You reap what you sow - GSL.

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

Yeah, I notice that D20 Modern had a lot more of the open community vibe going, and noticed a lot more of the "share and share alike" vibe.

Maybe less flavor variation than in fantasy, too, which makes it easier to reuse stuff.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The GSL is meant to be something for professional publishers to adhere to, not, I believe, something to stop fan activity. If I'm wrong, let a WotC person let the world know, and I'll cop to it.

I am certain that the purpose of the GSL is to prevent activity where (1) it costs WotC/Hasbro money (or they deem it to do so), and/or (2) ignoring said activity prevents WotC/Hasbro from enforcing (1).

The GSL is far more restrictive than the OGL, and a serious case can be made that if (in whole or in part) restrictions are not enforced for some, they cannot be enforced for any.....just as one can cede trademark or copyright by not defending it when violated. Try publishing stories using Coke, Q-Tips, or Rollerblading as generics, and see how the makers of those products respond. TSR's reaction to fan material in the last days of its existence were of this very same nature, and for this very same reason.

Moreover, "fan site policy" gives no rights to said sites. If I were to create a free OGL version of 4e, and place it on a fan site, what do you think WotC's reaction would be? If WOtC's market analysis shows that EN World is the single biggest reason that Gleemax doesn't make what it is expected to make (in terms of advertising revenue, stream feeding to the DDI, usable ideas in the forums (remember that WotC can use, free of charge, anything you post there in any way they like, without crediting you and without recourse, forever, and that they can claim it as intellectual property, preventing you from using the same material without their permission, again without recourse, and again forever), or simply in terms of show-of-support for their products, they can send EN World a cease-and-desist order.....and make EN World pay for the associated costs of doing so, to boot, under the GSL.

Furthermore, the GSL is an actual legal document. The fan site policy is....what? Goodwill? Can you point to it? Can you refer to it? Does it have any validity in a court of law? And, over the last two years, how has WotC shown that it cares about your opinion or mine? Am I alone in remembering that we were told 4e would be published under an OGL?

But, no. We don't blame WotC/Hasbro for these things. We blame the other publishers. They dug their own grave by taking WotC at their word. We blame each other. We dug our own grave by not buying enough WotC books, or by preferring the superior material put out by some of those other publishers. We are digging our own grave by not being willing to take WotC at their word (although this begs the question of what those publishers did wrong). We do everything but let the buck stop where it should.

WotC/Hasbro are responsible for WotC's actions.

It is WotC/Hasbro who implied that 4e wouldn't be coming any time soon.

It is WotC/Hasbro who said that 4e would be published under an OGL.

It is WotC/Hasbro who said that there would be no tiered licensing (and, if you examine the GSL, it strongly implies tiered licensing beyond the initial tier of "those who paid in advance, and those who didn't" through the "send in your card and we'll okay you or not" policy).

It is WotC/Hasbro who set up the draconian Gleemax policies, and the draconian GSL.

It is WotC/Hasbro who gave us the delightful new Dungeon & Dragon magazines in place of their poor Paizo namesakes. (And, yes, I kid.)

It is WotC/Hasbro who said that it's fun to watch the clouds, but nothing you do or say is going to affect the final product.

Could somebody please explain to me why they are still defending WotC/Hasbro, and instead blaming everyone else for the mess surrounding the 4e launch and the attempt to gut the OGL? And, please note, I am not talking about whether or not you like 4e -- under the OGL, I'm sure that there are people here who could whip 4e into a shape that would make even buy the books and want to play. I am talking only of all the crap that has surrounded the release, up to and including the GSL.

I for one will never, ever, spend dollar one again on any RPG that is not OGL compliant. For one thing, a community always designs a better game than a single workshop, especially when you can pick and choose what to incorporate in your own campaign.

