Since the Tavern is now bloated with responses to Wizard's new information concerning the new Game System License, I figured we should move the conversation to a thread (ok, it was Poseidon's idea, lol)..
Ant any rate, here's what we know right now:
Quote from: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=15644416#post15644416Thread[/url], Important Post #1 (hhttp://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15642528&postcount=9) & Important Post #2 (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15644416&postcount=18)
I'm still largely waiting to see details of implementation. It does seem like this will make it harder to put out variant rule sets - or at least more inconvenient. But when it comes down to it, implementation makes a big difference in how hard it will be to create something that is just D&D with a variant spell system, for example.
I'm not sure that all this will really make a big business difference to WotC though - how much did something like True20 really take away from them? Only a tiny fraction of people use things like that, and I'd guess most of them own at least the D&D Player's Handbook anyway. If any of these systems really took off, it could take business away from WotC supplements and the like, since they wouldn't be compatible. But that hasn't happened, and it isn't really likely to happen.
A big part of this might be to help make a clear distinction in third party products between which parts are "D&D" vs. which parts are, e.g., "Green Ronin". They may feel that this helps them maintain their branding a little better, since actual "D&D" rules can't be reprinted mixed in amongst the third party material.
I tend to use the definition of Open Source appearing on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source#The_Open_Source_Definition). One of the defining features of an open product is that the source code must either be included with the license or else made freely obtainable. Also, the redistribution of modifications to that source code must be allowed.
In terms of games, "source code" means core mechanics. For the most part, the OGL was Open Source according to this definition. With a few minor exceptions, the core mechanics were all freely available in the SRD and people were allowed to make and distribute any changes they wanted to those core mechanics.
The GSL does not appear to meet the definition of Open Source because it doesn't sound as though the new SRD actually contains any core mechanics. It only contains page number references you can use, and page number references do not constitute freely obtainable source code. Also, there is no indication yet that the license allows people to redistribute changes they make to the core mechanics; so far, we only know that they can make use of certain page number references.
Also, there is no evidence yet that the GSL allows you to make modifications to third party GSL products. Technically, third party products aren't D&D, and according to the announcement quoted in the OP, the GSL only allows you to use D&D 4th Edition rules. In contrast, the OGL allowed you to use any and all rules created under the OGL, not just D&D 3rd Edition rules.
Now don't get me wrong; I'm not one of those folks who thinks WotC is obligated to make 4e an open game. I don't think there's anything greedy or selfish about the way WotC is doing business. They own D&D, so they are certainly free to do with it or not do with it as they see fit.
Nevertheless, I do think WotC was correct when they changed the name of their new license from the 4e Open Gaming License to the Game System License. The removal of the word "Open" from the name accurately reflected the change in the nature of the license between the OGL and the GSL.
Quote from: D&D Main Site, GSL Announcement... This royalty-free license will replace the former d20 System Trademark License (STL) ...
If I'm not mistaken, isn't that the bit that allowed publishers to make commercial 3.x material? If so, does that mean WotC is cutting off all potential 3.x support, including third party?
That wouldn't be good :(
I have no problem with it, now that they are no longer requiring companies to pay $5,000. It wouldn't be worth it with the little time until the June release.
Quote from: Sdragon1984Quote from: D&D Main Site, GSL Announcement... This royalty-free license will replace the former d20 System Trademark License (STL) ...
With "replace" I assume they mean that it will be used for 4e in the place where STL was used in 3.x.
I don't think the previous licenses had a clause in them that allowed WotC to revoke or rewrite the license at will. So anything issued under previous licenses is still under those licenses.
In My Humble Non-Lawyerly Opinion (IMHNLO).
Can someone who is more business/legal minded than I explain to me how this new license relates to me and my campaign setting?* It seems to me that including core rules on my personal web site, or personal wiki site may possibly be against this new GSL??
*"Me and my campaign setting" refers to anyone building a homebrew campaign setting, and using core mechanics from core D&D
Quote from: IshmaylCan someone who is more business/legal minded than I explain to me how this new license relates to me and my campaign setting?* It seems to me that including core rules on my personal web site, or personal wiki site may possibly be against this new GSL??
We'll have to wait to see the whole license before know for sure. But I drew the same conclusion that you did from what's already been said.
