Question about GSL - Scott please comment

[vagabundo]

Thanks for the thoughts guys.

It will be interesting to see if any comments or updated FAQ's appear and reactions from the bigger OGL companies.

My guess: a lot of smaller companies and freelancers will produce some paper, but mostly PDFs, under the GSL.

I think I'll buy a default company here for €50 and produce it through that. So I have some legal indemnity, but I really really doubt they would come after me. I'm a small fry.

 

[Yair]

Does the OGL forbid using multiple licenses on a work?

Yes.

 

[jdrakeh]

Yes.

No, it the OGL does not. Per Section 7:

You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark.

The OGL contains provisions for use of multiple licenses for different material covered within the space of a single bound volume. To answer the the original query, though, I went back and re-edited my post.

The way I understand it after close examination is. . .

WotC has no obligation to let you publish under the GSL. A contract cannot legally be entered into unless both parties agree to abide by its terms and conditions, and a contract must be entered into before either party can be found in breach.

So, if you publish a product under the OGL first and then try to re-publish it under the GSL, it's not a matter of breach because you were never a party to the terms of the GSL to begin with. You're just a trademark infringer at that point because you can't technically enter into a contract if there is no meeting of the minds with regard to specific terms and conditions. As a publisher, you can't say "I don't like that term! I'll just ignore it and publish under the GSL anyhow!"

If you're publishing a completely new product under the GSL, there is no way that it can infringe upon rights granted by the OGL, because that product has not yet been published under the OGL and, therefore, the publisher has not been granted the rights therein with regard to the product in question. If they later try to republish this product, they are in breach of the only agreement that they had previously entered into: the GSL.

So, AFAICT, it's a crafty bit of legal manuevering that requires the publisher to make a choice for each new product published or each product up for reprinting: You can enter into the agreement outlined in the GSL or you can can publish under the OGL. You can't do both but, cleverly, neither technically infringes upon the other.

 

[Najo]

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.

Scott is the public liason for WOTC though. He would be the one who can say whatever he is told he can say.

 

[Yair]

No, it the OGL does not. Per Section 7:



The OGL contains provisions for use of multiple licenses for different material covered within the space of a single bound volume.

Context, man, context. That was in relation to

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

That's impossible. The industry can't change the terms of the OGL, even if it does allow for contracts to facilitate the use of PI and so on.

 

[jdrakeh]

Context, man, context. That was in relation to

That's impossible. The industry can't change the terms of the OGL, even if it does allow for contracts to facilitate the use of PI and so on.

Yeah, sorry, I missed that the first time around. The OGL itself contains a provision that it cannot in any way be altered.

 

[Simon Marks]

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

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.

 

[jdrakeh]

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.

Well, re-inventing the wheel may have some value, if only because many of the CC licenses are extremely vague, failing to spell out specific terms and conditions, to the point where they seem to be fatally flawed as legal documents. Case in point:

"You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)."

It's my experience that authors rarely (if ever) specify anything -- they just link to the Commons Deed which, technically, renders the license invalid. It also leaves a lot of room for authors to screw potential licencees over. Or:

"Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one."

That's really vague. The OGL is similar to the Attribution Share-alike CC license. So is the original Fudge license. Or the Dominion Rules license. This can hurt the author because, legally, there's nothing to stop an individual from publishing a CC work under a completely different license, so long as it functions in a similar manner.

In short, CC has some issues.

 

[Morrus]

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.

Unless I have totally misunderstood the phrasing of your post, that is bad advice. They can attach any conditions they like to the GSL; you can voluntarily agree to them or not - but if you don't, you don't get to play with the GSL. They're not "taking away" any "rights"; they're asking you to voluntarily not do something, and in return, they'll give you a new toy to play with.

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.

They can't make it impossible to use the OGL; they merely make it an unattractive option, based on the assumption that the GSL offers greater value. Of course, each publisher decides that for himself.

 

[Yair]

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.

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.

In short, CC has some issues.

Good to know.

Personally, I think if you're gonna release things to the public you should get over your ego and just release to the public domain and ASK that you be credited. Any reasonable person would credit you if you ask IMHO.