From WotC's recent track record, I find this not suprising in the least.
Same here. This is the GSL of fansite licenses. Unless the guy doing this analysis was lying. Which I doubt.
From WotC's recent track record, I find this not suprising in the least.Same here. This is the GSL of fansite licenses. Unless the guy doing this analysis was lying. Which I doubt.
Given that the license was designed to work with the GSL, no one should be surprised by this. If they made it any more open it would simply become a way for people to circumvent portions of the GSL. What they did was give us a way to make use of some valuable material that they own, as long as we abide by certain rules.
|
Given that the license was designed to work with the GSL, no one should be surprised by this. If they made it any more open it would simply become a way for people to circumvent portions of the GSL. What they did was give us a way to make use of some valuable material that they own, as long as we abide by certain rules.From WotC's recent track record, I find this not suprising in the least.Same here. This is the GSL of fansite licenses. Unless the guy doing this analysis was lying. Which I doubt.
Has anyone ever told you that your unfailingly uncritical support of WotC policies renders it less persuasive? Even if you do agree, sometimes you'd be better served by just letting it go.
|
|
Has anyone ever told you that your unfailingly uncritical support of WotC policies renders it less persuasive? Even if you do agree, sometimes you'd be better served by just letting it go.Given that the license was designed to work with the GSL, no one should be surprised by this. If they made it any more open it would simply become a way for people to circumvent portions of the GSL. What they did was give us a way to make use of some valuable material that they own, as long as we abide by certain rules.From WotC's recent track record, I find this not suprising in the least.Same here. This is the GSL of fansite licenses. Unless the guy doing this analysis was lying. Which I doubt.
Scott wasn't trying to "persuade" anyone here. He pointed out that WotC was simply following its own policies regarding its intellectual property (IP).
|
Given that the license was designed to work with the GSL, no one should be surprised by this. If they made it any more open it would simply become a way for people to circumvent portions of the GSL. What they did was give us a way to make use of some valuable material that they own, as long as we abide by certain rules.From WotC's recent track record, I find this not suprising in the least.Same here. This is the GSL of fansite licenses. Unless the guy doing this analysis was lying. Which I doubt.
As long as we are on the same page that 'valuable material' means some pictures and a banner, then sure. Because from what I've seen that's all you get. Then the question becomes; Why in the world would anyone running a 4e fan site jump onboard this train-wreck of a document?
What they did was give us a way to make use of some valuable material that they own, as long as we abide by certain rules.
"certain rules". Yeah. Like giving up the illusion that your work belongs to you.
Other companies let you use a lot more material, and they don't require you to agree to a contract that means whatever you come up with belongs to them.
After reading the policies and reviews my brain hurts. Is WotC saying that you can have a fansite for 4e but can't have any 4e content on it, also on your 4e fansite you can't post any houserules or fan fiction or any thing that relates to 4e?
As long as we are on the same page that 'valuable material' means some pictures and a banner, then sure. Because from what I've seen that's all you get. Then the question becomes; Why in the world would anyone running a 4e fan site jump onboard this train-wreck of a document?
Same reason someone would agree to the GSL.
What they did was give us a way to make use of some valuable material that they own, as long as we abide by certain rules."certain rules". Yeah. Like giving up the illusion that your work belongs to you.
Other companies let you use a lot more material, and they don't require you to agree to a contract that means whatever you come up with belongs to them.
The links above seemed to make it clear that this is not what the policy says.
I just read it. Wow, that was bad.
The first thing is that I have the feeling that I'm five again. They talk down to you like to a kid. Maybe they think they're being hip or something, but I just don't buy it.
Then they say that they want no other gods beside themselves. While Paizo, White Wolf, and countless other companies would have no problem with a fansite that is about roleplaying games in general, and have sections about PFRPG, Golarion, Vampire, Mage, and who knows what else, if you do a 4e fanpage, all that must keep out.
And of course, the fact that the fansite policy is useless to fansites, unless that fansite is a shrine for religious followers.
Reading this makes me really appreciate Paizo's community use policy: In addition to the rules - which they aren't cheap with, anyway - they let you use their IP for rules, fiction, you name it.
Those facts sure make wizards' talk about being grateful for fan sites ring hollow.
But, of course, this really wasn't unexpected.
The links above seemed to make it clear that this is not what the policy says.What they did was give us a way to make use of some valuable material that they own, as long as we abide by certain rules."certain rules". Yeah. Like giving up the illusion that your work belongs to you.
Other companies let you use a lot more material, and they don't require you to agree to a contract that means whatever you come up with belongs to them.
