PDA

View Full Version : GSL and SRD are live



Nebo_
2008-06-17, 08:58 PM
I'm surprised there's no thread on this already.

The GSL and SRD are out. Link. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome)

Worira
2008-06-17, 09:06 PM
Wow, that's some useless SRD, all right.

Crow
2008-06-17, 09:09 PM
Wow, that's some useless SRD, all right.

I thought it was some WotC inside joke. I guess they got tired of giving away product for free.

RTGoodman
2008-06-17, 09:10 PM
Wow, that's some useless SRD, all right.

Well, it's not really a huge surprise. A lot of people, as far as I know, have been predicting the SRD would be like this (i.e., just a list of stuff you can use, rather than the stuff itself) for a while.

Glawackus
2008-06-17, 09:10 PM
IIRC, Wizards made it that way so as to reduce freeloaders.

Which sucks for people like me who loved d20srd.org, but I can see where they're coming from.

turkishproverb
2008-06-17, 09:17 PM
IIRC, Wizards made it that way so as to reduce freeloaders.

Which sucks for people like me who loved d20srd.org, but I can see where they're coming from.

I do too, but then again, the way i'm reading it if someone reproduced the tables it references wholecloth in a website they actually would still be following the rules.

brian c
2008-06-17, 09:17 PM
Wow. This is almost... negatively useful for players. I suppose it's a nice quick reference to see what powers a monster has, and various lists like that, but it's tremendously disappointing that it is no longer in any way possible to play based on the SRD; it's no replacement, which I'm sure is WotC's intention so they can sell more books. Still, it's a list of all the things that you're allowed to re-use; so someone should be able to take all of that info and actually make it available, like the 3e SRD, right?

Crow
2008-06-17, 09:20 PM
Don't you have to pay in order to use anything in there? If so, then you can't just reproduce it and plunk it on a website.

turkishproverb
2008-06-17, 09:26 PM
Wow. This is almost... negatively useful for players. I suppose it's a nice quick reference to see what powers a monster has, and various lists like that, but it's tremendously disappointing that it is no longer in any way possible to play based on the SRD; it's no replacement, which I'm sure is WotC's intention so they can sell more books. Still, it's a list of all the things that you're allowed to re-use; so someone should be able to take all of that info and actually make it available, like the 3e SRD, right?

from what i read of their requirements yes, although they used a little too much legalese. On the upside, more companies will start using their own systems now that this is out.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-17, 09:30 PM
So what does all the stuff under "Using the SRD" mean, in practice? The corporate lingo is a bit thick to cut through, and I really can't be bothered to read the GSL. But at a glance, it looks like we won't be seeing stuff like Mutants & Masterminds (which alters the rules a lot) or Conan d20 (which explains the actual rules for the game) - you can't modify the rules, and you have to refer to the PHB, DMG, and MM instead of reprinting relevant rules in your book?

Do they want third parties to only publish adventures, rather than actual games?

Matthew
2008-06-17, 09:34 PM
Ha! Well, PathFinder is looking like a pretty sensible business move for Paizo about now. Still, reading through the GSL SRD it looks as though a document is forthcoming, one that deals with Monsters?

turkishproverb
2008-06-17, 09:48 PM
So what does all the stuff under "Using the SRD" mean, in practice? The corporate lingo is a bit thick to cut through, and I really can't be bothered to read the GSL. But at a glance, it looks like we won't be seeing stuff like Mutants & Masterminds (which alters the rules a lot) or Conan d20 (which explains the actual rules for the game) - you can't modify the rules, and you have to refer to the PHB, DMG, and MM instead of reprinting relevant rules in your book?

Do they want third parties to only publish adventures, rather than actual games?

Probably. From what I'm seeing "UNDER THE SRD" means you have to work within the GSL, which is like working under the d20 liscence rather than the OGL.

Frankly, given the modifications you're allowed to make to the content in OGL, you could basically publish things under that that would still work with 4E. I know anythign I do is goign to use the 3E OGL, not 4ths GSL.

InaVegt
2008-06-18, 04:17 AM
Well, there goes my entire chance of building a 4E compatible product.

Even if wizards wouldn't just say no to my waiver, I'd not be able to use it, due to some of the requirements.

