 4e and OGL products, and support for 3.5 would die down, eventually stabilizing just as Basic/1e support is stabile. Instead, they've given 3pp a choice: stick with the OGL and a ruleset the industry leader doesn't support, or burn your bridges* and hitch your wagon to D&D and whatever is best for WotC. And then get ready to do it again in 8 years.

If what Orcus reports is true and not a misunderstanding, I flat-out won't buy 4e. I understand why they might do it, but I don't have to support an action just because I understand the motivation. And the more consumers and 3pp who do likewise, and simply walk away from 4e and the GSL, the more likely WotC will do something about it in the future (which could easily be just the next 12 months).

*I realise companies can always abandon the GSL and go back to the OGL, but they'll be without a presence in the OGL market for some time - who knows what the OGL market will look like then? It may have evolved away from them, it may have shrivelled to the point that it can't support them when they return.