Question about GSL - Scott please comment

[hexgrid]

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.

Yeah, this is the part that confuses me. How you can be held to the terms of a license that you're no longer using? Maybe it only applies as long as you have a GSL product still in print.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

As many people have noted I am not going to comment on questions of a legal nature.

Linae and I are logging questions as we get them that we will review and determine (with some advice from legal) if and how we can answer.

Thanks,

 

[Orcus]

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.

You shouldnt be giving out any advice and no one should be relying on your advice. Forming legal opinions on signficant matters from "a friend who took classes in law" is crazy.

People, please stop offering legal opinions on things when you dont know what you are talking about and dont have the training to offer valid advice. All it does is confuse people.

 

[Yair]

You shouldnt be giving out any advice and no one should be relying on your advice. Forming legal opinions on signficant matters from "a friend who took classes in law" is crazy.

People, please stop offering legal opinions on things when you dont know what you are talking about and dont have the training to offer valid advice. All it does is confuse people.

But... it's fun!

 

[Ourph]

Yeah, this is the part that confuses me. How you can be held to the terms of a license that you're no longer using? Maybe it only applies as long as you have a GSL product still in print.

The GSL stipulates that you are still bound by several clauses in the license (regarding material released under the license) even after you give up or lose the right to make further use of the license. One of those clauses is the agreement not to publish material that you release with the GSL under the OGL later.

Whether WotC would be able to enforce that stipulation is a matter to consult your lawyer about. But it is in there and is something people should be looking at when considering whether to use the GSL.

 

[Yair]

If you end up exiting the GSL, though, you're out of it. Even the "no OGL" clause would no longer apply. Of course, you can't jump back and forth, especially if the GSL doesn't apply to you because you violated it.

But, the way I understand it (IANAL), the GSL can dictate what terms violate itself, but once you're out, you're out.

I would have thought so, but apparently people that acutally know what they're talking about (like Orcus) don't, and that's a pretty strong indication that this isn't the case.

 

[Orcus]

As many people have noted I am not going to comment on questions of a legal nature.

Linae and I are logging questions as we get them that we will review and determine (with some advice from legal) if and how we can answer.

Thanks,

Thanks, Scott.

Good plan. Let the dust settle. Gather the relevant questions. See if you can put together a FAQ based on these extra questions. Much appreciated.

I miss the old d20 listserve. Scott, any chance you can start one up again? Our discussions there were so much more constructive.

Clark

 

[Yair]

I miss the old d20 listserve. Scott, any chance you can start one up again? Our discussions there were so much more constructive.

What?! Interweb discussions not constructive? Inconcievable!

 

[SteveC]

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.

I just wanted to respond to this point (okay, and make a couple of other comments...). I have a friend that does IP law as a part of his practice, and I talk to him every once and a while about the OGL and have been talking about the GSL recently. He's a gamer.

He told me (actually, he first told me that if I spoke about this, I should mention that this is not legal advice) that the attempts to remove your rights to publish under the OGL are going to be extremely problematic to enforce, because it's so very hard to give up any rights, even when you explicitly sign something that strongly implies you have.

His other thoughts were that WotC has had lawyers (a team of them, most likely) write this who aren't gamers, and that it was sad, because there are a lot of good lawyers out there who do game (something about there being a lot of 'rules lawyers' who actually are law trained...). Many of the issues with the GSL would likely be solved if the people who wrote it actually knew about gaming and what's involved.

He finally told me that if I were to publish and had problems with it, he'd represent me...he saw a number of problems with how it's written. At the same time, he told me that if WotC called and wanted to represent them as part of an action, he would be happy to do so as well, especially if they would move him out to Seattle in order to do so. So you can take that for what it's worth.

--Steve
EDIT: I just wanted to add, that I'm not saying "just do what you want with the GSL and with a good lawyer, you'll be fine." That would be a spectacularly bad idea. I've read the license, and it's pretty obvious what the intent is with it. If I were to publish under it, I'd have to be okay with what that intent was, rather than attempting to skirt the intent of the license. You're much less likely to get into trouble with the specifics of a license if you just go and follow its spirit to begin with.

 

[jmucchiello]

Whether WotC would be able to enforce that stipulation is a matter to consult your lawyer about. But it is in there and is something people should be looking at when considering whether to use the GSL.

Whether or not you would be able to afford the legal costs should they decide to attempt to enforce those stipulations is a more telling metric of whether you should accept them at face value or not.