I'll just keep building my own system, and license it under the CC-NC-SA, then.

bosssmiley
2008-06-18, 07:47 AM
:confused:

Ok. I'm assuming this is a late April Fool's joke on WOTC's part. The vaunted '4E SRD' is just a list of section headings and power names. I mean, it's practically nothing but a list of product identity elements.

Cross-posted from here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48700)

Hmph. I was going to quote the relevant paragraph from the GSL about what you could and couldn't do before realising that the Usage Guidelines themselves are not covered under the GSL and may not be reproduced!

Anyway, the gist is that you can't reproduce any text, statistics block or any definition of any of the terms in the WoTC rulebooks, so there'll be no legal handy HTML/other electronic references for 4e, ever, unless WoTC make them.

What's the deal, by the way, with the promised electronic versions of the books that come along with the paper versions? Has that happened yet?

Presumable intent of the 4E GSL & SRD: you can only play with WOTC's ball in WOTC's yard. Now buy a subscription to D&D Insider peon! :smalltongue:

Aleron
2008-06-18, 09:26 AM
Here is one of the section IMO that is a huge problem with the OGL


11.1Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon written notice to Licensee or upon posting on its website of a termination of the GSL as applied to all licensees.

11.3 Effect of Termination. Upon termination, Licensee will immediately cease all use of the Licensed Materials and will destroy all inventory and marketing materials in Licensee’s possession bearing the Compatibility Logo. Licensee will remove the Compatibility Logo from all advertising, web sites, and other materials. Licensee will solely bear all costs related to carrying out this provision (in addition to any other provision) of the License. Wizards may, in its sole discretion and upon written agreement between Wizards and Licensee, extend this License for those Licensed Products that otherwise comply with the terms of this License.

Tengu
2008-06-18, 09:41 AM
Am I the only one who's not surprised? 4e not having an open SRD like 3.5 did was ooooold news.

Khatoblepas
2008-06-18, 09:55 AM
11.3 Effect of Termination. Upon termination, Licensee will immediately cease all use of the Licensed Materials and will destroy all inventory and marketing materials in Licensee’s possession bearing the Compatibility Logo. Licensee will remove the Compatibility Logo from all advertising, web sites, and other materials. Licensee will solely bear all costs related to carrying out this provision (in addition to any other provision) of the License. Wizards may, in its sole discretion and upon written agreement between Wizards and Licensee, extend this License for those Licensed Products that otherwise comply with the terms of this License.

I find this somewhat humourous. "WoTC say you no licensee anymore! Kill your books with fire!". So WotC really do want people to burn their books. ;)

Well, I wasn't going to switch anyway, so this is just really funny to me :D

Also:


11.1Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon written notice to Licensee or upon posting on its website of a termination of the GSL as applied to all licensees.

If I could cut through this statement, I'd be a cleverer boy than I am. As far as I can tell, it's "When we say playtime's over, it's over. For everyone."

Curmudgeon
2008-06-18, 10:42 AM
Oh, man, this is like encyclopedic!

-- that is, if the encyclopedia omitted all those pesky articles. :annoyed:

nagora
2008-06-18, 11:25 AM
I would strongly suggest that the terms of that license are in blatant breach of the 1977 Unfair Contract Terms Act in the UK, schedule 2. In particular the demand that termination results in the automatic destruction of the licensed materials immediately and without recourse to any legal challege as to the fairness of the termination.

I also think that it is highly unlikely that any court would recognise clauses which seek to allow the company to change the terms of the license at will on their website. I believe there is UK case law on that particular topic.

Additionally, clause 7 is highly subjective.

There are some other issues, but my (non-lawyer) feeling is that this license would be unenforcable in the UK.

Having said that, the law is an expensive hobby and Hasbro are richer than you, so the cheapest option is to simply steer clear of this load of bull.

Reinboom
2008-06-18, 11:57 AM
[This post is not compliant with any license, and is using mostly made up terms or terms that is not trademarked, etc. etc...]

How interesting.

The GSL does not (yet, or will not ever) cover in to use on websites. Though, there is a reference in the FAQ that says a separate license will be made in the future for fansites.
So, now homebrewing under the GSL if you intend to just post it. Yep. Basically, for most of us, the GSL is worthless garbage, unless you are a publisher/intending to publish.

Aside, the mix of the SRD + GSL basically reads to:
You can use the most basic table formatting. That is, you can make new classes, new monsters, new powers, etc. using the WotC formatting for them.

