Question about GSL - Scott please comment

[Cadfan]

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.

I am a lawyer. Contract law is not a specialty of mine. I am not giving legal advice here. So all I will say is that I do not understand your friend's reasoning. I think that the word "rights" is being misused.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

This is good advice. I desperately want to dzn games for 4e, but I hate the license with hot blooded passion. I wonder if time will reveal to me a third option. The more I read stuff like this, the more I am reminded I am Chaotic good... possibly neutral

If you are designing for 4E you cant be Chaotic Good or Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. Those alignments no longer exist.

 

[Cadfan]

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?

Nope. I think the natural evolution of a lot of d20 games that have really taken off is to eventually release a new edition that alters the underlying game mechanics and maths.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

If you are designing for 4E you cant be Chaotic Good or Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. Those alignments no longer exist.

It was only after I had typed it, that I realized how ironic it sounded.

 

[Ourph]

Right. I meant concept, instead of term. The CONCEPT of In Perpetuity in some states (and nations) does not exist.

In that case, WotC could argue the perpetuity clause in the OGL shouldn't apply to the OGC they released through the SRD in those jurisdictions. It's a double-edged sword.

 

[webrunner]

It was only after I had typed it, that I realized how ironic it sounded.

Does this mean that wizards can't be Lawful Evil like everyone says they are?

 

[pemerton]

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.

As others have said, this is not true. One way to look at it: in any contract which is not fully executed on your side you give up at least one right, namely, the right not to perform whatever it is that you have contracted to perform.

I think that some posters on this issue are getting confused about the various protections that apply in many jusridictions in respect of consumer contracts (which are intended to prevent consumers being exploited by suppliers of goods and services who rely upon sometimes-punitive standard form contracts). These protections typically don't apply to commercial contracts such as the OGL or GSL.

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.

This is not strictly true either. Many jurisdictions regard certain contractual terms as unenforceable for being overly punitive. That is not to suggest that any part of clause 6 of the GSL is such a term.

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).

It should be unenforceable on the same grounds as a no-compete

<snip>

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.

The law that prohibits enforcement of agreements in restraint of trade is another complex matter. Clause 6 of the GSL does not require any person - natural or artificial - to promise not to engage in their profession, or to promise not to compete in the RPG market. All it does is require a promise of a party to the GSL not to subsequently publish certain licensed material as a party to the OGL.

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.

You may mess up the GSL for yourself, but if you do you can go back to the OGL. either your under contract or your not. Its not binding for a contract to say your under contract even when you no longer are.

What the contract says is that, if you violate the obligations in question, then you no longer enjoy the permissions (= licence) that the contract granted you. What is terminated are the permissions that the licence granted, not the obligations that you incurred by entering into the contract - which included certain obligations not to make use of the OGL. Those obligations endure.

The CONCEPT of In Perpetuity in some states (and nations) does not exist.

This isn't quite right - for example, many property rights (eg freehold) last in perpetuity.

When it comes to an agreement like the GSL, I would think that the most likely way in which the agreement will be brought to an end will be by the dissolution of one of the contracting companies.

This is right. You can't counter established intellectual property rights within a contract.

This isn't true. Just one example: the whole point of the OGL and the GSL is that WoTC waive, in respect of licensed parties, certain rights with respect to their intellectual property.

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.

None of the foregoing is legal advice. I teach in an Australian law school, but am by no means an expert in Australian contract law, let alone US contract law. It is just an attempt to put to rest some of the more extreme misinformation being put about in this thread.

 

[Najo]

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,

Thank you for popping in here and giving a heads up that your listening to concerns.

 

[Obryn]

My reading of this thread, so far.

(1) Lawyers made the OGL. Presumably, working for Hasbro, they know contract and licensing law pretty well.

(2) Many gamers are so self-confident in their own intelligence that they believe, without legal training, that they understand contract and licensing law better than corporate lawyers do. By doing this, they show they are actually not that intelligent, after all.

(3) An actual lawyer, Clark/Orcus, has basically said to STFU because you have no idea what you're talking about. This hasn't fazed too many armchair lawyers, though.

(4) It has given me several LOLs.

-O

 

[Family]

cya

That reminds me of the day that I started downloading music (way back in the days of BBSs).

I got a free over the phone consultation with a lawyer, then I called the Attorney General and the Commissioner of the RCMP (for their enforcement guidelines). I got both men and they put me through to the right departments. It’s pretty amazing what a phone can do.