(Of course, either way, I doubt WotC is going to track you down and sue you for reprinting a few rules on your personal site. At least, I don't think they're that stupid; I imagine someone working there remembers the whole TSR fan site debacle.)
From the ENWorld main page (http://www.enworld.org/) for April 20th:
Quote from: Clark Peterson of Necromancer GamesI believe, in fact, that it is even a bit more restrictive than people are seeing. It is not just that you cant mix the two licenses in one product. It is that if you use the GSL you cannot also use the OGL for 3E products.
In other words, publishers have to decide if they want to stay 3E or if they want to come along for the 4E ride.
In other words, Necro cant do 3 books for 4E then decide to go back and do a 3E book. Or, along the same lines, if Paizo wants to do Pathfinder 3E, it cant do 4E products. If it does, it can no longer do 3E ones.
<snip>
Once you are in for 4E, you are in, and cant go back (well, you could but you would presumably lose the right to use the GSL from that point forward).
<snip>
By the way, this info was from Wizards. Unless I am misunderstanding what they told me or they didnt understand my question, this is how it will be.
A couple key points found here and are likely to be included in the license (possibly in different language) <snip>
No Covered Product may change or extend the definition of any Defined Game Term as enumerated in this Guide.[/quote]
Summary: The GSL does not allow you to redefine any game terms.
As in, I couldn't recreate the warlock class, or shifter race to better fit my campaign setting, or I can't rename rules, or what?
The more i read about 4e, the more i'm convinced that it will be a fun game, but
absolutely crap for 3rd party publishers.
QuoteAnd, when asked "If you have a current 3e product released with the old license, and you wish to upgrade it to 4e, you can no longer sell the 3e version of the product, correct?"
If the license actually prevents selling the back catalog of OGL material, I can see it being a very tough choice for publishers.
Quote from: brainfaceIf the license actually prevents selling the back catalog of OGL material, I can see it being a very tough choice for publishers.
I don't know for sure what the license says about selling existing stuff. The statements I've quoted above seem to be talking more about the creation of new 3.x and 4.0 material than about 3.x material that already exists. So maybe you can still sell existing 3.x stuff, so long as you never update it or print new copies.
EDIT: But that's still "absolute crap for third party publishers," as you put it, at least in terms of open game design. The OGL allowed for the continuous improvement of the rules, whereas the GSL merely allows one to adapt fluff material to fit a collection of immutable rules. All of the truly innovative third party stuff is going to have to happen in games entirely unrelated to Fourth Edition, since freelance designers can't add alternate mechanics to the 4.0 rules.
Got questions about the GSL?
Well you can ask them in this thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1022007) (not guaranteed to be answered though).
Quote from: PoseidonGot questions about the GSL?
Well you can ask them in this thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1022007) (not guaranteed to be answered though).
Would anybody mind being an ambassador from the CBG? I have a few questions (mainly the ones mentioned in this thread), but I have absolutely no desire to go over to WotC boards. I haven't been there in so long, I don't think I can even remember my password there.
Quote from: Sdragon1984Quote from: PoseidonGot questions about the GSL?
Well you can ask them in this thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1022007) (not guaranteed to be answered though).
Would anybody mind being an ambassador from the CBG? I have a few questions (mainly the ones mentioned in this thread), but I have absolutely no desire to go over to WotC boards. I haven't been there in so long, I don't think I can even remember my password there.
Post em here, I'll take them over.
You're a true gentleman, Poseidon
Quote from: Epic MeepoSummary: This publisher is under the impression that using the OGL is a violation of the GSL.
Actually, that's not what I got from what he said. I think using the OGL is fine, but you cannot mix and match 3.5 and 4.0, and once you start making 4.0, you cannot make any more 3.5 products. I'm pretty sure that this is to prevent people from using rules that are similar between the two system or possible legal loopholes to get around restrictions in the GSL.
Quote from: Xathan WorldsmithQuote from: Epic MeepoSummary: This publisher is under the impression that using the OGL is a violation of the GSL.
Actually, that's not what I got from what he said. I think using the OGL is fine, but you cannot mix and match 3.5 and 4.0, and once you start making 4.0, you cannot make any more 3.5 products. I'm pretty sure that this is to prevent people from using rules that are similar between the two system or possible legal loopholes to get around restrictions in the GSL.
