Question about GSL - Scott please comment

[Ourph]

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.

I don't think it takes a law degree to understand how to use the OGL in the way it was intended. In fact, my understanding is that it was specifically written so that publishers could feel comfortable using it without having to go to the expense of consulting a lawyer.

If we're talking about using the OGL in a way that it wasn't intended, as a method to work around restrictions in copyright law or another license, then yeah, consult a lawyer.

 

[Ydars]

Such a shame that it would be VERY unwise for anyone to use the GSL without consulting a lawyer!

 

[SavageRobby]

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.

This is a point that kept popping into my head, and I think its key. They can revoke your usage of the license, but that doesn't mean the contract itself is terminated (similar to how if one part of the contract is deemed unlawful or unenforceable it doesn't mean the entire contact is null and void). And in the contract you agree that once you publish a product under using that license, you won't publish it again under the OGL.

While bitter tasting, it just doesn't seem like that controversial a point.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I don't think it takes a law degree to understand how to use the OGL in the way it was intended. In fact, my understanding is that it was specifically written so that publishers could feel comfortable using it without having to go to the expense of consulting a lawyer.

If we're talking about using the OGL in a way that it wasn't intended, as a method to work around restrictions in copyright law or another license, then yeah, consult a lawyer.

But theoretically the GSL should also be written in the same way. If it is meant to be a free community license both the community and the enforcers of WotC policy (Linae and Scott) should be able to understand it without consulting a lawyer. If both Scott and the publishers (including Orcus) need to consult lawyers and read it with contract law in mind then it fails at some point in its original purpose.

 

[Obryn]

But theoretically the GSL should also be written in the same way. If it is meant to be a free community license both the community and the enforcers of WotC policy (Linae and Scott) should be able to understand it without consulting a lawyer. If both Scott and the publishers (including Orcus) need to consult lawyers and read it with contract law in mind then it fails at some point in its original purpose.

Honestly, this was the same situation when the d20 STL was issued.

Many, many people - the actual businessmen who planned to make a career out of this - consulted with their lawyers first.

-O

 

[pawsplay]

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...

It's certainly not to their advantage. Fear of a C&D order might kepe publishers farther back from the edges than a clear-cut answer to some of the questions people have. Ambiguity provokes anxiety.

 

[Orcus]

[Nevermind, later post covered it, dont need me to say it again.]

Clark

 

[Orcus]

But theoretically the GSL should also be written in the same way. If it is meant to be a free community license both the community and the enforcers of WotC policy (Linae and Scott) should be able to understand it without consulting a lawyer. If both Scott and the publishers (including Orcus) need to consult lawyers and read it with contract law in mind then it fails at some point in its original purpose.

This actually is one of the first things that struck me about the GSL that disappointed me. Yes, the OGL had its legalisms but it was pretty easy for the average gamer who wanted to do some D&D stuff to use. The GSL is a full blown license. Frankly, it doesnt do a ton more, but its approach is different. I think that will put off some people and that is a shame. I agree that theoretically the GSL should be written in a user friendly way, not like your normal license.

BTW, I dont need to consult a lawyer about the license. My own advice will do But there are some things I think need clarification that I intend to distill and post so that Scott or others can review and see if perhaps they can incorporate into a more detailed FAQ. I dont feel the current FAQ is very effective.

 

[Orcus]

Honestly, this was the same situation when the d20 STL was issued.

Many, many people - the actual businessmen who planned to make a career out of this - consulted with their lawyers first.

-O

True, the d20 STL was a bit more "lawyer-ey" but still more approachable IMHO than the GSL for the regular gamer.

 

[Scribble]

This actually is one of the first things that struck me about the GSL that disappointed me. Yes, the OGL had its legalisms but it was pretty easy for the average gamer who wanted to do some D&D stuff to use. The GSL is a full blown license. Frankly, it doesnt do a ton more, but its approach is different. I think that will put off some people and that is a shame. I agree that theoretically the GSL should be written in a user friendly way, not like your normal license.

BTW, I dont need to consult a lawyer about the license. My own advice will do But there are some things I think need clarification that I intend to distill and post so that Scott or others can review and see if perhaps they can incorporate into a more detailed FAQ. I dont feel the current FAQ is very effective.

I'm guessing this is part of the "doing it in a way that keeps the brand strong" thing...

Remember when they had all those thoughts on if maybe only certain people get it or no one gets it...

I wonder if this s the comprimise... Evryone gets it, but they'd betetr be really into getting it...