No, you're right. Because you're not allowed to put up any work under the fan site license. They have different contracts for that.
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Has anyone ever told you that your unfailingly uncritical support of WotC policies renders it less persuasive? Even if you do agree, sometimes you'd be better served by just letting it go.Given that the license was designed to work with the GSL, no one should be surprised by this. If they made it any more open it would simply become a way for people to circumvent portions of the GSL. What they did was give us a way to make use of some valuable material that they own, as long as we abide by certain rules.From WotC's recent track record, I find this not suprising in the least.Same here. This is the GSL of fansite licenses. Unless the guy doing this analysis was lying. Which I doubt.
This isn't something I need to be critical about, and I'm not trying to persuade. I'm pointing out something that should be pretty obvious: the fan site policy was written to avoid stepping on the GSL's toes.
I think I will stick with the Savage Worlds licenses.
As long as we are on the same page that 'valuable material' means some pictures and a banner, then sure. Because from what I've seen that's all you get. Then the question becomes; Why in the world would anyone running a 4e fan site jump onboard this train-wreck of a document?Given that the license was designed to work with the GSL, no one should be surprised by this. If they made it any more open it would simply become a way for people to circumvent portions of the GSL. What they did was give us a way to make use of some valuable material that they own, as long as we abide by certain rules.From WotC's recent track record, I find this not suprising in the least.Same here. This is the GSL of fansite licenses. Unless the guy doing this analysis was lying. Which I doubt.
"Valuable" refers to the value of the trademarks and logos packaged with the fan site kit. The Wizards logo and the Dungeons & Dragons logo are both included. These two logos are extremely valuable to WotC as a company, and their use needs to be controlled accordingly. The fan site policy controls that use by making it clear which situations those properties' use in a fan site are acceptable.
That's all.
As for why you'd want to use the fan site policy? Easy. If you want to use any of the assets provided (and, honestly, the Wizards and D&D logos are the big ones) and don't think that the terms of the license would prevent you from doing what you were already doing.
For instance, my reading of the license leads me to believe that projects like my conversion are allowed under its terms. I want to use the D&D logo alongside the Pathfinder logo on my website, and so it now operates under the fan site policy.
What they did was give us a way to make use of some valuable material that they own, as long as we abide by certain rules."certain rules". Yeah. Like giving up the illusion that your work belongs to you.
Other companies let you use a lot more material, and they don't require you to agree to a contract that means whatever you come up with belongs to them.
No.
KaeYoss, if your desire is to spread misinformation, I know that I, for one, would really appreciate it if you held that desire in check.
After reading the policies and reviews my brain hurts. Is WotC saying that you can have a fansite for 4e but can't have any 4e content on it, also on your 4e fansite you can't post any houserules or fan fiction or any thing that relates to 4e?
Nope, that isn't what they're saying.
What they're essentially saying is that you can't use the fan site policy to put up material using Wizards' trademark assets (like the D&D logo, or the Wizards logo) if that material falls under the GSL instead. This is done in order to prevent people from seeing those trademark assets and assuming that the product is "official" or otherwise supported by WotC.
If you a) have a D&D fan site, b) are not making a product that should fall under the GSL, and c) aren't reproducing or stealing large chunks of WotC material wholesale, chances are you're just fine operating under this new license.
And, of course, you can always continue to operate under fair use if you don't like the terms of the license for whatever reason. You just won't be able to use the trademark assets they've provided in the fan site kit.
Has anyone ever told you that your unfailingly uncritical support of WotC policies renders it less persuasive? Even if you do agree, sometimes you'd be better served by just letting it go.Given that the license was designed to work with the GSL, no one should be surprised by this. If they made it any more open it would simply become a way for people to circumvent portions of the GSL. What they did was give us a way to make use of some valuable material that they own, as long as we abide by certain rules.From WotC's recent track record, I find this not suprising in the least.Same here. This is the GSL of fansite licenses. Unless the guy doing this analysis was lying. Which I doubt.
So, you're saying Scott should not share his opinion because he is decidedly supportive of WotC's policies? So those who undoubtedly feel that every Paizo move is right and good should also stay quiet, by your same standards? Or how about those who find fault with all things WotC, whether it be their game system, their fan policies, cartoons, or their shoe design contest? If someone has a very clear position, they should not speak up?
For those of us who have chosen to play 4e, and yet still want to use Paizo's adventures, Scott is a valuable member of these boards. I don't always agree with Scott or his clear preference for all things 4e, but I still respect his opinion.
