and you've given up your right to abritration, meaning you automatically lose a lawsuit and penalties...
Hey dude, with you on the overall excruciatingly one-sided badness that is the GSL, but have to correct you on this one. You give up your right to a trial by jury, which basically defaults to arbitration or some other negotiated settlement. Can't auto-lose a lawsuit, that would obviate the whole concept of suing.
Suing. Is that spelled right? It look wrong. *scratches head*
I hate the legal stuff, but I'm equally annoyed about the SRD without rules, although I saw it coming.
Well, they've finally done it. That's the last thing they could have done to guarantee that I wouldn't try 4th edition.
Thank you, Paizo, for giving everyone another option.
I concur. WotC has lost me as a customer/fan permanently.
Suing. Is that spelled right? It look wrong. *scratches head*Actually, it explicitly forbids suing over infringement at all, which is what most of these issues would be covered under.
Hey vance,
To which clause are you referring? I scanned trying to find it but couldn't. Thanks!
As restrictive and disappointing as this license is, I keep seeing references to WotC being able to take your content and reprint it in their books without compensation. Where are people getting that from?
I know there's some standard "if there's some coincidental parallel design, you can't sue us" stuff in there, but that's in pretty much every license pertaining to creative properties. It always smells like it strongly favors the big company, but really it looks like the same standard legal text that's on every submission form any freelancer will ever sign, but I don't see what the freak out is over that.
So, is there another passage that people are interpreting as signing over ownership of all intellectual property to WotC that I'm missing? Otherwise, this is like the fear someone posted at EN World about it forcing you to only sell PDFs on CD rather than online because a PDF can't have a URL - freaking out over a non-issue when there are plenty of other valid issues to freak out about. Yet I've seen this pop up several times in several threads and I'm confused where it's coming from.
vance and MarkusTay touched on some points of this, but I wanted to make some more clarification. From what I've been able to gather from my reading of the GSL, the problem is this: the GSL allows WotC to redefine the SRD at will. The SRD tells you what is protected content (content that you cannot use except by referencing it in the SRD). The protection is also retroactive to already existing products.
So...Let's play the possible future scenario game. Let's say that Game Company signs the GSL agreement, waits their two weeks after sending in their agreement, and assumes that WotC has received it.
They publish a book that creates two new classes, the Monster Slayer and the Magic User, as well as three new monsters, the Uber Rat, Pointy Thing, and Monstrous Humanoid.
The Uber Rat and the Magic User are big hits! The fans love them. Game Company puts out a couple more books that have the Uber Rat and Magic User in them.
WotC puts the Uber Rat in the SRD.
Game Company is no longer allowed to produce any product that has the Uber Rat in it (anything more than the name of the Uber Rat. They are allowed to reference it, but they cannot stat it or fluff it, even though they created its stats and fluff to begin with). They are also no longer allowed to sell any existing product that has the Uber Rat in it. It is also vaguely possible that WotC could go after them for GSL violation for even having sold a product that has the Uber Rat in it (though that's unlikely and not likely to hold up in any court).
Let's say that Game Company manages to recover from that. The instantly stop selling anything that has the Uber Rat in it, including their next two books that are on the presses that they have not yet sold any copies of at all. They go on to develop their wildly popular Magic User even further, and base a couple more books on him.
WotC, for reasons unrelated to any of the above and as a good business decision for themselves, terminates Game Company's license.
Game Company is no longer able to sell any of the products that they have made under the GSL, nor any products related to their GSL products that they made under the OGL.
This is the scenario that people are coming up with when they talk about "references to WotC being able to take your content and reprint it in their books without compensation."
Having read some, I have no comment on the GSL, but my insides have fused into a singular pudding. Spoons will be passed out at midnight.
The cake is a lie.
You know James, just because you didn't get cake, doesn't mean that Lisa didn't have some. It's entirely possible she kept it for herself, or only shared it with Nick Logue and Cosmo.
|
Ari Marmell popped out of his mousehole* to answer a GSL question. Doesn't sound like he's happy.
