OGL To Be Renamed Game System License (GSL)

[Emil]

WotC states in the d20 STL, Section 1: Copyright & Trademark that WotC owns the d20 license and logo and they're free to bar anyone from putting the logo on new printings.

However, except in situations of borrowed Open Game Content, the creators/publishers still own their creations/publications. So even if WotC declares fiat and requests people to stop using the d20 logo on their "outdated" products. I don't think they can really stop them from continuing to release subsequent printings of the exact same product without the extraneous d20 logo.

UPDATE: The subsequent printings would probably also have to lose all references to "Dungeons & Dragons" such as "Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast, Inc." (IIRC, there was a book that came out at some point that said "requires the use of the worlds most popular fantasy roleplaying game" in place of the "requires D&D text")

 

[Cergorach]

I think you're confusing two separate issues here.

One being whether or not artists should get paid for their work. There might have been no copyright in Michaelangelo's time, but he was well paid for his work while he was doing it.

Contrast this with Cervantes, who wrote a wildly popular novel (Don Quixote) but was almost penniless because of all the pirated copies out there.

So clearly some art forms need some reasonable copyright protection so that the author of the work can receive his just due, or at least something close to that.

But you're confusing this issue, which I think most people agree with, with the notion that copyrights, trademarks and other protections should be used to allow a bunch of lawyers and corporations (often not the creators) to keep work closed and propietary *forever*.

For example, even if Time Warner loses their legan wranglings to keep Superman out of the public domain, they have already slapped so many trademarks on him that it doesn't matter much. Meanwhile the creators and their children don't have access to it.

One is reasonable, one isn't.

I myself think the OGL leans closer to the former than the latter, but there is an important distinction.

You seemed to be arguing that creators should have to depend on patronage, rather than being able to just release their books into the market and make money that way.

I am of the believe that content creators should be provided for, for their works to the public. The easiest way in current society is to compensate the creator with money, the easiest way to guarantee that is with copyrights. Only copyrights have been seriously 'misused' (as I indicated above).

Personally I would like to see the following (over the course of time):
1.) Only humans can hold the copyrights to their own property.
2.) Limit copyrights to a period of time that will allow the creator ample time to be compensated. Say, 5 years.
3.) Remove copyrights, but with social changes that will make sure that the creator is still provided for his work. Be that through governmental subsidy or by donation (yeah, humanity needs to be more giving for that to really work).

Because option 1 and 2 are currently very difficult to attain through conventional means (the corporate lobby is far to big to allow this in democratic countries), 'free' thinkers have developed Open Source Licences, especially the viral kind. If you follow the OSS news a bit, you'll notice that it's actually working. Big companies like SUN and IBM are embracing it, even companies like The New York Times are providing funding to OSS (WordPress). The biggest alternative to Windows is Linux (with OsX gaining quickly), an OS Operating System. Companies that develop such software don't make their money selling their software, they make money providing services, such as support (but installation and schooling are also quite common).

Look at the internet services such as ENworld, they don't make money in the traditional sense, money is earned through advertising and donation. While ENworld might not be the best example as they don't have a paid staff, there are many examples of sites that do have paid staff supported through adds. WotC is also starting to move in the service support direction with their digital initiative (online gaming, character creation, discussion, etc.).

Computer games are also moving to a service based model, MMOs require a monthly payment. While many games still require you to buy them initially and major expansions (World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings, etc.), others only require only monthly payments (Eve Online, Jumpgate, etc.), still others are free but allow certain ingame features through micro payments (Rappelz, Sword of the New World, etc.).

While D&D is a solid brandname and the a lot of the rules changes are a step forward (a lot of the fluff changes aren't as good imho), 3.xE is open and 4E isn't really. Sure your allowed to publish material for it, but only under some very strict rules and oversight. Although we don't know the exact details, we do get the idea... With the move to 3E there were a lot of folks that said they would stay with 2E (or 1E, or Basic, or whatever edition they wanted to play). That was a choice based on preffered edition and a bit of rebbeling against a new edition (that made most of the 2E books redundant), now there is also the license issue. You would be suprised how many people prefer to use OSS over closed Software on principle (provided of course that it does what you want it to). Expect the same with 3.xE vs. 4E.