I think we're both saying the same thing: once you use the GSL to make 4.0 products, you can't use the OGL to make new 3.x products. If you ignore this restriction and make more OGL 3.x products anyway, you're violating the rules of the GSL.
So I take it the two systems are going to be mechanically similar? Or am I missing something?
Thanks, Psoeidon. I don't really have many questions, but I do have a few. Primarily, I'd like to know (in as close to lay-term as possible) just what the change-over means for 3.x.
From the GSL Q&A (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080502)
Q. Can publishers release new products under both the OGL and 4E GSL?
A. No. Each new product will be either OGL or 4E GSL. If a new product is published under the 4e GSL, it cannot also be published as 3.x product under the OGL; and vice versa.
Q. I have multiple product lines. If I update one product line to 4th Edition, do they all have to be updated?
A. No. Publishers are able to choose on a product line by product line basis which license will work best.
Quote from: PoseidonFrom the GSL Q&A (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080502)
Q. I have multiple product lines. If I update one product line to 4th Edition, do they all have to be updated?
A. No. Publishers are able to choose on a product line by product line basis which license will work best.
That's a nice compromise by WotC.
(These are from Monte Cook's Boards. Which are from enworld. Which are probably from somewhere else.)
QuoteQ) Are there any "types" of product prohibited by the GSL? For example, the old d20 STL prohibited the inclusion of character generation or advancement, meaning that a standalone game could not be created, while the OGL alone did not. Does the GSL contain these restrictions? Are any other types of product restricted?
A. Most of what was in the d20 STL has been pulled into the GSL. For example, no product can describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character. The new license is meant to work with the core D&D rules. The final details will be announced when the license is released in June.
Q) Are there any "types" of product prohibited by the GSL? For example, the old d20 STL prohibited the inclusion of character generation or advancement, meaning that a standalone game could not be created, while the OGL alone did not. Does the GSL contain these restrictions? Are any other types of product restricted?
A. Most of what was in the d20 STL has been pulled into the GSL. For example, no product can describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character. The new license is meant to work with the core D&D rules. The final details will be announced when the license is released in June.
Q) Is WotC planning on providing an easily available, downloadable copy of the rules available both online and off without a fee?
A. No. Anyone wishing access to the rules will need to purchase the core rulebooks. The GSL SRD will have a list of the terms, tables, and templates available for use under the GSL and will be available for download at no charge with the GSL itself.
[/quote]
I think wizards has an inflated opinion of how much Arcana Unearthed and the d20srd.com competed with their players' handbooks. :P
There's a complete interview, including these questions, on enWorld's front page (http://www.enworld.org/)
Yeah, sites like d20srd.com were great to have a handy reference for lots of basic stuff, even if it couldn't cover everything. Much easier than flipping through a rule book to find stuff.
But I suppose it might have allowed some number of gaming groups to get by using shared copies of core books. How much of an impact that was, I don't know. I guess that the cost of entry and participation for D&D is still pretty low compared to a lot of hobbies, so it isn't really that much of an imposition to ask people to buy at least a PH. But the loss of online rules resources is a fairly significant inconvenience.
Quote from: WotCQ. What products would WotC like to see come out of the third party publishers that they are not currently interested in producing themselves?
A. The easy answer is we want to see quality products that support 4th Edition D&D. I'm guessing you want specific examples, right? The GSL is designed for publishers to make Adventures, 'Fluff,' Campaign settings, Alternate Classes, Races, Monsters, Paragon Paths, Epic Destinies, and other creative supplemental products.
Looking at this answer, I think their goal is mostly to encourage third party stuff that is D&D-plus, not variants and alternatives. Thus, you can't create a variant class, unless you call it something else. (Can't change the definitions of things that are in the GSL SRD.) Variant rules for existing skills - probably out. New or alternative skills - probably okay. Etc.
You could do all that by writing your own game, of course, but you'd have to do it without the GSL, which means you'd have to look out for violating copyright by "derivative works". This means that if you wanted to update something like True20 for 4e, you'd have to be very careful about how close it looks to D&D 4e. You'd probably end up having to change enough terminology to make sure that it won't look much like D&D - but of course the appeal is that it should be familiar, not different.