*His handle is Mouseferatu :)
Having read some, I have no comment on the GSL, but my insides have fused into a singular pudding. Spoons will be passed out at midnight.
Yay, pudding! AND cake! In the same thread! That only leaves...
Realms of Terror (the Ravenloft boxed set) was in 1990, and turned the ealier modules into a full-fledged setting. World of Darkness launched in 1991. Can you explain your statement better, as far as Ravenloft being inspired by White Wolf?
I also don't see too much in common between Spelljammer and Space:1889 rather than the obvious link of flying ships. Spelljammer wasn't particularly Victorian, and was very much magic-obsessed.
In 1988, GDW came out with a game about "flying through space with limited technology". In 1989, precisely one year later and after GDW won an award for its game, TSR launched a game about "flying through space with limited technology". Space:1889 was Victorian-era, and Spelljammer had guns - although not exactly the same tech-level, there were also many other steam-age type devices around, like Gnomish Sidewheelers and automatons. The methods presented may have differed, but the underlying concept was the same.
As for the Ravenloft comment, I actually got that from an article that was linked earlier in this thread - The one about Lorraine Williams. Its near the bottom of that first page.
Now, either that article is wrong, or TSR caught wind of what White Wolf was working on and beat them to the punch. ;)
Either way, the fact remains that this 'license' does absolutely nothing for the licensee, and basically turns you into WotC's b__ch if your stupid enough to sign it.
I like what someone just said about copyrights - I hadn't even considered that. A copyright doesn't protect concepts, only their presentation. So you can use the term 'drow' and apply it to a completely different creature, or you could write all about Drow, but call them something else - neither would be an infringement, because the name and context differed in each case.
And you wouldn't have to sign any demonic pact with the forces of Darkness, either.
Thern again, if everyone just sticks with 3e, no one has to worry about anything.
Lilith, have you been following Mongoose's post to put its OSC d20 stuff fully on-line? Someone here mentioned you. Do you have a site or something already?
I do have a site. I have several even...but Fake Healer was thinking of this one. I may mosey on over and make an offer to Mongoose. :)
*moseys*
Edit: It appears somebody else has already stepped up. :P
To which clause are you referring? I scanned trying to find it but couldn't. Thanks!It's section 10.3. Seems innocuous enough on its own, but since infringement is defined in other sections at WotC's discretion...
Hey Vance, I'm not sure you're reading this right, but I recognize the text lends itself to your interpretation.
Here's the section...
10.1 Ownership. Licensee recognizes Wizards’ rights and interests in and to all Wizards Intellectual Property and that all rights therein, including good will pertaining thereto, belong exclusively to Wizards. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that its use of Licensed Materials inures to the benefit of Wizards. No right, title, or interest in the Licensed Materials or any Wizards Intellectual Property is transferred by this License. Licensee understands and agrees that it is not authorized to, and will not utilize, any Wizards Intellectual Property (other than Licensed Materials), including without limitation any trademarks owned by Wizards, except and unless Licensee has entered into a separate licensing agreement with Wizards authorizing such use. Licensee will not attack the title of Wizards in and to any Wizards Intellectual Property, nor will Licensee attack the validity of this License. “Wizards Intellectual Property” means any patent, copyright, trademark, trade dress, trade name or trade secret right and any other intellectual property or proprietary right owned by Wizards, in each case whether arising under the laws of the United States or any other jurisdiction, including all rights of registration and renewal and causes of action for infringement or misappropriation related to any of the foregoing. For the avoidance of doubt, Wizards Intellectual Property includes all content contained within the Core Rulebooks and all Licensed Materials, including without limitation the SRD.
What I think its saying is that you can't attack their right to their patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade dress, etc., and you also can't attack their rights of registartion and renewal and their right to cause of action for [someone else] infringing or misappropriating [their ip].
In short with the GSL a 3rd party agrees that its not allowed to argue that wizards doesn't have the right to sue the 3rd party for infringement. Not that no 3rd party can sue Wizards.
