Question about GSL - Scott please comment

[wayne62682]

The thing that amazes me is that they say that if you play with the new toy, you can't ever play with the old toy ever again, even if you break up with them entirely. I didn't think such a restriction was even possible.

It's probably not, and if it actually is then the law should be changed so it isn't (DISCLAIMER: I am against the majority of laws protecting corporations over individuals, so my views are highly biased).

Big corporations use scare clauses like this all the time to cower people into thinking they own their livelihood; no-compete clauses are a prime example, and are largely unenforceable (depending on the state). Given the lawsuit-happy nature of this country, though, I wouldn't be surprised if it could sneak through. I'm betting their lawyers are a crafty bunch (aren't they all?) and there's probably a loophole under Washington law that they could try to weasel this clause through (conveniently the contract says any disputes must be handled in Washington, another clause that ought to be illegal)

 

[TimeOut]

It's probably not, and if it actually is then the law should be changed so it isn't (DISCLAIMER: I am against the majority of laws protecting corporations over individuals, so my views are highly biased).

OT: Good to see someone with a similar view.

 

[Cadfan]

You can contract away rights. I have a right to fair use of... I dunno, Mickey Mouse. I could contract with Disney as follows. "In exchange for this billion dollars that the Disney Corporation is giving me, I hereby surrender all fair use rights to anything related to Mickey Mouse, starting at the end of this sentence because otherwise I just violated the contract, so starting... NOW!" There you go. I no longer have fair use rights to... the Rodent That Shall Not Be Named. But I have a billion dollars!

Likewise, you can change a contract (or a license) by means of a second contract or license. Suppose I have a non revocable license from Disney to use Minnie Mouse imagery. Disney decides they don't want me doing that anymore, but my license is non revocable. So, they offer me a non revocable license to use Donald Duck imagery. But, one of the conditions of the license is that I have to give up my old license to use Minnie Mouse imagery. I want this license because I estimate that Donald Duck imagery is more valuable to me than is Minnie Mouse imagery, so I agree.

The key is that I didn't have to do it. If they tied me to a chair and beat me with a truncheon until I signed, that would be illegal. If they just announced one day that my non revocable license was revoked, that wouldn't be a binding announcement. But because they offered me something of greater value that convinced me to voluntarily agree to surrender my prior license, that's fine. They can do that, and so can I.

 

[Lizard]

Or just use Creative Commons instead. Or something similar.

There isn't any real need to re-invent the wheel when so many others have already done that for you.

The problem is, the D20 SRD is released only under the OGL, and only WOTC has the authority to release it under any other license -- and they won't.

So, saying "Use another license" is kind of moot when the content people want to use is controlled by the OGL.

 

[frankthedm]

The Rouse seems like a good person, so I doubt he had much call on the aspects of the GSL that are at issue here. I also expect if he or any other Wotc employee does say anything, it will be a very guarded comment. I know the rouse CAN'T make any changes to the GSL as the OP seems to desire.

 

[Delta]

If you go back to playing with the old toy, they say they won't let you play with the new toy any more. That doesn't take a way any rights you previously had.

That's not the part under debate. The part under debate is that they also say this -- If you put down the new toy, you cannot go back to the old toy.

That's certainly unlike any contract provision I've ever seen -- once a contract is terminated I don't see how any of its provisions can still restrict you. It is, after all, terminated.

 

[wayne62682]

That's certainly unlike any contract provision I've ever seen -- once a contract is terminated I don't see how any of its provisions can still restrict you. It is, after all, terminated.

Which is why it's probably unenforceable, and they're trying to use extortion tactics to scare people into not going back to the OGL if they don't like the GSL - they can't legally do anything, but who has the money to fight a prolonged legal battle before a judge rules that they can't do it? Even though it would just take one ruling against them to expose their scare tactics, no company wants to risk going bankrupt on the chance.

It should be unenforceable on the same grounds as a no-compete; it would prevent you from engaging in your primary business for a ridiculous amount of time (i.e. forever). IANAL but I know that no-competes that say you can't perform the same type of work are pretty much unenforceable by law (e.g. I am a software developer; a no-compete that says I can't do development for any company if I leave my present one is unenforceable; saying I can't perform the same kind of development *should* be unenforceable but depends on the type of work involved). Not sure how exactly it works in regards to this, but I'm pretty sure it would not be enforceable since it would prevent a company from engaging in its primary business if you revoke their GSL license and try to say they can't publish anything under a completely separate license.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The problem is, the D20 SRD is released only under the OGL, and only WOTC has the authority to release it under any other license -- and they won't.

So, saying "Use another license" is kind of moot when the content people want to use is controlled by the OGL.

I feel like the next step in Open Development of RPGs is to leave the SRD behind. The SRD is only useful if you want a 3E like game.

I am not saying this will happen. Pathfinder certainly can't go there. But if the OGL idea is supposed to survive, it has to come independent of a specific company and its material.
Or do you want people to still use the SRD to create new games in 10 years? 3E was good, but was is it _that_ good?

 

[jmucchiello]

It should be unenforceable on the same grounds as a no-compete; it would prevent you from engaging in your primary business for a ridiculous amount of time (i.e. forever)

Difference here is an RPG business can continue releasing material without the OGL. So being prevented from using the OGL does NOT prevent you from making RPGs.

 

[Lizard]

I feel like the next step in Open Development of RPGs is to leave the SRD behind. The SRD is only useful if you want a 3E like game.

Create a game system MORE people want to use and put it under a CC license. The reason the OGL is popular is because of those darn network externalities. More "code" is under the OGL than any other license, and there's a lot to gain by releasing your new game under it -- access to the huge volumes of existing open content.