Reply to ENWorld's GSL FAQ

[Remathilis]

Yeah... seems to me like they're saying:

Here; use our stuff for free to make money. If at some point you determine you're popular, and don't like working with us, don't try to use that popularity you gained on our product to try and pull customers away from our product.

Which is what S&SS did with WoW d20, or Green Ronin did with True d20, or Paizo did with Pathfinder, or Moongoose did with Conan, or Malhavoc did with Arcana Unearthed, or...

 

[Morrus]

I think the point of the OP is that Morrus's "FAQ" seems to be making an effort to explain everything except that particular point, which could be argued to be one of the most important in the GSL.

It does seem to me that in the effort to give very simple, very satisfied and slightly snarky answers it's glossing over some things that should be specified if it's going to function a real informative piece about the GSL.

Of course, the classic answer to that is "it wasn't meant to be an informative piece, just my own little opinion and you can't critizise something which is just my opinion," which is absolutely true.

Actually, the answer to that is: it's supposed to be a basic overview, not a detailed legal analysis, which I do not consider myself competent to undertake. Thus I've steered clear of tricky areas such as this one, and would suggest that people recruit a lawyer.

There are bits of the license that I ain't gonna go near - the other area is the definition of WotC's IP, which I don't think is clear-cut enough for anyone but one's lawyer to answer. Two sections which reference each other - it was enough to convince me not to even attempt to address it!

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes, but there's precedent (in the form of non-compete clauses) to suggest that some similar things are of questionable legality, and certainly difficult to enforce.

The typical non-compete clause is of the form "I promise to not work within the same field of work, withing an X-mile radius of my old employer". In Massachusetts, at least, these exist but both the employers and the employees know they are not enforceable in court.

As far as I know, such clauses are enforceable in New Brunswick. Which is equally as irrelevant as Massachusetts. The real question, I guess, would be are they enforceable in Washington state?

And there are many other types of clauses that survive termination of contracts that are enforceable on a routine basis. Non-disclosure of confidential information, for example.

As stated in another thread, if there are aspects of a contract you don't like, it's a really bad idea to enter into it anyway, hoping that if it ever somes down to it those clauses will be unenforceable.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Which is what S&SS did with WoW d20, or Green Ronin did with True d20, or Paizo did with Pathfinder, or Moongoose did with Conan, or Malhavoc did with Arcana Unearthed, or...

What a lot of nonsense.

None of these companies changed from d20 STL to OGL because they "didn't like working with WotC".

They changed because they could make books which sold much better and, to them, were better quality products (this was spelled out in detail in Arcana Evolved, iirc) by using the OGL.

Don't attribute insane-people motives when the real reasons will do just fine, Remathilis. Further, I know I didn't buy a single one of those products, originally, because they were d20 STL - in fact I specifically avoided d20 STL products because from early on I knew them to be of generally lower quality than OGL ones.

Actually, the answer to that is: it's supposed to be a basic overview, not a detailed legal analysis, which I do not consider myself competent to undertake. Thus I've steered clear of tricky areas such as this one, and would suggest that people recruit a lawyer.

I have to say Morrus, I think it was a little disingenuous of you to post it at all when you were intending to "silently avoid" certain murky but extremely important legal areas. I had previously assumed you just didn't get it, because your front-page post really did come across more as "snarky" than "informative". Obviously it's your website and if you want to put up "EXPOSE: Ruin Explorer loves goats - that way.", then there ain't much I can say, but there you go

 

[pawsplay]

There are bits of the license that I ain't gonna go near - the other area is the definition of WotC's IP, which I don't think is clear-cut enough for anyone but one's lawyer to answer.

I don't think anyone but a judge can answer some of that.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

How did "3pp" suddenly get so popular? A month ago, people were writing out "third-party publisher," and now everyone -- including people who, a month ago, were sneering at the OGL -- are saying "3pp."

You guys have a sekrit cool kids list-serv, don't you?

 

[pawsplay]

How did "3pp" suddenly get so popular? A month ago, people were writing out "third-party publisher," and now everyone -- including people who, a month ago, were sneering at the OGL -- are saying "3pp."

You guys have a sekrit cool kids list-serv, don't you?

Didn't someone say the same thing a month ago?

 

[Filcher]

You guys have a sekrit cool kids list-serv, don't you?

What's a "list-serv" ? Is that short for something?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What's a "list-serv" ? Is that short for something?

You better not be making a gnome joke!

 

[Lackhand]

You better not be making a gnome joke!

That really gets up your nose, doesn't it?
Ah well, I'd better not rile you up -- I have no illusions about your ability to put me down

Sorry.