GSL and SRD are live

[Nebo_]

I'm surprised there's no thread on this already.

The GSL and SRD are out. Link.

[Worira]

Wow, that's some useless SRD, all right.

[Crow]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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!

[Aleron]

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]

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

[Khatoblepas]

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]

Oh, man, this is like encyclopedic!

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

[nagora]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

It's a SRD, yep. A system Reference Document.

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

[Emperor Tippy]

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]

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]

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]

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...