Given that the license was designed to work with the GSL, no one should be surprised by this. If they made it any more open it would simply become a way for people to circumvent portions of the GSL. What they did was give us a way to make use of some valuable material that they own, as long as we abide by certain rules.From WotC's recent track record, I find this not suprising in the least.Same here. This is the GSL of fansite licenses. Unless the guy doing this analysis was lying. Which I doubt.
I'm not sure why it shouldn't be more open than the GSL. The GSL is (or at least I thought it was) primarily for commercial use and the fansite policy is very much for non-commercial use. I'm not even sure what you been by "circumvent portions of the GSL."
I'm not sure why it shouldn't be more open than the GSL. The GSL is (or at least I thought it was) primarily for commercial use and the fansite policy is very much for non-commercial use. I'm not even sure what you been by "circumvent portions of the GSL."Given that the license was designed to work with the GSL, no one should be surprised by this. If they made it any more open it would simply become a way for people to circumvent portions of the GSL. What they did was give us a way to make use of some valuable material that they own, as long as we abide by certain rules.From WotC's recent track record, I find this not suprising in the least.Same here. This is the GSL of fansite licenses. Unless the guy doing this analysis was lying. Which I doubt.
The portion of the fan site policy that calls out the GSL makes it clear that you cannot use the fan site policy to publish products (including free products) that should instead fall under the GSL. The GSL exists to regulate how D&D and Wizards are connected to 3rd-party products. The fan site policy exists to regulate how D&D and Wizards are connected to fan sites. What they're saying is you can't use the fan site policy for 3rd-party products, because that's what the GSL is for. Now, as I read it you could try to create a fan site under the fan site policy and then host products at the fan site that were created under the GSL.
This is very similar (in function if not in language) to a line that appears in Paizo's Community Use License:
"If Paizo believes that you are in the publishing business, you are considered to be a commercial user, and you are not granted any right to use any Paizo Material under this Policy."
What both companies are saying is that if you're publishing something, you need to use the license they've created for published products.
|
The portion of the fan site policy that calls out the GSL makes it clear that you cannot use the fan site policy to publish products (including free products) that should instead fall under the GSL. The GSL exists to regulate how D&D and Wizards are connected to 3rd-party products. The fan site policy exists to regulate how D&D and Wizards are connected to fan sites. What they're saying is you can't use the fan site policy for 3rd-party products, because that's what the GSL is for. Now, as I read it you could try to create a fan site under the fan site policy and then host products at the fan site that were created under the GSL.This is very similar (in function if not in language) to a line that appears in Paizo's Community Use License:
"If Paizo believes that you are in the publishing business, you are considered to be a commercial user, and you are not granted any right to use any Paizo Material under this Policy."
What both companies are saying is that if you're publishing something, you need to use the license they've created for published products.
I understand that, the difference between Paizo and WotC policies though are that you are allowed to put free products based on thier systems even based on Their IP on your fan site, as long as you have no intention of selling them, It is when you sell them you need to use the Publishing licence.
Does WotC policy allow this?
I understand that, the difference between Paizo and WotC policies though are that you are allowed to put free products based on thier systems even based on Their IP on your fan site, as long as you have no intention of selling them, It is when you sell them you need to use the Publishing licence.
The portion of the fan site policy that calls out the GSL makes it clear that you cannot use the fan site policy to publish products (including free products) that should instead fall under the GSL. The GSL exists to regulate how D&D and Wizards are connected to 3rd-party products. The fan site policy exists to regulate how D&D and Wizards are connected to fan sites. What they're saying is you can't use the fan site policy for 3rd-party products, because that's what the GSL is for. Now, as I read it you could try to create a fan site under the fan site policy and then host products at the fan site that were created under the GSL.This is very similar (in function if not in language) to a line that appears in Paizo's Community Use License:
"If Paizo believes that you are in the publishing business, you are considered to be a commercial user, and you are not granted any right to use any Paizo Material under this Policy."
What both companies are saying is that if you're publishing something, you need to use the license they've created for published products.
This is not my understanding of the Paizo license. The Community Use Policy stops applying if they believe you are in the publishing business. This doesn't mean you have to sell their products. This means that if you publish a product, you cannot use the Community Use Policy. Publishing is not restricted to physical products, nor is it restricted to commercial products.
Now, it may be the intention of Paizo to not revoke the license unless the published product is used commercially, but that isn't mentioned in the policy.
stuff on fair useThat is all true.
Question.
Under the new policy could reviewer use a Image of the product cover and give a bad review of the product? I am not talking about a trollish review, But a Fair Bad review.