I could be wrong. I often am. Ask Sebastian or my wife. :)
That's how I'm reading it, anyway. But I'd really love it (for real) if Sebastian chimed in on this one as he has the real legal expertise. I'm just a business sort of guy.
Let me see what sense I can make of this. DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer.
Like the OGL, this license allows publishers to release products which use the core rules. However, there are stipulations which publishers must be aware of.
Publishers are required to sign the contract at least fourteen days in advance of publishing. You may not release a product until October. In addition, you're required to print the official D&D compatibility logo on the back of the product.
You're allowed to use terms like "Dungeons & Dragons" and "Player's Handbook", avoiding wacky contrivances like "the world's most popular roleplaying game" and "see Core Rulebook I". In fact, you aren't permitted to use the term "Core Rulebook".
The license applies only to printed and electronic books. This specifically excludes software, websites and miniatures. This doesn't mean you can't have a D&D website, since to a certain extent you have fair use rights. It does mean that you can't apply the SRD to publish a book as a website or write D&D character generation software.
There are certain limitations on how you can use game content. You can't reprint rules, feat descriptions or stat blocks, only refer to them. Rather strangely, you can't refer readers to a page number, perhaps as proof against errata revisions invaliding page references. You also cannot stat up your own "kobold wyrmpriest" to get around this limitation. However, you may freely create your own creatures or present statblocks for modified versions of creatures.
Now for the ominous part. Wizards of the Coast reserves the right to revoke the game license, at which point you're required to cease publication of licensed products and pulp any remaining stock.
There's also the OGL conversion clause, summarized as follows: You may publish a 4e conversion of products previously released under the OGL, or new 4e products for an existing OGL product line, provided that you immediately discontinue that OGL product line. You can continue to sell existing stock of that line, but may not print more or sell any electronic copies.
To clear up any confusion, nothing stops a company from publishing both 4e and OGL products, provided that they do not share identical or similar titles or content. Even if they do, none of their other OGL products are affected by the clause. So while Paizo can't release Rise of the Runelords 4th Edition or even Pathfinder 4E, they can publish a separate 4th edition series of adventures under a separate product line without affecting any of their current products.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I stand corrected. Would you prefer to recieve payment in Flanian Pobble Beads or Triganic Pu? :-)As for the OGL, I'd bet good money that WotC created it without fully considering the possible consequences. For instance, I doubt they expected anyone to create complete games under the OGL. Seeing stuff like Mutants and Masterminds come out must have driven them up the frigging wall.As been said elsewhere, the d20/OGL FAQ from last week said the exact opposite. In fact, Mongoose was even outright challenged to do so - and they did.
So, when you paying up? :)
Sucker bet! Flanian pobble beads can only be exchanged for other flanian pobble beads. Go for pu, but have it paid in ningis (it's 8 ningis to the pu). Chicks will dig your fat wallet.
So I was thinking about the "decency" clause. Without the ability to reference sexual activity, that pretty much leaves out the Greek gods, don't it? All they do is boink, and Zeus is just an out an out rapist.
Of course you could sanitize the Greek gods beyond all recognition. Yay WoTc!
Wizards could easily amend the license in the future to remove the "product line" clause and instead say that if your company accepts the GSL—which you will automatically do if you sell so much as a single copy of any licensed product after they modify the license, whether you knew about the modification or not—your company can no longer produce any OGL products whatsoever. To me, that whole notion of "we can change the rules at any time" pretty much obviates the need for a lawyer—he could only tell me about what he sees *now*, which may have no value tomorrow.
Vic, if Necromancer produces anything for 4e is there any risk to Paizo under the current GSL (or possible future changes) given the Paizo-Necromancer partnership?
That would be my worst-case scenario.
Apparently the GSL is one of WOTC many "at will" powers.I think it may be a decade power:
Disenfranchise Allies
Once per decade, when profits are Bloodied, you unleash a flamboyant, yet ineffective illusion of competence, followed by unreasonable restrictions on your allies' ability to assist you. All current allies who have supported you for more than one adventure instantly abandon you to suffer your own self-inflicted doom.Recharge: After five years of struggling to win back the trust of past allies, 1d6 allies return to aid your quest. Former allies who have been disenfranchised twice will never return.