I'm sure this is intentional, but I doubt if that is the primary purpose, since things like that have never managed to capture more than a tiny fraction of the market, and most of them have already purchased their D&D books anyway. The number of people who play D&D using someone else's PH and d20srd.com for reference is surely a hundred times larger than the number of people who play True20 or similar system and don't own a PH. They're more interested in making sure that people actually buy their books than in preventing competition.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the only reason this is taking off at all is because it's attached to the new system (which I still haven't looked at), and because it's really being pushed by WotC's PR. From the sounds of it, the GSL is actually inferior to the OGL. Yes, the 3.x system had it's flaws (all systems, ultimately, do), but what the OGL really has over the GSL is that people don't have to rely on WotC to fix those problems. You can almost pick and choose between the solutions all sorts of alternate systems (e.g., True20) offer.
@Sdragon: That's the exact same impression I have of the situation.
Also, from the ENWorld page in Ishy's above post (emphasis mine):
Quote from: WotC's Mike LescaultThe Game System License Is revocable as it is tied to the D&D trademark and other intellectual property. Because of this Wizards needs to maintain control of the license.
I had to recheck a few times to be perfectly sure, but Stargate hasn't posted in this thread yet. I think maybe you meant either Snakefing or I, as all three names start with S, and both Snakefing and I have posted since your last post.
Quote from: Sdragon1984Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the only reason this is taking off at all is because it's attached to the new system (which I still haven't looked at), and because it's really being pushed by WotC's PR. From the sounds of it, the GSL is actually inferior to the OGL. Yes, the 3.x system had it's flaws (all systems, ultimately, do), but what the OGL really has over the GSL is that people don't have to rely on WotC to fix those problems. You can almost pick and choose between the solutions all sorts of alternate systems (e.g., True20) offer.
Well, even if Meepo didn't intend to second your post, I will.
The thing is, D&D is the 800 pound gorilla of the hobby. 4e will inevitably supplant 3.x for popularity and everyone who wants to create and post worlds, house rules, etc. based on D&D will need to understand what they can and can't do within the GSL.
Of course, they'd be crazy to crack down on fan sites, but sites like CBG that reach small but significant groups of gamers will want to be careful so there could be a significant chilling effect anyway.
It seems like people will be able to do quite a bit in the way of variants and house rules, as long as you don't redefine the core SRD terms (and we don't yet know what they are), or reprint the core rules. I think they are restricting rules for character creation and experience too - not sure if this is to prevent competitive systems or to reserve one thing people
need to have PH for, but in effect it does both.
Quote from: Sdragon1984I had to recheck a few times to be perfectly sure, but Stargate hasn't posted in this thread yet.
*looks back and forth furtively*
I don't know what you're talking about; my post clearly says Sdragon. ;)
Just pay no attention to that part where it says something like the following:
Quote from: snakefingas long as you don't redefine the core SRD terms (and we don't yet know what they are),
big[/i] changes is against the rules. Of course, it depends on what the terms are... but it's something else to wonder about.
Quote from: sparkletwistQuote from: snakefingas long as you don't redefine the core SRD terms (and we don't yet know what they are),
big[/i] changes is against the rules. Of course, it depends on what the terms are... but it's something else to wonder about.
One of the major subversive points of 4e, in my opinion, is to restrict and eliminate people changing D&D in any significant way. WotC wants us to buy into the basic mechanics of 4e because they want us creating classes, races, feats & settings, not redefining how Grapple, Sunder and magic work.
I fully expect to see most settings follow a standardized pattern for mechanics because we'll all be shackled to WotC's ideas. A few years down the road, this may, depending on how restrictive the License is, give the old 3.5 OGL new life :)
Quote"We're extremely excited to have both analog and digital components come together for D&D 4th Edition," said Scott Rouse, Senior Brand Manager for D&D.
poor[/i] use of the word "analog."
Quote from: IshmaylQuote"We're extremely excited to have both analog and digital components come together for D&D 4th Edition," said Scott Rouse, Senior Brand Manager for D&D.
poor[/i] use of the word "analog."
It's the modern trend to describe anything that has a digital equivalent as analogue. Is it proper in the original sense of the word? No but, that's why languages evolve, lol.
better Analogue than some freaky latin word we've never heard of :P
Quote from: Elemental_ElfOne of the major subversive points of 4e, in my opinion, is to restrict and eliminate people changing D&D in any significant way. WotC wants us to buy into the basic mechanics of 4e because they want us creating classes, races, feats & settings, not redefining how Grapple, Sunder and magic work.