Also, if you are wrong, we both know that no WotC rep will ever come here and say so. Doing so would be a public relations disaster. However, if I am wrong, consider the public relations coup WotC could gain by just showing up and saying "The terms of the GSL do not apply to fan sites" clearly, without equivocation, and on behalf of the company.

And, know what? If they do, I'll switch to 4e.


RC

 

[jdrakeh]

WH40kRP?

/M

Yes!

 

[cangrejoide]

Use more Google. Search for the terms that I suggest above.

Bah you gonna have me work it?

nvm here they are:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=214244

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=2196

 

[SSquirrel]

Some publishers had their own game license for their product based on the OGL, The Arcana Unearthed/Evolved license from Malhavoc Press being first and foremost. I have yet to see any bad products really released in that fashion tho, so it seems like that was a good idea on Monte's part, even if it wasn't fully OGC.

 

[Particle_Man]

He's a Real Man. That's how I interpret it, anyway.

Appropriate for the creator of Iron Heroes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Try publishing stories using Coke, Q-Tips, or Rollerblading as generics, and see how the makers of those products respond. TSR's reaction to fan material in the last days of its existence were of this very same nature, and for this very same reason.

Sure, but as the very existence of a GSL shows, WotC isn't quite as maniac about their IP as Coke is. They're definately more concerned than they were in 3e, but I'm pretty sure that's part of a brand strategy, not an attempt to put any genies back in any bottles, or even an admission that the OGL model was somehow flawed.

I'm fairly confident that they're savvy enough to realize that the TSR days of suing fans was boneheaded and they have no desire to repeat it. Again, the GSL's existence itself is expressive of this -- they want to have their product used by other companies (albeit in a more limited way than 3e did).

If I were to create a free OGL version of 4e, and place it on a fan site, what do you think WotC's reaction would be?

Watching from afar and stealing the good ideas we come up with.

They couldn't (legally) prevent much of that if they wanted, anyway. In fact, I think we'll see fantasy OGL games using 4e design principles, in whole or in part, in the coming years. Heck, Pathfinder might very well be one of the first.

If WOtC's market analysis shows that EN World is the single biggest reason that Gleemax doesn't make what it is expected to make ... or simply in terms of show-of-support for their products, they can send EN World a cease-and-desist order.....and make EN World pay for the associated costs of doing so, to boot, under the GSL.

Only if ENWorld sends them a letter saying they're using the GSL. Which I don't really expect ENWorld to do. ENWorld will be as it has always been, a site for the fans to mess around on.

The fan site policy is....what? Goodwill? Can you point to it? Can you refer to it? Does it have any validity in a court of law? And, over the last two years, how has WotC shown that it cares about your opinion or mine? Am I alone in remembering that we were told 4e would be published under an OGL?

Yeah, it's goodwill combined with "fair use" (which I know some companies have a habit of ignoring, but WotC hasn't been one of those companies...plenty of "infringing" stuff showed up on ENWorld over the last 10 years). WotC has shown that it cares about maintaining a healthy fan community and also that they do care about having 3rd party people publish for their game.

I've outlined a few reasons above why it would be colossally dumb for WotC to try and put an end to ENWorld, and I'm pretty sure they know that, regardless of the legality of it all.

With regards to 4e OGL, I don't doubt that they started off with a much more open plan for 4e, but that it got reigned in by higher-up concerns about brand identity and piracy. I fully expect to see a much more open Modern system, when they get to it.

We don't blame WotC/Hasbro for these things. We blame the other publishers.

Dude, I'm not sure I've ever seen you rant before! You've got a good head of steam going there.

Could somebody please explain to me why they are still defending WotC/Hasbro, and instead blaming everyone else for the mess surrounding the 4e launch and the attempt to gut the OGL?