 

[JohnRTroy]

You would be suprised how many people prefer to use OSS over closed Software on principle (provided of course that it does what you want it to). Expect the same with 3.xE vs. 4E.

It's still a significant minority, both with OSS (otherwise Microsoft wouldn't be number 1), and with D&D. Compare the sales of all third-party games to those of WoTC.

I honestly think the rules and setting changes will matter a lot more to people than what license it has. After all, D&D is a game, the license really only matters to those who want to publish content for the system, and the players far outnumber the publishers. No license restricts the ability of us to whip out our products and play the game.

Ultimately, the factor for me and others to buy any product is "is it useful/fun".

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Ultimately, the factor for me and others to buy any product is "is it useful/fun".

No, based on your posts on this subject for the past couple of months, I'd say the ultimate factor for you is, "Does it offend your ethics?"

 

[JohnRTroy]

Sorry Wulfbane, wrong. My purchase of 4e will depend on whether or not its a good game or not.

I purchased OGL products, and non OGL products. My discussions about licenses is separate from the 4e issues. I don't think the majority of the audience really care about what license it's under if they just play the game.

My ethical arguments are based at people who seem to think the OGL/"copyleft"/etc, is the "one true way", and who seem to have trouble understanding having respect for authors and publishers.

 

[Lizard]

Here's a question: is WotC planning on revoking the d20 license and demanding a "cure" at some point?

I believe a WOTC rep has said the STL will *not* be revoked. If I am remembering correctly and this is not changed, props to them. (The OGL cannot be revoked, so it's a non-issue.)

The main benefit is that anyone still publishing using the D20 logo does not have to recall/shred product. I'm sure both of them will be very happy.

 

[Cergorach]

My ethical arguments are based at people who seem to think the OGL/"copyleft"/etc, is the "one true way", and who seem to have trouble understanding having respect for authors and publishers.

While I understand your point of view, I think we all do. But while you speak about respect for authors/publishers, you dismiss people who have a different point of view and/or don't agree with yours. You designate people as thieves, leechers, and insinuate worse. That does not come across as respectful or even civilized, I hope you understand that does not sit well with people that are either the target of your disapproval or do not agree with such manners. While you might not intend to come across as offensive or arrogant, please keep in mind that if you look carefully at some of the comments here, some clearly believe you are acting that way. Judging other folks and saying "your wrong" and "that is right" is not the most effective way to get your point across. I know this is a topic that's very close to everyone's hearts (for many different reasons), and it's only natural that it sometimes gets a bit heated in the discussions. Clearly you have a strong believe about copyrights, but please keep in mind that others have an equally stung believe in the OGL/"copyleft"/etc. While you perceive others as stating that is the 'one true way', you take the same stance on the other side of the fence. While I don't particularly have a problem with that, you do have a tendency to throw everyone that's not with you on the same pile, and that is a bit annoying from in my humble opinion.

Sure it's important that a game is good and that should be the only standard you should judge a book by (and not it's cover), but reality is a bit different. 4E allows the publishing of 3rd party products, the exact scope of what you can and cannot publish is not yet clear, but it is clear that you don't have the perpetual freedom of the OGL. If at some point in the future WotC decides that the GSL isn't necessary anymore or it's detrimental to their sales, they could easily further close what you can use and make with the GSL, or even end the entire GSL. This might or might not happen, but WotC has the power to do so at the push of a button. I for one don't want to heavily invest in a game system that might close up even further, while the current 'open' system works perfectly well (with some tweaks), forking then seems like a perfectly good option (for me at least). While I'm not a publisher, I am someone who likes to share what he creates, the GPL and OGL allow me that, while making sure that it goes on being 'open'. And what I mean by investment is more time and creativity then money spent on books.

