Using the GSL & OGL in the same publication

[RichGreen]

Hi,

A question for 3rd Party Publishers and/or legal eagles. I notice that Admiral o' the High Seas from EN Publishing was published under both the GSL (for 4e D&D) and the Pathfinder compatibility license. I would like to mention a few things from the 4e GSL (dragonborn, eladrin etc) in the Parsantium: City at the Crossroads sourcebook alongside races, monsters & spells that appear in Pathfinder/3.5 OGL. What is the process for doing this, and what do I need to be aware of?

Any advice would be much appreciated!

Thanks


Richard

 

[pemerton]

Under clause 7 of the OGL,

You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity.​

Under clause 1(e) of the OGL,

"Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content​

In other words, as part of the OGL you make a contractual promise not to use WotC "Product Identity" as defined above - to put it another way, you reach a contractual agreement that gives you fewer rights than you might enjoy under IP property law per se.

If you use the GSL then you would have another, independent agreement permitting you to use 4e "product identity". The most relevant clause of the GSL would seem to be 4.1, according to which

Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter the definition of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product.​

In other words, your dragonborn and tiefling would have to be WotC ones and not redefined or altered Parsantium ones.

At least, that's my take. I am an academic lawyer but don't have a practicising certificate (and if I did it would be for Australia, not the US!). So the above isn't legal advice, just my own take on construction of the two instruments and their interaction.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Tieflings are in the d20 SRD, and Pathfinder has redefined versions of them.

 

[delericho]

I thought there was a clause in the GSL that stated that it couldn't be used in conjunction with any other, similar, license? Did that get dropped?

 

[RichGreen]

I thought there was a clause in the GSL that stated that it couldn't be used in conjunction with any other, similar, license? Did that get dropped?

From the FAQ here: http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/4E_GSL_FAQ.pdf

Q: Can I use the GSL and OGL in the same title?

A: There is no provision in the GSL preventing the of use the OGL but publishers must take care to not assume content in the OGL SRD is the same as like-named content in the GSL SRD. For example, using the definition of “Cleric” from the OGL SRD in a product licensed under the GSL would violate the GSL. GSL definitions and provisions supersede like terms and provisions of the OGL (for example, GSL restrictions on explaining the process of assigning ability scores with respect to Character Creation)

Cheers


Rich

 

[delericho]

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[RichGreen]

Thanks for clarifying.

No worries. I'm still not sure how to interpret the "same like-named content" bit though.

 

[pemerton]

I'm still not sure how to interpret the "same like-named content" bit though.

Are you referring to "publishers must take care to not assume content in the OGL SRD is the same as like-named content in the GSL SRD"?

What they're saying is that the GSL precludes you from redefining 4e terms. So if you want to use the word "cleric" in a GSL-licensed product, you have to follow the 4e meaning of "cleric" - which means you couldn't present an OGL-style cleric. Doing so would not be a breach of the OGL, obviously, but would be a breach of the GSL non-redefinition clause (4.1 that I mentioned above).

 

[Morrus]

AotHS mainly used our own ship "system"; there were no conflicts re. labels and terms.

I wouldn't release a fantasy adventure under both licenses though - I'd (and do) release separate products, a PF and a 4E version. A book like that would be littered with terms which are defined differently in each system (class names, as mentioned above, being an obvious example).

I'm sure it could be done if you were very careful. But we take the safe route and produce separate products (besides, most products need some rewriting due to different underlying system assumptions).

 

[RichGreen]

Are you referring to "publishers must take care to not assume content in the OGL SRD is the same as like-named content in the GSL SRD"?

What they're saying is that the GSL precludes you from redefining 4e terms. So if you want to use the word "cleric" in a GSL-licensed product, you have to follow the 4e meaning of "cleric" - which means you couldn't present an OGL-style cleric. Doing so would not be a breach of the OGL, obviously, but would be a breach of the GSL non-redefinition clause (4.1 that I mentioned above).

Yes, I was. The Parsantium book will be almost entirely mechanics and stat free, so I might describe the priest at the Temple of Dahan Lao, but would not be saying what level or class he was.

Having said that, this whole thing sounds pretty tricky. It might be easier to go with the OGL... My worry is by putting the Pathfinder compatible logo on the front, I might turn off D&D players, even if I write "For Use with the World's Most Popular Fantasy RPGs" in giant letters on the covers

Cheers


Rich