I don't really think I'm defending them. I'm just pointing out that they're probably not evil and dumb. They don't want to crush little publishers and fans like the bugs they are for daring to think they could possibly cut off a slice of WotC's pie. I'm pretty sure they just don't really care if 4e D&D doesn't get the kind of 3rd party support that 3e D&D had, because other concerns (brand identity, IP, piracy paranoia) took the front line in their heads. This is regardless of my own feelings on the issue. Whether I think 4e eats babies or 4e will give me free cake doesn't really enter into it (or even if I think 4e will give me free cake that happens to have frosting that is made of babies).

It doesn't make business sense for them to trounce the fans. So they won't. Unless I'm missing some very vital reason why, say, the druid on the 4e house rules board threatens their model.

for one will never, ever, spend dollar one again on any RPG that is not OGL compliant. For one thing, a community always designs a better game than a single workshop, especially when you can pick and choose what to incorporate in your own campaign.

My feeling is that this principle may still leave a few WotC books that you might be able to pick up. But, really, I like that you're doing that. I respect it, like I respect a monk who takes a vow of celibacy. I could never do it, but I'm glad that someone has enough faith to do it.

Skip 4e, you don't need it, and it probably doesn't need you. You're better off breaking up and seeing other people. It's midsummer, it's time for all those spring romances to end tragically anyway.

Also, if you are wrong, we both know that no WotC rep will ever come here and say so. Doing so would be a public relations disaster. However, if I am wrong, consider the public relations coup WotC could gain by just showing up and saying "The terms of the GSL do not apply to fan sites" clearly, without equivocation, and on behalf of the company.

And, know what? If they do, I'll switch to 4e.

It's kind of unfortunate that your decision hinges on that.

WotC is a big unwieldy beurocracy, I'm sure anybody coming to any thread and making a post is risking losing their jobs over it, and any even semi-official notes probably need to go through about seven different levels of review first. They'd want to give us the RIGHT policy, not the policy RIGHT NOW.

But there's no reason to assume, IMO, that WotC is going to be dumb and evil about it. Generally speaking, they aren't really either.

 

[Jindy]

I joined this community fairly recently, mostly because I was trying to download some fan made thing for an rpg. Anyway, in reading this thread, I've been following a sub-discussion about the possibility of Wizards going after Enworld based upon the new GSL.

Not that I want to go about giving legal advice, but in my educated opinion, there's no basis for the GSL to apply to a fan-based forum to discuss D&D gaming and RPGs in general, whether that discussion includes 4e, 3e or both.

Let's start at the top.

The License applies to the use in third party publications of certain proprietary elements of Wizards’ Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition roleplaying game products... the person or entity named on the Statement of Acceptance (“Licensee”) expressly agrees to be bound by the terms of this License.

I don't know, but I'm going to guess that Enworld hasn't filed the referenced form, and thus does not "agree to be bound by the terms of this License."

What does the License granted by the GSL give you?

The license granted in Section 4 is for use solely in connection with Licensee’s publication, distribution, and sale of roleplaying games and roleplaying game supplements that contain the Licensed Materials and are published...

"and sale". I admit, I'm new here, but I didn't see much in the forums for "sale". Unless Enworld is selling 4e adventures, supplements, monsters, whatever... there's no need for the license. Maybe there is a part of this website that does sell 4e and 3e stuff - in which case, the license is required. But from what I've seen thus far, I don't see a lot to buy. Note - I'm not addressing any enworld publishing that apparently is a separate operation.

It seems that GSL par. 5.5 is a fairly popular one to quote around here... let me quote the first line:

This License applies solely to Licensed Products as defined in Section 3

So, even if Enworld was to sign up, the License wouldn't apply to the forums and news articles and free downloads of fan-made stuff anyway!

What about conversion?

If Licensee has entered into the “Open Gaming License version 1.0” with Wizards (“OGL”), and Licensee has previously published a product under the OGL...

Not sure, but going out on a limb here, I'm going to say that Enworld wasn't a licensee previously, and likely neither were the fans contributing here. To the extent they weren't selling anything, they wouldn't need to be. So the conversion paragraph doesn't apply.

