Question about GSL - Scott please comment

[Najo]

Scott,

So far my impression of the GSL is that it lacks the following:

1) Safe harbor clause: It needs something to ensure a publisher that is fullfilling all of the stipulations of the current GSL that they do not have to worry about WOTC taking their ability to use the GSL away. If a publisher violates the agreement then WOTC warns them to correct it and gives a correction period of 3-6 months to become compliant. If they don't then the company loses their rights to use the GSL.

2) Protection of 3rd party Intellectual Property: The GSL is vague on a 3rd party's IP rights and even implies that the IP is not protected if WOTC wants to copy it. IP right and copyright laws should be clearer in the agreement. What protects Privateer Press if they want to publish Iron Kingdoms for 4.0 or if Piazo wants to publish Pathfinder for 4.0 for example.

3) Remove Permamancy: A company should be able to leave the GSL with their IP and return to another system (OGL or in-house) after a set period of time (6mo - 1 yr? Maybe 2 years) period of time after they leave or they are terminated from the GSL. Forever seems harsh and dangerous to them and very uninviting.

Basically, I want to know how WOTC expects 3rd party publishers to bring their worlds and ideas to the 4.0 system. Right now, there is little incentive to do so as there is no protection against WOTC terminating a company's use or potentionally taking that company's copyrighted non-game materials.

Can you please address these 3 concerns?

Thank you

Nate

 

[Spinachcat]

These are good questions. Especially #2

 

[Moon-Lancer]

3) Remove Permamancy: A company should be able to leave the GSL with their IP and return to another system (OGL or in-house) after a set period of time (6mo - 1 yr? Maybe 2 years) period of time after they leave or they are terminated from the GSL. Forever seems harsh and dangerous to them and very uninviting.

6.2 No Backward Conversion. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that it will not publish any product pursuant to the OGL that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents of a Licensed Product.

They way I see it, They can take the GSL away from you but They cant take the OGL away. In this line, one doesn't revoke rights to OGL. In fact in agreements like these, that take away your rights never hold up in court. If a doctor says he will do x procedure on you and you sign that if he makes a mistake you cant sue him, you can still sue him. Legal documents are invalid if they have you give up your rights. In this case its the right to use the OGL. Also you are under contract, or your not.

This is advice is coming from a friend of mine who took classes in law. If I am wrong about any of these statements please clarify so I am not giving out bad advice.

 

[vagabundo]

Wotc (Scott et all) have been quiet since the release. Maybe they have to push everything through legal?

I was planning and publishing something under the GSL, a mini campaign setting and accompanying adventure.

Now I'm not too sure...

 

[Yair]

Wotc (Scott et all) have been quiet since the release. Maybe they have to push everything through legal?

If I were being asked a bunch of legal questions, as the official representative of a company, I'd be very hesitant of answering too.

Linae did answer one, very important, point though (about the headings in the SRD being entries).

 

[WhatGravitas]

Wotc (Scott et all) have been quiet since the release. Maybe they have to push everything through legal?

Scott is (Senior) Brand Manager, not head of the legal department. These answers have legal implications, so giving out answers on their interpretation alone isn't enough.

In any case, if you want to do something with the GSL, I advise you to get a lawyer. That's the only way to be sure.

Cheers, LT.

 

[jdrakeh]

Publishing under the OGL is not a basic legal right. The OGL is a license offered by the entity of WotC. In order to publish under the OGL, you must abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the licensor. If you do not, you are in breach and invalidate the license. The same is true of the GSL.

The cited terms of the GSL forbid re-publishing any material under the OGL that has already been released under the GSL. It is well within the legal rights of a licensor to impose such limitations, as they do not infringe upon basic legal rights (the material in question is not subject to the terms of the OGL). The key here is the order in which the licenses are used.

If a publisher has already published something under the OGL, they cannot re-publish it under the GSL (i.e., convert it) unless they voluntarily agree that they will no longer make the same product available under the OGL (i.e., they cease distribution of the OGL product). If they do not voluntarily enter into this agreement, they cannot publish the product in question under the GSL.

[Note: I am not a licensed attorney.]

 

[Keith Robinson]

Wotc (Scott et all) have been quiet since the release. Maybe they have to push everything through legal?

My guess would be that they will not answer any questions on The GSL. Period. As has already been mentioned, there are legal implications attached to any answers they give, and I would imagine they would not answer legal questions under any circumstances, leaving that to the legal department (who, of course, aren't going to come to these boards to do it).

Now I've said, WotC emplyees are likely to turn up in their droves to answer the questions...

 

[Dlsharrock]

They way I see it, They can take the GSL away from you but They cant take the OGL away. In this line, one doesn't revoke rights to OGL. In fact in agreements like these, that take away your rights never hold up in court. If a doctor says he will do x procedure on you and you sign that if he makes a mistake you cant sue him, you can still sue him. Legal documents are invalid if they have you give up your rights. In this case its the right to use the OGL. Also you are under contract, or your not.

This is right. You can't counter established intellectual property rights within a contract. In this instance, the law is cascading, like style sheets. You don't even necessarily need a copyright notice, just proof of intellectual ownership.

In this case I think the implication is misinterpreted.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Publishing under the OGL is not a basic legal right. The OGL is a license offered by the entity of WotC. In order to publish under the OGL, you must abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the licensor. If you do not, you are in breach and invalidate the license. The same is true of the GSL.

Maybe what the OGL community really should do is create a Open Gaming License entirely independent of Wizards of the Coast?

Does the OGL forbid using multiple licenses on a work?