You can't redefine the old. You can't say "this replaces the grappling rules" nor can you actually define the "grappling rules".

You can make an addendum to something in the core. That is "this adds to the options for the grappling rules in the PHB".
--Alternative option this allows: You can remake something in the terms of the game system. That is, you can make a new set of grappling rules and within the rules itself say "this adds on to the options for grappling, however, when using these terms ignore the original terms."

You can reference any title that is stated in the SRD... just not everything else with it. For example, you could say "This adds to the power Cascading Blade Dish Soap [PHB]" but you can't define what Cascading Blade Dish Soap does... except unless that particular term is covered by the SRD as well. For example: "This class gains all 1/Full Moon powers, this includes: Cascading Blade Dish Soap.." since, if 1/Full Moon existed, it would be defined in the SRD like the rest of the terms.

You can say the mechanical after effects of an ability. That is "You can keep rerolling, or use Do A Barrel (Re)Roll Ability #2319 in order to make Cascading Blade Dish Soap do an average of 9,999 damage to Sephi-cus" or "The Big Mr. T is nearly impossible to kill without using I Make You Love Me Big Time [PHB]."



However, most of that means nothing to you all.

Alternatively, you could just say.
"This product uses the Open Game License version 1.0..." *insert the actual reference and restrictions that come with that* "... and is intended to work with the 4th edition version of the ruleset."

Which gives you a lot more freedom, notably since the term "4th edition" is not a trademark or IP. Just don't use anything that is strictly from the GSL/4e SRD. This, unfortunately, limits you in that you can't use their tables. But... big deal? 1/day and even 1/encounter can be used under the OGL.

kamikasei
2008-06-18, 12:14 PM
Here is one of the section IMO that is a huge problem with the OGL

My understanding is that there is no 4e OGL, only a GSL. The OGL refers to the 3e version still in existence covering d20srd, some of the material on this site, and the like.


I find this somewhat humourous. "WoTC say you no licensee anymore! Kill your books with fire!". So WotC really do want people to burn their books. ;)

It's more like: "If we revoke your license, you cannot sell things which claim to be compatible under the license. Therefore if you have stocks of such things unsold, they have to be destroyed."

AKA_Bait
2008-06-18, 12:34 PM
I do too, but then again, the way i'm reading it if someone reproduced the tables it references wholecloth in a website they actually would still be following the rules.

Actually no, if you look in the exceptions paragraph it specifically prohibits publication on a website.


Am I the only one who's not surprised? 4e not having an open SRD like 3.5 did was ooooold news.

Nope. I'm not surprised at all. If anything, this is a little bit more generous than I expected. The no cite with page numbers thing is just silly though.

Khatoblepas
2008-06-18, 02:24 PM
It's more like: "If we revoke your license, you cannot sell things which claim to be compatible under the license. Therefore if you have stocks of such things unsold, they have to be destroyed."

I know that's what it meant, I was talking about WoTC lawyers bursting into the stockrooms wielding flamethrowers (because you have to immediately destroy it)

"QUICK, BOYS! DESTROY THE STOCK! DON'T LET THEM BREED!"

kamikasei
2008-06-18, 03:25 PM
I know that's what it meant, I was talking about WoTC lawyers bursting into the stockrooms wielding flamethrowers (because you have to immediately destroy it)

IP law is Serious Business.

Thurbane
2008-06-19, 02:09 AM
Well, if I had been considering getting 4E (which I wasn't), this giant middle finger to the community would have definitely put me off...

Roderick_BR
2008-06-19, 07:44 AM
It's a SRD, yep. A system Reference Document.

It's a frigging index (table of contents). Nothing more :smallannoyed:

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-19, 08:00 AM
Actually no, if you look in the exceptions paragraph it specifically prohibits publication on a website.
Except that you can't copyright game rules. So with a little constructive editing to add the fig leaf of a different product you could put up all the 4e rules.


Nope. I'm not surprised at all. If anything, this is a little bit more generous than I expected. The no cite with page numbers thing is just silly though.
Yes, except you are a fool if you publish anything under the GSL. You can publish under the OGL, state that your product is compatible with 4e, and reprint all of the 4e rules in your product without a single problem. Since most of the 4e intellectual property is covered under the OGL as well (it having been IP of theirs in 3e) you can even grab a lot of that. You would have to change power names and a few other things but not that much.