Miss: Only half of your current allies abandon you, but they never return.
Ouch.
Imaginative and brutal.
If you don't think that can happen, then remember that Ravenloft was in answer to the highly-successful White Wolf FGmes, and Spelljammer was a reaction to Space:1889 - the game of the year in 1988, IIRC. TSR/WotC has been pretty blatant before about producing very similar products to steal market share from competitors.
Realms of Terror (the Ravenloft boxed set) was in 1990, and turned the ealier modules into a full-fledged setting. World of Darkness launched in 1991. Can you explain your statement better, as far as Ravenloft being inspired by White Wolf?
I also don't see too much in common between Spelljammer and Space:1889 rather than the obvious link of flying ships. Spelljammer wasn't particularly Victorian, and was very much magic-obsessed.
You also forgot that Spelljamer wasn't particularly good either.
I stand corrected. Would you prefer to recieve payment in Flanian Pobble Beads or Triganic Pu? :-)As for the OGL, I'd bet good money that WotC created it without fully considering the possible consequences. For instance, I doubt they expected anyone to create complete games under the OGL. Seeing stuff like Mutants and Masterminds come out must have driven them up the frigging wall.As been said elsewhere, the d20/OGL FAQ from last week said the exact opposite. In fact, Mongoose was even outright challenged to do so - and they did.
So, when you paying up? :)
If you say 'Astral Diamonds" I'll scream!
|
Sucker bet! Flanian pobble beads can only be exchanged for other flanian pobble beads. Go for pu, but have it paid in ningis (it's 8 ningis to the pu). Chicks will dig your fat wallet.I stand corrected. Would you prefer to recieve payment in Flanian Pobble Beads or Triganic Pu? :-)As for the OGL, I'd bet good money that WotC created it without fully considering the possible consequences. For instance, I doubt they expected anyone to create complete games under the OGL. Seeing stuff like Mutants and Masterminds come out must have driven them up the frigging wall.As been said elsewhere, the d20/OGL FAQ from last week said the exact opposite. In fact, Mongoose was even outright challenged to do so - and they did.
So, when you paying up? :)
There's nothing like the smell of hitchhiker's references before going to bed.
|
|
I hope the GSL encourages the better publishers to work out a solid closed license so the cream can rise to the top.
No offense, but are you readin the same GSL I am? Because the GSL doesnt do that at all from where I'm sitting.
It seems to piss on any 3rd party publish, cream or crap. Its only going to help your FLAG by not having any 3rd party publish under 4e.
To which clause are you referring? I scanned trying to find it but couldn't. Thanks!It's section 10.3. Seems innocuous enough on its own, but since infringement is defined in other sections at WotC's discretion...
Section 10.3 says you aren't allowed to take suit against Wizards' Intellectual Property.
Thing is, if they've stolen it from you, it isn't their IP, it's yours.
So, you're free to sue them in that case. :) If they terminate the license, well, would you want to keep using it?
Cheers,
Merric
Unbelievably stupid.I just gotta say, if Merric is calling WotC out, then they have seriously failed.
(And this is absolutely not a dig at you, I love your optimism. This just goes to show how much WotC has been bungling things lately that even their most optimistic fans are calling their actions "unbelievably stupid".)
You should see my reaction to the Gleemax blogs that was on EN World recently...
Cheers,
Merric
OK - I'd love to bite but I'm not going to wade through those forums searching. Mind providing a link.
Can't linkify straight to it and don't want to steal another's thunder, but go look at EN World's news page for today. Someone has translated the GSL into Common and it's hilarious! And pretty accurate...
|
No offense, but are you readin the same GSL I am? Because the GSL doesnt do that at all from where I'm sitting.
I hope the GSL encourages the better publishers to work out a solid closed license so the cream can rise to the top.