Right, so that way they can be sure you're playing their game. I think in the case of 3.x and the OGL they severely underestimated the amount people were going to change the system, and they don't want to let 4E get away from them again.
To me, this is kind of a letdown. I'm not much for crunch, and, honestly, I'm not much for D&D these days any more anyway. The main reason I registered on this site wasn't anything to do with D&D but more because of all of the interesting settings and world-building and roleplaying and such things on display here... I'd hate to see stuff like that curtailed because of some stupid decree of "you can't redefine these words any more."
Quote from: sparkletwistQuote from: Elemental_ElfOne of the major subversive points of 4e, in my opinion, is to restrict and eliminate people changing D&D in any significant way. WotC wants us to buy into the basic mechanics of 4e because they want us creating classes, races, feats & settings, not redefining how Grapple, Sunder and magic work.
Personally, down the road I see campaign settings ridding the system of entire power sources (like no Arcane power) in an attempt to make their settings unique and different.
I totally agree that D&D just lost a lot of its appeal for me from a Campaign Builder perspective. Granted I will still make settings for 4e but, I definately see myself sticking with 3.5 if I'm going to do anything unique. Plus, once 4e is released, I'm sure we'll begin to see people copy the system while still publishing under the OGL :)
Quote from: Elemental_ElfI totally agree that D&D just lost a lot of its appeal for me from a Campaign Builder perspective. Granted I will still make settings for 4e but, I definately see myself sticking with 3.5 if I'm going to do anything unique.
Sure, creative people will continue to create. However, if it's going to come down to a conflict between creative vision and following the GSL, they'll probably just dump D&D altogether.
At some point in the past I was actually thinking that 4E might be a good "fresh start" for me; to be able to become re-acquainted with the game, and be able to integrate my fluff more coherently into the game rules. However, with these restrictions, I'm seriously wondering if it'd be worth bothering. I probably won't know for sure until the list of forbidden words is released, but I'm not optimistic. GURPS anyone?
Well, keep in mind that the GSL won't really apply to everything. You only need the GSL if what you are doing would otherwise violate copyright, for example, if you start creating derivative works or quote the rules beyond "fair use".
The legal issues are quite complex around derivative works and fair use, and I can't pretend to really understand them. But there is a big difference between creating something for your own use, and publishing it.
It's all still pretty relevant to the CBG, because we like to post our creations here for people to see and comment on. By strict standards, that would qualify as "publishing" and potentially opens up the poster (and possibly also the CBG) to some kind of legal action. I'm worried that could create a bit of a chilling effect on forums like this.
I'm still waiting to see how exactly it works. But it will probably be pretty useful, once we know, to take some time to create guidelines for how to work effectively within the GSL.
For example, if you want to change how the Diplomacy skill works (assuming there still is a Diplomacy skill), can you add new uses for the skill? Change the DC's? Presumably you could always create a new skill, call it Negotiation or something, and do whatever you want, so long as you don't copy D&D descriptions verbatim. Can you add this new skill to the class skill list for Rogues? (Assuming there are still Rogues and class skill lists, of course.) Or do you have to create a whole new class, call it Thief, and rewrite it?
There are ways to work around all these things, but depending how strict the GSL really is, it could become quite tedious and confusing. (Now wait, the Thief class is really just like the Rogue class? Yes, but with the following changes... Except we aren't really allowed to say that, so we'll just pretend it is a whole new class.)
The 4th Edition GSL (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080617a) is up.
... I don't know what to say about it after a quick glance... maybe after I read it some more...
If anything has the same power / ability as in the core books, you are to reference it first in small caps. DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE 4.0. Then italics.
Dungeon Masters Guide 4.0. No page numbers. So if your paladin npc has smite, people buying / looking at your adventure must go look up the page numbers... ON THEIR OWN. It's inconvenient! -.-
Woot, I've got permission to use the d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20, d100 format. Because they have exclusiveness to that. As a matter of fact, I'm going to start a list here. [spoiler]
Their owned terms that clearly aren't public use...
the d#'s
Ability Scores, Str, Dex etc.
