The New GSL--What we want.

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I see no reason to give third party companies exclusivity. The benefits of the OGL as a 'safe harbor' for everyone are maximized if the OGL gives broad rights for everyone to use everyone's content.


Ken

 

[Nellisir]

The hypothetical control could be like this. Necromancer could have their ToH, but prevent people from reproducing anything but the abbreviated stat block.

And how exactly would that work?

Under the current OGL, you don't have to release anything but the stats and special abilities of a monster (and many people have done so, actually) - essentially, the stat block (less, since stat blocks usually have a name). You can chose to release the description, but it's not mandatory. So you're solving a problem that doesn't exist here.

 

[JohnRTroy]

That is a bad example. The True 20 one is a good one.

 

[Nellisir]

That is a bad example. The True 20 one is a good one.

Who did Green Ronin pay for the rules? It'd be unethical for them to make a profit off of something someone else is giving away, right? Although, if they created the rules, they own them and they don't need to label them OGC. If they got them for free, or modified them from something they got for free, then you'll have to explain why they should charge me* for something they got for free.

Here's 3-part question.

1- Product A is free. Publisher B takes A (for free), modifies some of the rules, and releases it as Product B - for profit. Publisher C also takes A, improves the presentation but doesn't modify the content, and releases it as Product C - for free. Which one is "more" ethical and why?

2 - Publisher D takes Product B, copies the parts based on, derived from, or originating in A (which was free to B), and releases it as D - for free. Who is more ethical, D or B, and why?

3- Does knowing that Publisher A mandated that their rules, all modifications thereupon, and derivations thereof, be freely copiable forever change any answer above?


*And just so we can be clear on my position - I own all 3 Blue Rose books, in print, plus the True20 rules in print and pdf, and the basic rules they put out initially in pdf. I willingly paid for all of it, and I don't regret it. And I've never bothered looking for a True20 SRD. I didn't even know one existed. Unfortunately, the game hasn't quite clicked for me. Part of it is the darned presentation. Ugly books. Also, the settings I've seen don't interest me. I'm boring. I like generic fantasy.

 

[Ranger REG]

Anybody else have any ideas or considerations?

Keep the legal term and definition of Open Game Content and designate 4e material as Open Game Content with no restriction to using it with any versions of OGL.

(Yes, I have a gut feeling they're not going to use the term. The new OGL is not OGL, ergo the new OGC is not OGC.)

 

[JohnRTroy]

Keep the legal term and definition of Open Game Content and designate 4e material as Open Game Content with no restriction to using it with any versions of OGL.

That's not helpful. We know they are going to have more restrictions, so I was polling people to see what they would want. Can people live with the GSL?

 

[Andre]

That's not helpful. We know they are going to have more restrictions, so I was polling people to see what they would want. Can people live with the GSL?

We have a choice??

This is WOTC's call. It's their material, that they are producing at their cost, for their benefit. If you want them to change anything about it, you're going to have to make a much better case that those changes will benefit WOTC.

I'm with the poster above who questioned why WOTC would make material open, just so a competitor could make closed material for their system. Encouraging competitors to produce more material doesn't make much sense to me - at some point, they are not growing the hobby, they are cannibalizing each others sales.

Likewise, expecting them to subject control of their IP to an arbitrator is a non-starter. The only way a company would consider such a thing is if, 1) they have no choice, or 2) the economic benefits outweigh the risk. I see virtually no benefits to WOTC in this suggestion.

I realize you would like to see the above changes to the GSL. What I don't see is how your suggestions actually help WOTC in tangible, measurable ways.

 

[kunadam]

1) Give us the ability to use your Product Identity and the Trademark,

We want a healthy WotC. They need the money that they can have by publishing "official" material. For many 3rd party stuffs are just not "official" (I'm not one of them). The ability of 3rd party publishers to replicate say the classes and feats from the Complete series would not benefit WotC to say the least.
Also trademark include Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, etc. Noone should publish materials for those except for WotC.
So a big NO to this request.

2) Allow us to create derivative rules and allow us to lock them down if we see fit.

A big YES to the ability to sell derivative work. They are fine. And they can be locked down even with the current OGL as someone already said above.

3) I understand if you need to have a morals clause.

This I never understood. Noone should put D&D on their cover, that should be reserved for WotC. Thus noone would blemish the image of D&D. As for compatible stuff I do not care.
There are thing that ere clearly unlawfull in many countries (like Nazi symbols) thus they won't happen. As for sex... The Book of Erotic Fantasy was way better than the Quintesential Temptress by Mongoose, but noone seems to quote that as the main bad example.

4) If you allow people to put up content for non-profit purposes, don't limit it to one location. While the DI and Gleemax are good, it wouldn't be considered a good thing if that was the only place you could put GSL content. Please respect your audience in this regard.

Will they limit that? No that would be stupid. Why couldn't I put up my new feats to my website?

 

[JohnRTroy]

First off, in regard to #1, I know from the existing SRD that Wizards doesn't allow certain monsters to be used at all--you can't use Mind Flayers, for instance. Assuming specific creatures are locked down more, there may be a level where you get to use them but give up certain other rights.

By Trademark, I assume you will be allowed to use some trademark or at least an official trade dress that indicates it's D&D compatible. I did not assume products for anything other than the "sketch default campaign" would be usable--no FR, Eberron, etc, so I wanted to clarify that.

Issue #2 doesn't prevent Wizards from taking the ruleset, which I assume they would do at least to protect themselves from simultaneous ideas from messing up their own publishing, but since the smaller publishers need incentives to publish, giving them the ability to dictate terms of their own creations to other third parties might give them more incentives to use the license.

Regarding issue #3, Wizards wants to protect themselves. Even if the existing OGL indemnified Wizards from lawsuits, somebody could sue the makers of D&D for facilitating a bad product's creation, or start a media war making Wizards responsible. If they have the power to shut down the offender themselves I think it would offer more protection if they were targeted in litigation.

As far as #4 was concerned--some people are suggesting that Gleemax might be the only place to be able to have "free work" under the GSL, that if you want to give your stuff away that's the only place it can be done. People were concerned about that back in the 1990s. I'm suggesting that requirement wouldn't go over so well with fans who want their freedom.

 

[kenmarable]

That's not helpful. We know they are going to have more restrictions, so I was polling people to see what they would want. Can people live with the GSL?

Until we see the GSL, no one knows.

First off, in regard to #1, I know from the existing SRD that Wizards doesn't allow certain monsters to be used at all--you can't use Mind Flayers, for instance. Assuming specific creatures are locked down more, there may be a level where you get to use them but give up certain other rights.

I seriously doubt (and would, personally, prefer not) that WotC will have any sort of tiered license like this. Having a set binary "You can use X and you cannot use Y" is far simpler for WotC to define and enforce. Even with the OGL, there was plenty of confusion among some people and numerous violations because of their confusion. A license that says "You can use X, and under certain circumstances you can use Y, but in other situations you can't" would be a nightmare.

Now, I'd love to be able to use mind flayers (or especially the gith! Man, I'd love to publish material on them). But I don't see a tiered license happening. I'm 99% sure it'll be binary "use X, don't use Y" license. The only exceptions will be special licenses negotiated between WotC and an individual publisher (just as it was in 3.x).