Vikazc
2008-06-19, 08:22 AM
7. Use of Product Identity: 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. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.

13 Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
------------------------
Product Identity: Identity, or character, are words often used to describe the look of a product, or the way it behaves, especially in the context of the competition.

Those are clauses taken from the OGL, and a definition of Product Identity just to clarify. The gist of what those 3 things tell us, is that if you attempt to publish under the OGL, and in any way use 4e material or claim compatibility with it, you would be infringing upon the Product Identity of WotC IP, without an express agreement with them, and they would be legally able to terminate your access to the OGL, and have just cause to deny you access to the GSL.

The gist of that gist, is trying to plot ways to screw a company out of their intellectual property to make money off their work is disreputable, and in the case of a company of Hasbros size, plain stupid.

Person_Man
2008-06-19, 09:25 AM
That's a horrible reference guide.

WotC must be aware of the fact that their product (and in fact, ANY widely distributed book or music) is available free on the internet. So anyone who wants to can steal their product. Having a useful, legal SRD is just a helpful way to support people who have or will already buy your product. If you don't want to publish one for philosophical or corporate reasons, that's fine. It's your product after all. But why put out such a steaming pile of garbage, knowing that 3.5 fans or newcomers who look at it are just going to be completely turned off?

Honestly, I can't figure out the rationale of having a very useful 3.5 SRD, but then deciding to have a useless 4.0 SRD. It must have been lawyers.



Ha! Well, PathFinder is looking like a pretty sensible business move for Paizo about now. Still, reading through the GSL SRD it looks as though a document is forthcoming, one that deals with Monsters?

Have you (or anyone) played Pathfinder? I read the rules online, liked them, and will be buying it soon. But I was wondering how the differences from 3.5 played out in real gaming.



Except that you can't copyright game rules. So with a little constructive editing to add the fig leaf of a different product you could put up all the 4e rules.

Well, yes and no. Intellectual property laws are pretty murky, and vary from country to country. If I wanted to, I could pick up any book, change the names and fluff a little, make sure that there were no verbatim plagiarisms, add my twist, and republish it. (See Dan Brown). But if the person I'm copying has enough money, they can sue me into bankruptcy, even if the charges are never proven in court. And Hasbro is a big company with a lot of money. Corporations really don't mind "making an example" of 16 year olds if it serves their purposes. (See RIAA).

Ceiling009
2008-06-19, 02:16 PM
Hmmm... about destruction of stock... Wouldn't it be stopped if you just literally destroyed that part with the logo? You are theoretically destroying the stock with the logo, there by destroying stock. It's not like you actually have to destroy the entire book...

AKA_Bait
2008-06-19, 02:59 PM
Except that you can't copyright game rules. So with a little constructive editing to add the fig leaf of a different product you could put up all the 4e rules.

Sure. You go ahead and try lifting their language and rules and see what happens. I bloody guarantee you will get a cease and desist letter if not a summons.


Yes, except you are a fool if you publish anything under the GSL. You can publish under the OGL, state that your product is compatible with 4e, and reprint all of the 4e rules in your product without a single problem. Since most of the 4e intellectual property is covered under the OGL as well (it having been IP of theirs in 3e) you can even grab a lot of that. You would have to change power names and a few other things but not that much.

See Vikazc's point about the OGL. You cannot publish something as compatable with 4e under the OGL. WotC will never, ever, ever agree to it and, well see above for what I expect will happen.


Well, yes and no. Intellectual property laws are pretty murky, and vary from country to country. If I wanted to, I could pick up any book, change the names and fluff a little, make sure that there were no verbatim plagiarisms, add my twist, and republish it. (See Dan Brown). But if the person I'm copying has enough money, they can sue me into bankruptcy, even if the charges are never proven in court. And Hasbro is a big company with a lot of money. Corporations really don't mind "making an example" of 16 year olds if it serves their purposes. (See RIAA).

Not only that, but frankly it's unethical too. The fact that WotC decided to be less generous with it's IP in this version is their right, even if lots of us, including myself, would have preferred something more like the 3.x OGL and SRD, doesn't give one the right to steal it.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-19, 03:16 PM
Hmmm... about destruction of stock... Wouldn't it be stopped if you just literally destroyed that part with the logo? You are theoretically destroying the stock with the logo, there by destroying stock. It's not like you actually have to destroy the entire book...

