Question about GSL - Scott please comment

[WizarDru]

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

And even then, it sounds like (judging from reading many of the threads on ENWorld right now) many people are still confused about the d20 STL and OGL, even now. Making the GSL even more impenetrable to those without legal backgrounds.

I assumed, for example, that the clause discussing how it didn't relate to websites and everything not hard-cover, soft-cover and PDF to be exclusionary...but I'm getting the idea NOW that it was meant to be INclusionary. That is to say, the clause is referring specifically to what the license refers and clarified what it doesn't cover, as opposed to being specific to what you could and couldn't do.

 

[SteveC]

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.

This is again a situation where I am not a lawyer, so if you are thinking of "rights" in terms of the right to bear arms, that's not what I'm speaking about.

In the case where you are publishing under the GSL, and you withdraw from it, either because you choose to or the license is terminated by WotC, the assertion is made that you cannot publish your old material under the OGL because of what you agree to in the GSL. The specific argument that my friend made was that this would be problematic at best for WotC to enforce, since you are trying to sign away your ability to do something (publish under the OGL) when you accept the GSL. That's giving up your ability to do something, which I referred to as a 'right,' (yes, that was a shorthand way of putting it) and that's something that it is difficult to do in a contract.

Most of the lawsuits that my lawyer friends work on (I know one who does IP/copyrights and another who does medical malpractice) deal with contracts that have very strict "you can't sue us, you can't get out of this contract without our consent" and other such requirements, and, to a person, they say "if only it were that easy" to resolve those matters.

This isn't to say that anyone should enter into the GSL with the idea of "putting one over on WotC," I'm just saying that by what my friends have told me, if you did you best to follow the letter and the spirit of the agreement and still had problems, the licenses are written in such a way that you would have options that a good lawyer could help you with.

Hopefully that makes sense, but if it doesn't I'm afraid I'm really not in a position to clarify it better than that ... I'd take it to an actual lawyer (especially one who games) for more info.

--Steve

 

[skinnydwarf]

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 are giving out bad advice. Sometimes a waiver of the right to sue is valid, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes you waive the right to sue, and have to submit to arbitration. For example, credit card agreements often force arbitration.

This isn't legal advice.

 

[pemerton]

In the case where you are publishing under the GSL, and you withdraw from it, either because you choose to or the license is terminated by WotC, the assertion is made that you cannot publish your old material under the OGL because of what you agree to in the GSL. The specific argument that my friend made was that this would be problematic at best for WotC to enforce, since you are trying to sign away your ability to do something (publish under the OGL) when you accept the GSL. That's giving up your ability to do something, which I referred to as a 'right,' (yes, that was a shorthand way of putting it) and that's something that it is difficult to do in a contract.

As a general proposition of law what you are saying is not true. For example, when I take up my job with my university (pursuant to a contract of employment), I am giving up my right to work for another employer without my university's consent (contractual restrictions on paid outside work).

In general, it is not that hard to bind yourself with a contract. That is the point of contracts - they are binding.

As to whether the particular obligation that clause 6.2 purports to impose - ie not to become a party to the OGL after having been a party to the GSL in respect of a particular piece of content - is in fact binding, that is a technical question which one can't try to answer simply by stating generalities about the contractual waiving of rights.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

You are giving out bad advice. Sometimes a waiver of the right to sue is valid, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes you waive the right to sue, and have to submit to arbitration. For example, credit card agreements often force arbitration.

This isn't legal advice.

I think we have all but confirmed I am not good at giving other people advice ;p. The horse is dead , give it a rest

 

[jdrakeh]

. . . many people are still confused about the d20 STL and OGL, even now.

Many fans, perhaps, but the publishers and attorneys amongst the forum populace seem to have an ironclad grip on it.

 

[skinnydwarf]

I think we have all but confirmed I am not good at giving other people advice ;p. The horse is dead , give it a rest

Yeah. Sorry, I looked for other responses before I posted, but I guess I wasn't thorough enough.

 

[GVDammerung]

I've been reading all these GSL threads with interest and one observation just keeps popping at me - if the GSL is by turns so restrictive and so ambiguous, someone must REALLY, REALLY want to publish for 4e to even begin to think about signing up to publish under the GSL.

The cost-benefit analysis, as I see it, greatly favors "don't bother with the GSL, its more trouble than its worth." This seems particularly so if one plans to do only one-offs to avoid some of the more restrictive "you can't do this if you do that" or the "we can pull the rug out from under you" clauses.

The idea that anyone at Wotc can solve (or even clarify) these sorts of issues with a FAQ strikes me as quaint and potentially very unwise. A FAQ is not legally an addendum or amendment to the GSL. To the extent it is put together by other than Wotc's legal staff (or whomever wrote the GSL), its interpretation can't even be said to be informed, let alone something upon which one could detrimentally rely in good faith. A FAQ that is not incorporated into the GSL, thereby binding Wotc, is a bedtime story for all its legal significance.

The GSL Para 21 (Integration Clause) defines the license to be the license and nothing else - "This Agreement sets forth the entire current agreement of the parties with respect to its subject matter and supersedes any previous or contemporaneous oral or written agreements regarding such subject matter, and can only be amended or modified by Wizards." Rely on a FAQ, unless it is specifically integrated into the license, at your peril.

NB - This is not legal advice; anyone interested in proceeding under the GSL should consult an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Washington.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

NB - This is not legal advice; anyone interested in proceeding under the GSL should consult an attorney licensed to practice in the State of Washington.

Or a lawyer in your area who knows copyright law. Seriously, if someone has to spend money on a lawyer anyway before signing the GSL why not just publish under copyright law instead. It seems safer to me.

 

[GVDammerung]

Or a lawyer in your area who knows copyright law. Seriously, if someone has to spend money on a lawyer anyway before signing the GSL why not just publish under copyright law instead. It seems safer to me.

I think that is the real question - are you going to get so much extra mileage out of the GSL that it is worth all the hoops you need to jump through (no-reprinting MM stat blocks etc.) and the risks you run (giving up your OGL material etc.)?

With the OGL is was comparatively easy to free ride on the D&D brand. Not so much with the GSL. So. Is it still worth it to ride the D&D brand at the end of the day?

Maybe put another way - is your design so derivative or just so ho-hum that without the D&D brand you have zero hope of anybody noticing it?