Alignments (Cap anyways)
Racial Traits O.o
Vision types
Languages (Cause dwarven... bahhhhh)
Damage Types
Power sources
Mace
Dagger (Maybe the damages...)
Not going through the rest.
[/spoiler]
Unless I'm mistaken here on that file. I think that's what they were trying to say. But clearly some of those they can't claim exclusiveness too.
Next beef: Q: How will I know if a new version of the GSL has been Released?
A: There will be no formal notification process. You should periodically check blah blah blah for changes... -.-
Though heres a good thing for here. Until they release a "Fansite GSL type thing," here is a Q&A for you all.
Q:What do I do on my website if I can not use the GSL?
A: Wizards will release a fansite policy in the future that will offer a limited license for specified uses. Websites are NOT licensed under the GSL.
Q: Can I extend the definition of a term.
A: No. You cannot change the substance or meaning of the definition.
Diplomacy in the PHB is what Diplomacy is.
Q: Can I define a different method to determine ability scores?
A: No. It's part of character creation.
Some of these rules for third parties suck, and some of their claims are outrageous. Why can't I reference a page number? Because we might reprint the book and it will be on a different page number -.-. I understand them saying hey, you can't just reprint a class skill in another book, you have to reference to our books. But to not allow page numbers is crazily inconvenient.
We can just terminate the license at anytime, and then you have to burn all of your products you've made. You must stop selling them. That's the, what you've created is more popular than ours, so we're terminating your license :-P.
I think if I wanted to just change the fluff of an elf, to fit my campaign setting, I'd probably have to name it "xyz Elf." Change the fluff, and if I wanted to keep the stats I could. But I'd have to reference them to the PHB. You can't change the mechanics of character creation.
I don't like a lot of their stuff in the GSL.
I don't really care what WotC publishes how I can use the GSL. It isn't going to stop me from homebrewing and sharing with the community. However, I can see how this may hurt third-party developers who are working for-profit.
Well, what did you expect? That they'd give away basically the whole 3 core books for free, as they did with 3.5?
Come on, WotC is a company, not some wellfare institute... :P
If you're going to invest a lot of money in a product, all to have the chance of it suddenly being told to destroy it? Not a very safe investment at all. I wouldn't do it if I was going for profit as a third party. I'd be more likely to create my own system.
Someone, at least on the WOTC forums said something about not being able to change the way magic/abilities worked. You can't change character advancement. E.g. if at level 1, you get X skills, X feats, X abilities, you can not change it.
I'm still more interested in what someone not selling a product is allowed to do. As far as what Non-Profit (E.g. Fan Sites) can do, we still have to wait and see. That's more pertinent to what people like the CBG and other sites can do.
My opinion of 4e in general is to avoid if possible. I will be DMing one or two sessions, but I wont buy it, or 3rd party 4e creations, so I don't really care about the GSL.
A little gem I found:
Quote from: LeressHere is translation of the BSL by Amy Kou'al (a lawyer and member of ENWorld) at ENWorld
[spoiler]Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Game System License
This is the GSL.
1. You have to send us a letter saying you accepted this license. After you send us your acceptance letter, if we don't get back to you within 14 days, you're good to go. Tell us if any information changes or you might have to send us another one. You can't sell anything before October 1, though.
2. We can update the license whenever we want. It's up to you to make sure you're in compliance.
3. You can only use this license to make hardback or softback books, or electronic books. You can also make anything else to support those books unless we say you can't in Section 5.5.
4. You can use our stuff for free, but you have to follow our rules.
4.1. You can refer to everything we list in the SRD, but you can't redefine any terms in said SRD. You can add more stuff relating to those terms, though. We can update the SRD whenever we want. It's up to you to make sure you're in compliance.
4.2. You have to use our logo on your books. You can use it for other stuff too.
5. Requirements and limitations.
5.1. You can't use our trademarked stuff except in referring to the game and the core books.
5.2. Cut and paste this text block in your book's front somewhere. It has to be readable.
5.3. Cut and paste this text block in your ads. It's okay if some people can't read it unless they wear glasses.
5.4. You can't sell any books until October 1. If you do, you don't get to play. You can tell people you have books coming though.