Yeah, that sounds like it'd stand in court...

Kurald Galain
2008-06-19, 03:35 PM
Well, yes and no. Intellectual property laws are pretty murky, and vary from country to country. If I wanted to, I could pick up any book, change the names and fluff a little, make sure that there were no verbatim plagiarisms, add my twist, and republish it. (See Dan Brown).
Not necessarily - see Tanja Grotter.


But if the person I'm copying has enough money, they can sue me into bankruptcy, even if the charges are never proven in court.
Only in the USA. Most other countries have a fairer legal system than that.


Have you (or anyone) played Pathfinder? I read the rules online, liked them, and will be buying it soon. But I was wondering how the differences from 3.5 played out in real gaming.
I've read it... it appears that Paizo is willing to fix the problems with 3E, but is unaware of what exactly those problems are (unlike WOTC, who based on their blogs is very much aware, only not everybody agrees with their fix). Frankly, most message board veterans either here or on Gleemax could make a better 3E upgrade than Pathfinder is.

Reinboom
2008-06-19, 05:19 PM
-snip-
I think you are entirely missing the point of this SRD.

This SRD is clearly not intended for the customer base, but rather, the publisher base. It may be a piece of garbage for users, but being able to even reference the core books as a publisher is something most other systems don't even come close to allowing.

RukiTanuki
2008-06-19, 07:45 PM
ENworld has a nice FAQ on the frontpage based on Morrus' interpretations.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=232045

From there, I can only reiterate: the GSL is a voluntary contract, to be entered by those who want to put the STL mark on their product, in exchange for certain limits on what kind of product they can produce. Taking part in the program is a matter of mailing off a form. Your product's success or failure is as much in your hands as it's ever been, and you receive every dime of profit (or at least, pay none to WotC).

Yes, it's more restrictive than the OGL. As I mentioned elsewhere, I can recognize the negative sales implications of a license that resulted in so many lost sales of the core books. (I could never get a single one of my computer-savvy players to buy the book when their laptops and d20srd.org could be at the table.) The GSL appears to be a conscious effort to eliminate the effects of the OGL that were outright detrimental to the sales of D&D. As much fun as it is to play "moar liek wizards of teh $$$ amirite", I'd rather see developers (whose work I enjoy) be able to feed and house their families, and continue producing content for me to use in my games.

As for the third-party developers who've gone to no small lengths to make it very publicly clear that We Are Not Amused, I empathize, but I don't entirely sympathize. You're being asked to throw your hat in one ring or the other. Wizards chose, emphatically. (Admittedly, not wanting to split your team in half is a very good reason.) Players and DMs will choose as well, as they have with every new game. Now it's time to decide which of the two will fit your own goals.

The very real reason for this is because your influence is, in fact, important and valuable. Whether you believe that your company will be best off producing content for d20 or 4e is something that I, Wizards, the fans, and other companies are watching very closely. At the end of the day, however, no amount of lament at your inability to have it both ways will get you any closer to the decision you do now ultimately have to make. I hope the one you choose turns out the best for you.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-19, 09:08 PM
As for the third-party developers who've gone to no small lengths to make it very publicly clear that We Are Not Amused, I empathize, but I don't entirely sympathize. You're being asked to throw your hat in one ring or the other. Wizards chose, emphatically. (Admittedly, not wanting to split your team in half is a very good reason.) Players and DMs will choose as well, as they have with every new game. Now it's time to decide which of the two will fit your own goals.

The very real reason for this is because your influence is, in fact, important and valuable. Whether you believe that your company will be best off producing content for d20 or 4e is something that I, Wizards, the fans, and other companies are watching very closely. At the end of the day, however, no amount of lament at your inability to have it both ways will get you any closer to the decision you do now ultimately have to make. I hope the one you choose turns out the best for you.

Actually, I'll also point out here that companies only have to choose per product line, not for the entire company. VP for example is going to be putting out some Were our situations reversed and I in Wizards' shoes... I'm not so sure I would have been so kind. As much as it is not as good for third party publishers as the OGL was, this liscence could be a LOT worse.

nagora
2008-06-20, 06:00 AM
Actually, I'll also point out here that companies only have to choose per product line, not for the entire company. VP for example is going to be putting out some Were our situations reversed and I in Wizards' shoes... I'm not so sure I would have been so kind. As much as it is not as good for third party publishers as the OGL was, this liscence could be a LOT worse.