The GSL wont do anything but drive the demand for closed licensing. That was my point.
The real problem with the GSL is that it doesn't give us enough idea about how the liscence will actually be enforced.
The problem is that the way things are worded if your a 3pp your basically forced to assume that they will enforce their licence to the full extent of law. I mean if your a fly by night bit player you can risk it. After all what have you got to loose? But a major 3pp? They can't risk this - they actually have stuff they can loose. Playing in this sand box is just too dangerous.
Here you go:
The Failure of GleemaxCheers,
Merric
Jeremy, here's Merric's link.
My main hope now is that smaller 3rd party publishers will move to the more user friendly 3.x OGl publishers like Paizo and Green Ronin. I don't know how the economics of such a shift could work out, but I'd expect that if the 3.x lines end up with wider and more diverse support, it could be just what is needed to stand the games up against the descending monolith of Wizards.Well I wouldn't expect alot of 3pp companies to hitch their ride to another 3pp company. For example, once PfRPG comes out, I wouldn't expect many, if any, other companies to use it. Why give Paizo control of the destiny of your company (if Paizo stops printing core books, your material would then be fairly useless)?
Well in many ways Paizo can't really do all that much to you. I mean they could stop you from using their IP and all but everyone is basically just using the OGL. Paizo sure doesn't own the OGL. Its pretty easy to hitch your boat to Paizo if Paizo agrees and if things don't pan out presumably both companies go their separate ways.
Having read some, I have no comment on the GSL, but my insides have fused into a singular pudding. Spoons will be passed out at midnight.Yay, pudding! AND cake! In the same thread! That only leaves...
That. Looks. So. Good.
That. Looks. So. Good.Having read some, I have no comment on the GSL, but my insides have fused into a singular pudding. Spoons will be passed out at midnight.Yay, pudding! AND cake! In the same thread! That only leaves...
My wife actually makes stuff like that.. It's why I'm a chunky monkey
Arghh... reading two boards at the same time and mixing up what I was going to post on each. Fortunately I still have my sense of humor :)
When I strighten my bent ideas out I'll post...
OK - I'd love to bite but I'm not going to wade through those forums searching. Mind providing a link.Unbelievably stupid.I just gotta say, if Merric is calling WotC out, then they have seriously failed.
(And this is absolutely not a dig at you, I love your optimism. This just goes to show how much WotC has been bungling things lately that even their most optimistic fans are calling their actions "unbelievably stupid".)
You should see my reaction to the Gleemax blogs that was on EN World recently...
Cheers,
Merric
I already did. :)
Cheers!
I'd say the GSL rules are good and bad. Good in that they force 3rd party publishers to actually produce high quality, playtested material. Bad in that there ultimately will be less material out there as some publishers will not purchase the GSL and thus, not make anything.
I disagree with this interpretation. Its the fly by night publisher that can afford to play by these rules. His product probably only sells for a month or so anyway and then if he looses everything thats not a big problem.
If you a major player willing to hire staff, play test product hire free lancers for art and content can you really afford to play by these rules. I mean you spend two years perfecting your world. A post apocalyptic fantasy world ruled over by evil aliens who use advanced technology to maintain their power, in the fringes small bands of rebel humans, elves and dwarves etc. battle the Alien tyranny using their wits and their secret weapon - magic. Your world is filled to the brim with unique art, classes monsters (especially aliens) and rules for technology. Sales shoot into the stratosphere. Its a smash hit - until Wizards updates the GSL to say 'no mixing technology with fantasy'. All your work is wasted. Your basically just screwed. Furthermore it appears that 6.1 and 6.2 means you can't even take your ideas and make an OGL product from them (though you might be able to make a whole new game).
It seems to be the big players that are hesitating here.
3.5 was a decent game system, but when you compared a lot of the WotC books with some 3rd party publishers books, you could definately see the differences in quality.True. Most of the WotC output was crap :D
The thing that bothers me most about the GSL is that the best 3.X products were done by 3PPs, and if not many of those publishers agree to work under GSL, we're stuck with sub-par WotC products (unless something changes over there).