5.5. You can't sell any web sites, computer-y things, miniatures or character creators that use our stuff. You also can't talk about character creation or leveling, claim to be part of the core books, point to our art, or reprint our core rules text. You also can't use our stuff in something that doesn't play by these rules.
5.6. You can't sell the contents of the SRD or definitions of what's in it.
5.7. You can't use our art.
6. OGL stuff.
6.1. You can convert your stuff to GSL, but you can't sell your old OGL stuff, except for your back stock. You can't convert back ever.
6.2. You can't weasel out of 6.1 either.
6.3. If you try, you don't get to play anymore.
7. Your stuff has to be relatively tame. That means no gore, no sex, and no social injustice, unless we're talking elves hating dwarves. Don't harass anyone or explain how to do something illegal.
8. Don't do anything illegal, either.
9. We get free copies of your stuff if we ask!
10. Ownership stuff.
10.1. We still own all the stuff we own. You can't use any of the stuff we own unless we let you. FYI: This includes the core rules and the SRD.
10.2. If you use someone else's stuff, we're not responsible.
10.3. You have to help us protect all the stuff we own, but we'll pay you. You can't legally argue that we don't own what we own. Don't break what we own either.
10.4. If you break the rules, you have to pay us.
11. Breaking things off.
11.1 We'll send you a note if we're breaking up. If we change our minds about everything we'll tell everyone.
11.2. Everything that seems like it can be permanencied, is.
11.3. If we say you can't play anymore, you have to get rid of everything yourself. You can't pretend like we didn't break up with you, either. If you ask us, we might let you keep some of the stuff you made, though.
11.4. If you break the rules, we might have to go to court. You have to pay us for that too.
12.a. You have to tell people that you own all your own stuff, unless it's somebody else's.
12.b. You can't agree to all this stuff for someone else who's not you.
12.c. You can't agree to this if it means you'd have to break some other agreement.
12.d. You can't violate anyone else's copyright.
12.e. You can't violate anyone's privacy or say anything bad about them.
12.f. You have to do what the government says if they're helping us.
13. We don't guarantee anything.
14. If someone else blames us for your stuff, you have to say it's your fault.
15. You can play, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're friends unless we talk first.
16. You can't tell someone else that they're allowed to use this license.
17. If you break the rules and we ignore you, that doesn't necessarily mean we're going to ignore you next time.
18. You can make your stuff and we can make our stuff, but you can't blame us if our stuff competes with your stuff. We can also ask other people to use their stuff that you might already be using, and you can't complain.
19. If we have to go to court, we're gonna do it in our backyard. No jury, though.
20. If the judge says part of this license is illegal, you still have to play by the rest of it.
21. That's it. We'll call you if anything changes.[/spoiler]
Good news everyone!
(probably)
QuoteWizards of the Coast announces a forthcoming revision to the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Game System License (GSL) and System Reference Document (SRD).
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080811
Though the fansite policy is apparently still that the fansite policy will be release at a later date.
Why announce an announcement? Why not just announce what you actually want to announce?
EDIT: Oh, and thank you, brainface, for bringing this news to our attention! :) I probably would never have found it!
I imagine they're trying to drum up goodwill now, instead of waiting till it's finally announced? It's not like they're very good at getting final license announcements out the door quickly.
Conversely, they want 3rd party publishers to know the license is changing before they shift everything away from 4e publications. (The only reason I can imagine the license changing is because 3rd party companies haven't really been too excited about it so far. I may be wrong.)
However, I wonder what changes they will make... Then again, I'm sure we're all wondering that. Which is why I speculate this announcement is a bad idea. People will invariably hope for the best and when their hopes are dashed, WotC will take a lot of heat on the Internet.
I love WotC. They're cunning bastards and shrewd monopolists, and they know how to work the system. I for one don't think the problem is with them - if it's anywhere (and who's to say it is), it's with us. There are thousands of systems out there, many of them pretty great, yet so many folks are obsessing about this one. Wizards owns it. Fair and square. You want to use it, play by their rules or find a new toy.
As for their company-owned fluff, how many stunningly original intellectual properties do they own that are really worth getting frustrated over? Mostly they've monopolised the most cliche, tired and unimaginative concepts we've got going in the fantasy genre (many of them giving fantasy its undeserved bad name). If they want to be the lords of mediocrity, they can go right ahead.