Well, maybe, but actually what use is it? It seems, at the end of the day, to just be a license to use the WotC logos. Is that a big deal? Why bother submitting to the license at all; just put your material out with "For use with Fourth Edition" or something like that on the cover. What does the developer of the product get from this?

Tormsskull
2008-06-20, 06:44 AM
Well, maybe, but actually what use is it? It seems, at the end of the day, to just be a license to use the WotC logos. Is that a big deal? Why bother submitting to the license at all; just put your material out with "For use with Fourth Edition" or something like that on the cover. What does the developer of the product get from this?

The developer gets the ability to use all of the items listed in the SRD. It might not seem like a lot, but it really is.

I mean, imagine creating an adventure without the GSL. Any NPCs that you use would not be allowed to have any of the powers that the PHB talks about. You'd have to make up all of your own powers for each NPC. The same for monsters.

At that point, I think a lot of players would no longer consider your product "4e material".

Kurald Galain
2008-06-20, 07:17 AM
I mean, imagine creating an adventure without the GSL. Any NPCs that you use would not be allowed to have any of the powers that the PHB talks about. You'd have to make up all of your own powers for each NPC. The same for monsters.

Not at all. NPCs are not supposed to have statistics to being with. As for monsters, I can easily say "there's three orcs in the room" with or without the GSL.

nagora
2008-06-20, 07:50 AM
The developer gets the ability to use all of the items listed in the SRD. It might not seem like a lot, but it really is.

I mean, imagine creating an adventure without the GSL. Any NPCs that you use would not be allowed to have any of the powers that the PHB talks about. You'd have to make up all of your own powers for each NPC. The same for monsters.

Why? Under what law could I not do any of those things? I think this is fantasy lawmaking here.

Person_Man
2008-06-20, 10:13 AM
I think you are entirely missing the point of this SRD.

This SRD is clearly not intended for the customer base, but rather, the publisher base. It may be a piece of garbage for users, but being able to even reference the core books as a publisher is something most other systems don't even come close to allowing.

OK, I'm willing to accept that as a possibility. But if that's true, they're idiots. Everyone used the old SRD. Everyone wants and/or expects a 4E SRD. Putting out such a limited SRD written just for publishers, knowing that your fan base is going to read it and feel annoyed and/or turned off, is phenomenally bad marketing and/or planning.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-20, 10:50 AM
Why? Under what law could I not do any of those things? I think this is fantasy lawmaking here.

General copyright law. The specific names of powers, named attacks of monsters, names of ritiuals, names of items, etc. are the IP of Wizards of the Coast. And before you say it, no you can't copyright game mechanics, you can however copyright the words that make up those mechanics in your books. I could make a power that does the exact same thing as one of the PHB powers if I renamed it and phrased it sufficently differently. Doing so would a) still probably get me sued, and b) be a LOT of extra work.

[Person_Man]OK, I'm willing to accept that as a possibility. But if that's true, they're idiots. Everyone used the old SRD. Everyone wants and/or expects a 4E SRD. Putting out such a limited SRD written just for publishers, knowing that your fan base is going to read it and feel annoyed and/or turned off, is phenomenally bad marketing and/or planning. [/quote]

Well to be honest, most of the fan base probably isn't even aware of the GSL. Most of my group wasn't ware of the OGL. The die hards online are going to be annoyed by it, probably. However, WotC has already said that it will be coming out with a different document for fan sites and one of the features of DDI is going to be something similar to the old hypertext SRD. Honestly, that feature is one of the main selling points of DDI.

Scintillatus
2008-06-20, 11:01 AM
A seperate document for people who just want to create free stuff to put on the intertrons would be nice, yeah.

Indon
2008-06-20, 11:40 AM
General copyright law. The specific names of powers, named attacks of monsters, names of ritiuals, names of items, etc. are the IP of Wizards of the Coast. And before you say it, no you can't copyright game mechanics, you can however copyright the words that make up those mechanics in your books. I could make a power that does the exact same thing as one of the PHB powers if I renamed it and phrased it sufficently differently. Doing so would a) still probably get me sued, and b) be a LOT of extra work.