Yes.
|
|
This is not my understanding of the Paizo license. The Community Use Policy stops applying if they believe you are in the publishing business. This doesn't mean you have to sell their products. This means that if you publish a product, you cannot use the Community Use Policy. Publishing is not restricted to physical products, nor is it restricted to commercial products.Now, it may be the intention of Paizo to not revoke the license unless the published product is used commercially, but that isn't mentioned in the policy.
Oh.. I am sorry, you are correct... a Publishing Buisness you can't use the Fan Licence for putting out free products..
But a Fan Site that is not a publishing buisness can put out Free products based on Paizo IP and Systems on thier site through use of the The Community Use Policy.
Edit: Paizo allows Some IP usage, you can't whole sale re-post material from thier books.
You may descriptively reference trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), locations and characters from products listed in Section 1 of our Community Use Approved Product List at paizo.com/communityuse/products, provided it is clear that these are our marks.
You may descriptively reference dialogue, plots, storylines, language, and incidents from products listed in Section 1 of our Community Use Approved Product List at paizo.com/communityuse/products in campaign journals and play-by-post or play-by-email games.
I'm not sure why it shouldn't be more open than the GSL. The GSL is (or at least I thought it was) primarily for commercial use and the fansite policy is very much for non-commercial use. I'm not even sure what you been by "circumvent portions of the GSL."Given that the license was designed to work with the GSL, no one should be surprised by this. If they made it any more open it would simply become a way for people to circumvent portions of the GSL. What they did was give us a way to make use of some valuable material that they own, as long as we abide by certain rules.From WotC's recent track record, I find this not suprising in the least.Same here. This is the GSL of fansite licenses. Unless the guy doing this analysis was lying. Which I doubt.The portion of the fan site policy that calls out the GSL makes it clear that you cannot use the fan site policy to publish products (including free products) that should instead fall under the GSL. The GSL exists to regulate how D&D and Wizards are connected to 3rd-party products. The fan site policy exists to regulate how D&D and Wizards are connected to fan sites. What they're saying is you can't use the fan site policy for 3rd-party products, because that's what the GSL is for. Now, as I read it you could try to create a fan site under the fan site policy and then host products at the fan site that were created under the GSL.
This is very similar (in function if not in language) to a line that appears in Paizo's Community Use License:
"If Paizo believes that you are in the publishing business, you are considered to be a commercial user, and you are not granted any right to use any Paizo Material under this Policy."
What both companies are saying is that if you're publishing something, you need to use the license they've created for published products.
Yes, I am aware of that. I'm quite sure I said that. I'm still quite not sure what you are trying to get at.
WotC seems to be having both 3rd party publishers and fans be handled under the GSL. To me, the several of the limitations the GSL imposes are unnecessary for things like fan made adventures. (As far as I have gathered, unless I have missed some additional boon or lack of restriction on the policy, it would mean that you can't use Beholders or Mind Flayers in your free, fan-made, not-connected-to-"for sale"-products adventure. Or make a series of feats for Wardens and Avengers.)
While I am fine with WotC handling their fansite policy however they want, and I'm certainly pleased that it has come out, I do not think the GSL is appropriate for the things produced by fans.
Edit: To Matthew Koelbl, the same things. I don't think it is horrific that WotC chose to do this, but I do think it was a mistake to direct fans to the GSL. That I have to say about it, is the same as your last line, "Not that big a deal." The fansite policy, to me, isn't anything to get excited about. To me, it leaves most of the fan-things I expect to see right in the exact same place they were a week ago.
I'm not sure why it shouldn't be more open than the GSL.
I know Paizo's community use policy is a lot more open than the already open gaming license. They don't just say they care about their fans, they show it.
After reading the policies and reviews my brain hurts. Is WotC saying that you can have a fansite for 4e but can't have any 4e content on it, also on your 4e fansite you can't post any houserules or fan fiction or any thing that relates to 4e?
Nope, that isn't what they're saying.
What they're essentially saying is that you can't use the fan site policy to put up material using Wizards' trademark assets (like the D&D logo, or the Wizards logo) if that material falls under the GSL instead. This is done in order to prevent people from seeing those trademark assets and assuming that the product is "official" or otherwise supported by WotC.
If you a) have a D&D fan site, b) are not making a product that should fall under the GSL, and c) aren't reproducing or stealing large chunks of WotC material wholesale, chances are you're just fine operating under this new license.
And, of course, you can always continue to operate under fair use if you don't like the terms of the license for whatever reason. You just won't be able to use the trademark assets they've provided in the fan site kit.
Thanks for the answer. I gonna bail on the thread now before the flame war starts.
Question.Under the new policy could reviewer use a Image of the product cover and give a bad review of the product? I am not talking about a trollish review, But a Fair Bad review.