The GSL is far more restrictive than the OGL, and a serious case can be made that if (in whole or in part) restrictions are not enforced for some, they cannot be enforced for any.....just as one can cede trademark or copyright by not defending it when violated. Try publishing stories using Coke, Q-Tips, or Rollerblading as generics, and see how the makers of those products respond. TSR's reaction to fan material in the last days of its existence were of this very same nature, and for this very same reason.

That a name can become "generic" and thus lose its trademark status applies in trademark cases. We're talking copyright and contract law, where that issue really isn't as important. But, even if it were, paragraph 17 of the GSL covers it - failure to enforce is not a waiver against future violations.

Moreover, "fan site policy" gives no rights to said sites.

WotC, as big and powerful as they may be, don't own the Internet, and they aren't the government - they are one of the governed. No one need ask their permission to operate a fan site. The ability to do so, I submit, is contained in the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Wizard's does have a copyright on its material, and the limits of that copyright are set out in Copyright law. Which means, doctrines like Fair Use apply.

If WOtC's market analysis shows that EN World is the single biggest reason that Gleemax doesn't make what it is expected to make... they can send EN World a cease-and-desist order.....and make EN World pay for the associated costs of doing so, to boot, under the GSL.

Strangely, no. The GSL applies only to those who are voluntarily bound by it, per its terms. So, per the GSL, Wizards can't send Enworld a cease-and-desist letter without Enworld first signing up. Then, per the GSL, Wizards could send a cease-and-desist regarding violations of the GSL (such as, for instance, all those sexually graphic 4e documents that Enworld sells - if they exist, I'm unaware of them).

The other basis is for violation of Wizard's copyright, under copyright law. If forums and fan sites like this did not violate Wizard's copyright under 3e, I doubt it will under 4e. Wizard's statement of how it views fan sites will certainly be instructive as to how they understand the limits of copyright protection. Of course, violating someone's copyright does mean if you lose in court you owe attorney fees, costs, and a statutory damage award (or actual damages if greater) (btw, it's been a while since I've read up on this stuff, so please, verify this with a local attorney before crossing any lines Wizards sets out).

Furthermore, the GSL is an actual legal document. The fan site policy is....what? Goodwill? Can you point to it? Can you refer to it? Does it have any validity in a court of law?

The GSL is a contract, not the Constitution, not a Statute, just a contract. Contracts are meaningless unless both parties agree to its terms. Thus, the portion of the GSL that requires the Licensee to show agreement by submitting a form to Wizards prior to publishing.

The fan site policy is their view of copyright law. Also, not law, but it does give fan sites a good idea of what Wizards will go after in terms of Copyright violations (at least, that's what I'd expect from it). Ultimately, the scope of Wizard's copyright and whether a fan site has violated that copyright is up to a Judge and/or Jury to decide... but it's a heck of a lot cheaper to avoid litigation at the outset and either go with their version of Copyright law; or if you disagree with it have a really good argument ready before you post.

It is WotC/Hasbro who set up the draconian Gleemax policies, and the draconian GSL.

Of course, they could have not had a GSL at all. It is their copyright (lasts about 100 years + lifetime of the author, if I remember right... not sure how that works with corporations).

Hope that clarifies some of the legal issues being thrown about. Please keep in mind, the above isn't to be taken as legal advice. If someone is going to operate a fan site, or publish under the GSL, I highly recommend discussing copyright law and contract law with a lawyer (particularly one familiar with Washington contract law).

 

[Mark]

"The terms of the GSL do not apply to fan sites"

(. . .)

And, know what? If they do, I'll switch to 4e.

The OGL didn't actually apply to fansites, though they certainly could utilize it. With 3.xe, WotC had a seperate agreement for publishers than it did with fan sites and appears to be planning the same with 4e.

 

[SSquirrel]

I'm fairly confident that they're savvy enough to realize that the TSR days of suing fans was boneheaded and they have no desire to repeat it.

Do me a favor and let Prince know this please?