Rename "Powers" to "Abilities" or "Talents".
Don't use the "Martial" power descriptor - rename that. Arcane/Divine/Psionic would be covered by the OGL, though.
You don't need to change things which are extremely self-evident. If a power uses a weapon, it's still a weapon power. But, if a power talent uses an implement, well, you should rename implements.

AKA_Bait
2008-06-20, 12:26 PM
Rename "Powers" to "Abilities" or "Talents".
Don't use the "Martial" power descriptor - rename that. Arcane/Divine/Psionic would be covered by the OGL, though.

Nothing in 4e is covered by the OGL. The words Arcane/Divine/Psionic are not copyrightable. Their use as part of the description of a specific 'talent' is in the context of the larger thing.


You don't need to change things which are extremely self-evident.

Nope, sorry but you still would at least need to rephrase it. Self evidence and copyright are not mutually exclusive.

Also, changing one or two words in a paragraph is not sufficent to avoid getting sued and losing. Each and every power, class, race, monster etc. would need a very careful rewrite. No company interested in making money has the time / wants to expose themselves to the potential liabilty, of doing that. They either won't use the 4e mechanics or they will, trying to change everything just the slightest bit so as to steal WotC's IP is both an invitation to get sued and, frankly, reprehensible.

nagora
2008-06-20, 12:46 PM
General copyright law. The specific names of powers, named attacks of monsters, names of ritiuals, names of items, etc. are the IP of Wizards of the Coast.
I don't think they are, actually. Copyright does not normally cover names - anyone can go and write a Harry Potter sequel, for example (providing that J. K. Rowling crying at them isn't enough to put them off!), just as many have written Gone With The Wind sequels using the names of characters and even mentioning events from the original.

Trademark, on the other hand, would also be hard to apply to anything inside a book which is not being used to sell it (ie, "trade" it). Again, I can write a book where characters drink Coca-Cola without having to clear it with anyone, even if the book casts a generally poor light on the drink. Indeed, I can write a book about Coca-Cola and sell it providing I don't pass it off as a product of the Coca-Cola company and don't say anything libellous about the company or staff.

There is case law about both these points in the US and UK, although I freely admit that there are out-of-court settlements which went the other way.

Using the names of powers or feats or any of that sort of thing in your advertising (including the front cover) of your book may well get you into trouble with "trade dress" even if not trademarked, and giving the impression of officaldom is asking for a world of pain, but I don't see any genuine legal basis for preventing 3rd-party modules, for example.

Jayabalard
2008-06-20, 01:46 PM
I don't think they are, actually. Copyright does not normally cover names - anyone can go and write a Harry Potter sequel, for example (providing that J. K. Rowling crying at them isn't enough to put them off!), just as many have written Gone With The Wind sequels using the names of characters and even mentioning events from the original.I'm pretty sure that you're wrong, that Copyright does indeed protect the names of characters, places, etc.

Your gone with the wind example is a bad one: some of of the sequels were authorized by Mitchel's estate; One was challenged as copyright infringement but it was protected under fair use since it was ruled to be parody; One was challenged, and the copyright infringement claim was upheld, and it was removed from the shelves.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_with_the_Wind#Sequels

nagora
2008-06-20, 02:58 PM
I'm pretty sure that you're wrong, that Copyright does indeed protect the names of characters, places, etc.

Your gone with the wind example is a bad one: some of of the sequels were authorized by Mitchel's estate; One was challenged as copyright infringement but protected under fair use since it was ruled to be parody; One one challenged and the copyright infringement claim was upheld, and it was removed from the shelves.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_with_the_Wind#Sequels
This may be a difference in US and UK law, then. I remember clearly there being two Gone with the Wind sequels on sale and the news item detailing the irritation of the publishers of the "official" one.

Additionally, it is a principle quoted ad nausium by pundits (here, at least) that no copyright exists in characters.

Also, I know for a fact that on both sides of the Atlantic "no harm done" is a viable defense in all copyright cases* and it is hard to see how supporting Hasbro's product lines could be shown to be harming it.

*(eg, Stringfellows v McCain Food (GB) Ltd (1984) - a case which hinged on the use of the name "Stringfellows" and where the lack of harm caused the case to be dismissed without further regard to whether copyright had been violated).

Even Judge Dredd was not protected when a song was released about him where the real judge hearing the case ruled that although there was a chance of confusion with an official release, the case was still without merit because there was no harm done to the publishers of the comic.