Hear, hear.
You hit the nail on the head. I really like most of what I have seen with 4E but WotC has a terrible track record with making good adventures.
I also hate the provision in the GSL that pretty much says no sexual situations. WTF is up with that. I mean maybe they don't want the Book of Erotic Fantasy but what their basically saying is that you can't really add any romantic depth to ones worlds or modules. If it starts to get deeper then Saturday morning cartoons then its over the line. Give me a break - I understand why WotC might want to sanitize their own product for such content. Thats fine for them but 3pp should be able to use Vampires that ARE sexualized. Thats one of the big draws of Vampires after all.
Section 10.3 says you aren't allowed to take suit against Wizards' Intellectual Property.That's just it. It's the fact that they can add 'protected' material as they want, and declare that IP retroactively... in effect, stealing someone else's IP, and then being able to sue them for it. I can't imagine how that would be enforceable, other than "Well, you agreed to it, moron."
No, they can't.
You can only declare as IP material that is yours. The GSL assigns no rights for Wizards to use *any* of your material. It's far better than the web licences they've posted.
If I were to write a Druid class and post it, Wizards couldn't then just take it all and print it themselves. If they did, they would be in breach of my copyright.
What they *could* do is post their own Druid class, and assign the "Druid" as a System Reference. At that point, your Druid class (called "Druid") is in breach of the license because it redefines what "Druid" means.
What's really troubling about that is that it could happen inadvertently. You don't even need Wizards to act maliciously for you to suddenly be in breach of the licence!
Cheers!
|
|
Hey as long as nobody pours water on the GSL or feeds it after midnight we're fine.Oh, here we are, how sad a bunch of elderly nerds we are; ain't we?
Bustin' out Izzardisms, G.I. Joe stuff, I wonder which is next, some ol' school BSG stuff, Thundarr, or some Space: 1999?
*grins*
We're the princes of the universe...
Lords of Light!
;)|
|
Now the scary part is that I hope you are talking Shamanistic traditions or Shadowrun and not latext, swing sets, and goodness knows what else my twist mind can remember or think of in the next few moments.
You got a problem with Latex, sex swings and nipple clamps? Oh, you didn't.....bring up.....nipple clamps..........
Nevermind.
I'm curious if WotC has responded in any way to the negative feelings the GSL has inspired. Are they basically sitting pretty, smugly waiting for it to pass and hoping no one really notices, or are there several executives out there looking puzzled that there are some people who actually care about open gaming?
Either way, they need som pillow therapy.
I also hate the provision in the GSL that pretty much says no sexual situations. WTF is up with that.
Ahhh, yes, the Nick Logue clause.
|
|
Having read some, I have no comment on the GSL, but my insides have fused into a singular pudding. Spoons will be passed out at midnight.
Tom Petty sings 'I've given up. Stop! You tangle my emotions.
I've given up, honey please admit it's over!'as he spoons out some of The Jade to share with his rabbit buddies.
I'm curious if WotC has responded in any way to the negative feelings the GSL has inspired. Are they basically sitting pretty, smugly waiting for it to pass and hoping no one really notices, or are there several executives out there looking puzzled that there are some people who actually care about open gaming?
Either way, they need som pillow therapy.
They bumped the article off the main web page to the archives quickly, posting an article (Free RPG Day) on the 17th that was actually dated for the 18th. Me thinks they heard the instantaneous screams and shoved it back into the archives to try to stop the arterial bleeding... but humpty already fell off the wall.
One or both will happen: A) They respond by stating that another revision of the GSL OR (more likely) an updated FAQ will be released shortly to "clarify" some of the provisions, but nothing will really change. B) They will claim that a few publishers have accepted the GSL and will be releasing their wares in October (these being the publishers with WIS 3 and a life expectancy of 6 months).
I find it highly unlikely that anyone at WotC will grow a pair and own up to how badly the GSL debacle has been handled.