Could probably be considered disparagin, so they can shut it down. Considering that they forbid their beta testers to make any negative statements about 4e during the playtests, I wouldn't be surprised that they enforced this part.
Now, it may be the intention of Paizo to not revoke the license unless the published product is used commercially, but that isn't mentioned in the policy.
The difference is that Paizo gives us every indication that they want to work with us, and with generally everyone.
wizards simply doesn't.
Now, it may be the intention of Paizo to not revoke the license unless the published product is used commercially, but that isn't mentioned in the policy.
The difference is that Paizo gives us every indication that they want to work with us, and with generally everyone.
wizards simply doesn't.
While I think this is an overstatement I do agree that Paizo grants some interesting use of their IP in their fan site policy while you don't get much out of Wizards that you probably did not already have under fair use or the GSL. That said the GSL - restrictive as it is, grants far more in terms of using their IP then you get with most RPG publishers.
Yeah, I don't disagree that it would be nice to have a bit more division between those actually publishing third party products for profit, and those who are just tossing out free fan-made material. And I think that they definitely should clean up the link between the fansite policy and the GSL and make things clearer so fans don't need to dig through the entire thing to know what they can and can't do.
But I think most such things can be released easily enough through the GSL or under fair use. You can certainly go ahead and post your fan-made adventure on your website, and tell people that encounter 3 features "2 Beholders and a Mind Flayer", which can be found in the MM. WotC can't attack you for using the names of those creatures. But if you post the actual stats for the creatures, freely reproducing content from the MM online for anyone to snag, I suspect they might take action.And going by the fansite, tossing out home-brew material (feats and such) seems fine - "adventure, module or program" are the elements they call out and direct you to the GSL. So content outside of that would seem independant of the more specific limitations the GSL provides.
I do think that the second review linked earlier in the thread is the one that has the best point, though. This policy is really just a license to use their trademark on your fansites, rather than talking about what sites they are cool with and what sites they are going to smack down.
You can figure most of it by reading between the lines: if you are using the GSL or the Fansite material, don't violate the specific terms for those; and if not, don't actually do anything actionable like distribute published WotC material online. But having them give a real statement of purpose about that would be ideal.
I pretty much agree. I have no doubt one could make nearly all the fan creations one desires without the GSL or the fansite policy, and that WotC isn't likely to shut down sites that aren't doing some pretty bad things. But, I would suggest that if one could do it under fair use, then I would suggest that it is odd that their fansite policy blocks it.
Yeah, the sad thing about this is that it's largely irrelevant. It isn't really a policy, just a license if you want to use their 38 lovely images. Assuming you're in your right mind and don't, or even if you do, it doesn't meaningfully address fansites, it just punts to the GSL.
The GSL says you can't do web sites. No really, go read it. It does say you can do .pdfs so maybe if you keep all your work to pdf, and you choose to submit yourself to the entire license (and send a card in to them, and all) you could do something there.
Though it's certainly "in their rights" to do this, as the resident WotC propagandist likes to point out, it certainly is much worse than pretty much every other fansite policy extant. Is D&D so much just a "brand" to them that use of the images and whatnot is all that matters? "People generating real content? Bah, that's unimportant."
Anyway, it appears that the general approach is becoming "Whatever, just do it and ignore the GSL." I noticed that Kobold Quarterly, for example, has 3e and 4e articles in their magazine (a violation of the GSL) but upon further review they aren't using the GSL, just relying on fair use, which covers a lot. It's dicey though, as it's only a "defense when sued" and not a proactive safe harbor. I guess they (WotC) are OK with the chilling effect of that. Ah well, yet another data point to validate the correctness of my decision that the true D&D torch has been well passed to another...
Ah well, yet another data point to validate the correctness of my decision that the true D&D torch has been well passed to another...
I don't think your "data point" validates anything close to what you think it does.
You want it to validate your opinion (which is made perfectly clear by calling those defending the new policy "Wotc propagandists"), but the reality is that WotC hasn't harmed anyone by releasing this fan site policy. What they've done is provide a way for you to use some of their trademark assets on your website. They're providing you with a privileged opportunity, and the unfortunate sense of entitlement the gaming community has developed is causing certain elements to attack the decision (including many willing to spread misinformation to do so).
If I ever called you or anyone else here a "Paizo propagandist" I'd be dogpiled for it. Consider, in the future, how you might want to be treated before deciding it's a good idea to post something like the above.
I find it just as likely that you are willing to spread misinformation.
I find it just as likely that you are willing to spread misinformation.
I'm not in the habit.