RukiTanuki
2008-06-20, 03:08 PM
Not to mention, it's probably ill form for us to armchair-lawyer this issue anyway.

The GSL's a voluntary contract, specifically created to allow publishing agreements that don't have to worry about copyright concerns. You give up some of your rights, and in exchange, Wizard grants you additional rights.

The appropriate reaction if you don't agree with the terms, is don't sign the GSL. The inappropriate reaction is to try to "game the system" and uphold the contract in ill faith.

AKA_Bait: It's very good news that the final GSL restricts on a per-product basis, not a per-company. I'm curious about the specifics of what consitutes a "product" myself. If it were me, I'd play it safe and work with distinctly different product lines for different systems. I do recognize the value of a good brand though. :)

turkishproverb
2008-06-20, 03:18 PM
Nothing in 4e is covered by the OGL. The words Arcane/Divine/Psionic are not copyrightable. Their use as part of the description of a specific 'talent' is in the context of the larger thing.



Nope, sorry but you still would at least need to rephrase it. Self evidence and copyright are not mutually exclusive.

Also, changing one or two words in a paragraph is not sufficent to avoid getting sued and losing. Each and every power, class, race, monster etc. would need a very careful rewrite. No company interested in making money has the time / wants to expose themselves to the potential liabilty, of doing that. They either won't use the 4e mechanics or they will, trying to change everything just the slightest bit so as to steal WotC's IP is both an invitation to get sued and, frankly, reprehensible.

Actually, looking at 4th Ed, and the 3.5 SRD+OGL, you could perfectly well just create content that could be used in 4th with that.


AKA_Bait: It's very good news that the final GSL restricts on a per-product basis, not a per-company. I'm curious about the specifics of what consitutes a "product" myself. If it were me, I'd play it safe and work with distinctly different product lines for different systems. I do recognize the value of a good brand though. :)

But this "contract" also allows Wizards to be the sole arbiter of what is part of that product line. Meaning they can just decide anything with your company logo is.

nagora
2008-06-20, 03:29 PM
The appropriate reaction if you don't agree with the terms, is don't sign the GSL. The inappropriate reaction is to try to "game the system" and uphold the contract in ill faith.
Absolutely. I'm arguing that only a fool would sign the contract, given how little return they get for the risk they run of having a future Hasbro board simply decide to put them out of business (or, alternatively, spend a fortune in court) by terminating the license on a whim.

It is a very one-sided contract, IMO. A real contract would not specify instant destruction of stock, would give a limitation on how long a product can be on sale for before Hasbro can no longer terminate it, and a proper schedule of when the contract may be renegotiated - not just a bland claim that one party (Hasbro) can change the terms and condidtions by posting it on a website somewhere.

If you were running a real business with a real partner company you would laugh at this contract, it is ridiculous. It clearly assumes that the licensee is a) an amateur, b) stupid, and c) desperate.

If you want to play nice with Hasbro, have your lawyer contact their legal department and have them draw up a real contract instead of this kiddies version where the big boy gets to set the rules and can take his ball back any time he likes. That's not how business contracts work, at least not if you want to stay in business.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-20, 04:13 PM
General copyright law. The specific names of powers, named attacks of monsters, names of ritiuals, names of items, etc. are the IP of Wizards of the Coast.

COPYRIGHT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! [/morbo]

Specific terms do not fall under copyright. They may, in some cases, be trademarked, but that requires an explicit request (and this doesn't work for common terms). That means that yes, I can say that my dungeon contains an "orc striker" wielding a "sword of flame", as long as I don't cite the stats thereof but instead tell the player to look it up.

encoded
2008-06-20, 06:08 PM
I have to admit that when I first saw the 4th Ed SRD, my first thought was "lame!"

But as I've thought about it more, I can't help but wonder if they just plain didn't have the time to finish it. A number of the sections look like placeholders, where more data might be added at a later date.

Perhaps I'm just way too optimistic on this, but given that it took them an extra couple of weeks to just plain post the thing, it doesn't seem too far fetched that they might have not really had time to finish it.

That seems inline with the extremely weak launch that D&Di has seen. My impression from the site in the days leading up to it, was that most of the features would be online starting with the publication of the core books. Perhaps I missed something, it certainly is not online and running yet...

Anyway, some other (more positive) thoughts on the matter.

e.