What happens if something I make gets added to the SRD? For Scott or Linae

[SteveC]

Something to think about as far as these issues (WotC adding content to the SRD and invalidating products) ... from what everyone tells me, about 95% of all sales for OGL/D20 books happens in the first three months. There are some notable exceptions (M&M coming to mind) but most of the time the sales drop to a crawl.

So why not use that you your advantage? Sure WotC will come out with a monk, an druid ... and by that point you will have made your book and will be on to other projects. Just a thought, from a sort of "Law of Unintended Consequences" perspective.

--Steve

 

[pemerton]

There is a difference between a new race and a new core race, and new class and a new core class. Making new races and classes is not the same as making new core races and new core classes.

This difference does not exist as far as the GSL and the 4e SRD are concerned.

There I see a "core class" as a class archetype that will get it's proportional share of players, and that helps to define the core play of the game. I think that WoTC wants to control the feel of core classes, and wants to control the pace at which they are released to their customers.

This may or may not be true, but the GSL and the 4e SRD do not say anything about such an intention.

I think that the new license is easiest to understand as being prescriptive: Licensees are given very specific instructions on what to do with the licensed material. I don't think WoTC wants the licensees to go much beyond what is prescribed.

What instructions do you have in mind? There is a prohibition on redefinition of 4e References - which is the prohibition that gave rise to the original post in this thread - but there is no prohibition on attempting to establish some concept as "core" in your sense, nor any direction to do, or to refrain from doing, some such thing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Something to think about as far as these issues (WotC adding content to the SRD and invalidating products) ... from what everyone tells me, about 95% of all sales for OGL/D20 books happens in the first three months. There are some notable exceptions (M&M coming to mind) but most of the time the sales drop to a crawl.

So why not use that you your advantage? Sure WotC will come out with a monk, an druid ... and by that point you will have made your book and will be on to other projects. Just a thought, from a sort of "Law of Unintended Consequences" perspective.

--Steve

I am not sure this is also true for PDF publishers. I think Monte Cook is still selling (not only offering) his 3.x PDFs. Not a lot, but seemingly consistent. I wouldn't be surprised if 4E has changed this, but that's how it was.

 

[tomBitonti]

This difference does not exist as far as the GSL and the 4e SRD are concerned.

This may or may not be true, but the GSL and the 4e SRD do not say anything about such an intention.

What instructions do you have in mind? There is a prohibition on redefinition of 4e References - which is the prohibition that gave rise to the original post in this thread - but there is no prohibition on attempting to establish some concept as "core" in your sense, nor any direction to do, or to refrain from doing, some such thing.

Hence the "mind reading" in one of my prior posts. I know that the GSL doesn't say any of this. I'm trying to figure out how WoTC wants the GSL to be used. I see heavy requirements to use references, to not redefine existing terms, and to place new content in a very specific format.

 

[BarakO]

What if WotC decides to make their own "Leaping Monk of Shangrila" then?

They can't, without getting a license from you to do so. You created it first, it's your IP and copyright.

The GSL is *not* a viral open license. The original stuff you create is yours, and they can;t use it without your permission.

 

[Lizard]

They can't, without getting a license from you to do so. You created it first, it's your IP and copyright.

The GSL is *not* a viral open license. The original stuff you create is yours, and they can;t use it without your permission.

a)How can you prove they didn't think of it simulataneously? The license says "You won't sue us if something we come up with looks like something you came up with."

b)You can't copyright a name.

c)You can trademark it, but, odds are, you probably didn't, and even if you did, see 'a'.

While I do not think it is at all likely that WOTC would 'shut down' competition by hastily adding to defined terms solely to put a book in breach, the terms of the contract DO allow it and there is no option for the other publisher to make editorial changes. Of course, why bother with such folderol? WOTC can just say "License not yours! Can not have!" to any company they wish, whenver they wish.

 

[pemerton]

Hence the "mind reading" in one of my prior posts. I know that the GSL doesn't say any of this. I'm trying to figure out how WoTC wants the GSL to be used. I see heavy requirements to use references, to not redefine existing terms, and to place new content in a very specific format.

There is no requirement to use the templates. These are additional permissions, to use the templates without having to wonder whether or not doing so would infringe on WoTC's rights in respect of its trademarks etc.

 

[pemerton]

How can you prove they didn't think of it simulataneously?

Swear an affidavit? Or are you suggesting that WoTC will perjure itself in order to gain a commercial advantage?