I for one will be buying D&D 4E whether it's good or not, it's the mainstream Fantasy RPG, I'll get my money's worth even if I only stare at the pretty pictures. But if I run a 'D&D' game, it's most likely with the 3.5 rules that are 'open' (even if it requires some tweaks).

 

[jgbrowning]

I believe a WOTC rep has said the STL will *not* be revoked. If I am remembering correctly and this is not changed, props to them. (The OGL cannot be revoked, so it's a non-issue.)

The main benefit is that anyone still publishing using the D20 logo does not have to recall/shred product. I'm sure both of them will be very happy.

I believe that the license will expire, meaning that no new products can be released under the d20 license, but that no products will be required to be recalled or shredded. Basically WotC has let we smaller 3rd party people sell through what we've produced and let the license die slowly instead of quickly. We've removed the d20 logos from our most recent OGL products to speed that process out of consideration for their wishes.

joe b.

 

[Lizard]

Sorry Wulfbane, wrong. My purchase of 4e will depend on whether or not its a good game or not.

I purchased OGL products, and non OGL products. My discussions about licenses is separate from the 4e issues. I don't think the majority of the audience really care about what license it's under if they just play the game.

My ethical arguments are based at people who seem to think the OGL/"copyleft"/etc, is the "one true way", and who seem to have trouble understanding having respect for authors and publishers.

As an author (meaning, "someone who actually gets paid real cash money for writing"), I think respect for authors is of paramount importance. I also think respect for contracts matters -- it's how a civil society works. We make deal with each other, and the role of government is to arbitrate and enforce those deals.

Stealing copyrighted work is wrong. Copying work placed under a copyleft-style contract is not wrong. *It's what the author agreed to do*. There is no disrespect to a writer if you re-use work he voluntarily agreed to allow to be re-used. Indeed, as I noted earlier, it is an act of respect -- you're saying the work is worth re-using.

As a programmer, I'd be much less productive if I couldn't use the "cut and paste model of object inheritance". I recently sped up a process by literally 20 times via a quick web search to find optimized code for what I needed to do. Could I have done it myself? Sure. Was it faster/easier to use a snippet someone else wrote and placed on the Web? Sure was. Was it "disrespectful" that I used code the original writer put out with the intent of it being used? Don't see how...

The OGL kept me in the "d20 space" for eight years, and caused me to keep buying WOTC books because I was actively playing D20 games, even if I also bought other products. If, as seems likely, the 4e "space" will be much more constrained, I will buy FEWER WOTC products, since they won't contain material I can 'harvest' for non-D&D games.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Just to be clear, I don't really object to "free content", "open source", etc. I use it to, I've used a creative-commons like copyright for a project, etc.

I guess my major objection is that I believe it is Wizard's choice to change the style of license, so I think they have their rights to do so, even if people think it might be more restrictive. The OGL is not as "viral" as the GPL or anything like that. Wizards always maintained ownership of the game, etc.

The OGL kept me in the "d20 space" for eight years, and caused me to keep buying WOTC books because I was actively playing D20 games, even if I also bought other products. If, as seems likely, the 4e "space" will be much more constrained, I will buy FEWER WOTC products, since they won't contain material I can 'harvest' for non-D&D games.

While I can understand some who feel that way, I really don't think the existence of the D20/OGL is the most important thing on people's minds. I sort of felt like the OGL was good in the beginning, but I realized that it was specific projects I liked, not how "open" they were. Most people are not authors, they are gamers. I think Wizards has more sales than all the third parties combined.

Keep in mind--nobody can restrict you from playing a third-party product. The OGL won't prevent creative GMs from entertaining their own parties. So it won't affect the DMs, it just affects publishers.

Keep in mind too the third party license market is not going away. I have a feeling the GSL will not be as restrictive as some think. You may even get to write an adventure featuring beholders, mind flayers, yuan-ti, etc.

In fact, I'm hoping they allow various levels of licenses, similar to how the creative commons licenses work. If some want their derivative content to be viral, let them. If some don't, restrict it. If some want to give all their rights to Wizards, let them. This will truly give the authors better control, and I think it's a superior situation than the "one license" the OGL is currently using.