First thoughts on the WotC GSL
Wizards of the Coast (WotC) came out with its "Game System License" yesterday, allowing third parties to produce works compatible with the new 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons. As expected, it is far more restrictive than the OGL and D20 trademark license of the previous edition. There is no open game content. They have released something called the "System Reference Document", but it has no rules or stat blocks. It may not be reproduced in any form. Rather, it is essentially a list of the names that may be referenced. You cannot reprint or redefine any D&D4 rules or stat blocks in GSL products.
So what can you do with the GSL? You can print new rules, new spells, and new character or monster stat blocks. These can reference by name existing rules, and say "see the Player's Handbook", but they cannot describe what the rules do. i.e. You can list that an NPC has the power "Covering Attack" but you cannot describe what that does.
There have been numerous threads about it, such as lots on the WotC GSL Forum, plus "4E - GSL is up" on ENWorld, Justin Jacobsen's "I am a Lawyer, and I am answering questions about the GSL" on Story Games, "4E - GSL Posted" on theRPGsite, and rob_donoghue's "Fistfight in my Brain".
Compared to the previous D20 trademark license (D20STL), the GSL has several notable restrictions based on my reading:
No "Cure Period"
In case WotC withdrew or changed the licensing terms, the D20STL allowed a 30 day span (the "cure period") during which licensees could change their product(s) to adapt to the new terms and sell off existing stock. The GSL, however, requires that licensees immediately destroy any stock as soon as they change the terms of the license, which they can do at any time and for any reason. They only have to update the license on the website, and the licensee's are responsible for immediately complying.
This seems like a killer for any commercial enterprise wanting to invest in the line. One can hope that WotC will be a good partner and not screw licensees over in changes. Still, it seems like a major risk.
No Website Support
Licensed GSL products cannot have website support. The license allows for products as "single-download electronic book format" -- though it does not define that term. However, Section 5.5 makes clear that there cannot be website support for a product.
For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example only, no Licensed Product will (a) include web sites, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators; (b) describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character; (c) use the terms "Core Rules" or "Core Rulebook" or variations thereof on its cover or title, in self-reference or in advertising or marketing thereof; (d) refer to any artwork, imagery or other depiction contained in a Core Rulebook; (e) reprint any material contained in a Core Rulebook except as explicitly provided in Section 4; or (f) be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way of example only, a magazine or book compilation).
This, too, seems like a major issue. Small press RPGs rely critically on the web to promote and support their products. There may be changes or clarifications to this policy in the future, but at present the restrictions appear quite negative.
OGL Exclusion
A company cannot publish the same material simultaneously under the 4th edition GSL and under the 3rd-edition-era OGL. If they create a GSL version of a prior OGL product, they may continue to distribute existing stock, they cannot re-publish the OGL version or the GSL will be terminated. Similarly, if they create a GSL product, they cannot release an OGL version of the same material or the GSL will be terminated.
Interestingly, there seems to be no restriction against simultaneously releasing the same material under any other system (i.e. non-OGL). A company could, for example, still release a product line under their house system and under the GSL -- similar to how several companies published D20 versions of their proprietary games in the 3rd-edition era.
Scenarios
So there are considerable risks involved in the license because of the rights signed away, but are any of them likely to happen? It's a good question.
Under the previous publishing pattern of the WotC OGL and the D20STL, a publisher could make a product marked as compatible with 3rd edition D&D. If one of WotC's license changes made their product no longer possible, they would have 30 days to sell off their existing stock. They could then reprint exactly the same product without the D20 logo and compatibility claim, and indeed many publishers did publish using the OGL but not the D20 trademark.
With the new GSL, the most obvious problem situation I foresee is this: A third party company decides to publish under the GSL, and creates a supplement line centered on some new monsters, races, and/or classes based on basic concepts or public domain -- like "Shadowmen" or a "Duellist" class. WotC, perhaps quite innocently, has the same idea and publishes their own versions of those and adds them to the SRD. Because the GSL forbids redefining terms, the third party is now in violation and must destroy all violating products immediately.
Alternatives
Three alternatives come to mind regarding those who want to publish D&D material:
So what can you do with the GSL? You can print new rules, new spells, and new character or monster stat blocks. These can reference by name existing rules, and say "see the Player's Handbook", but they cannot describe what the rules do. i.e. You can list that an NPC has the power "Covering Attack" but you cannot describe what that does.
There have been numerous threads about it, such as lots on the WotC GSL Forum, plus "4E - GSL is up" on ENWorld, Justin Jacobsen's "I am a Lawyer, and I am answering questions about the GSL" on Story Games, "4E - GSL Posted" on theRPGsite, and rob_donoghue's "Fistfight in my Brain".
Compared to the previous D20 trademark license (D20STL), the GSL has several notable restrictions based on my reading:
No "Cure Period"
In case WotC withdrew or changed the licensing terms, the D20STL allowed a 30 day span (the "cure period") during which licensees could change their product(s) to adapt to the new terms and sell off existing stock. The GSL, however, requires that licensees immediately destroy any stock as soon as they change the terms of the license, which they can do at any time and for any reason. They only have to update the license on the website, and the licensee's are responsible for immediately complying.
This seems like a killer for any commercial enterprise wanting to invest in the line. One can hope that WotC will be a good partner and not screw licensees over in changes. Still, it seems like a major risk.
No Website Support
Licensed GSL products cannot have website support. The license allows for products as "single-download electronic book format" -- though it does not define that term. However, Section 5.5 makes clear that there cannot be website support for a product.
For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example only, no Licensed Product will (a) include web sites, interactive products, miniatures, or character creators; (b) describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character; (c) use the terms "Core Rules" or "Core Rulebook" or variations thereof on its cover or title, in self-reference or in advertising or marketing thereof; (d) refer to any artwork, imagery or other depiction contained in a Core Rulebook; (e) reprint any material contained in a Core Rulebook except as explicitly provided in Section 4; or (f) be incorporated into another product that is itself not a Licensed Product (such as, by way of example only, a magazine or book compilation).
This, too, seems like a major issue. Small press RPGs rely critically on the web to promote and support their products. There may be changes or clarifications to this policy in the future, but at present the restrictions appear quite negative.
OGL Exclusion
A company cannot publish the same material simultaneously under the 4th edition GSL and under the 3rd-edition-era OGL. If they create a GSL version of a prior OGL product, they may continue to distribute existing stock, they cannot re-publish the OGL version or the GSL will be terminated. Similarly, if they create a GSL product, they cannot release an OGL version of the same material or the GSL will be terminated.
Interestingly, there seems to be no restriction against simultaneously releasing the same material under any other system (i.e. non-OGL). A company could, for example, still release a product line under their house system and under the GSL -- similar to how several companies published D20 versions of their proprietary games in the 3rd-edition era.
Scenarios
So there are considerable risks involved in the license because of the rights signed away, but are any of them likely to happen? It's a good question.
Under the previous publishing pattern of the WotC OGL and the D20STL, a publisher could make a product marked as compatible with 3rd edition D&D. If one of WotC's license changes made their product no longer possible, they would have 30 days to sell off their existing stock. They could then reprint exactly the same product without the D20 logo and compatibility claim, and indeed many publishers did publish using the OGL but not the D20 trademark.
With the new GSL, the most obvious problem situation I foresee is this: A third party company decides to publish under the GSL, and creates a supplement line centered on some new monsters, races, and/or classes based on basic concepts or public domain -- like "Shadowmen" or a "Duellist" class. WotC, perhaps quite innocently, has the same idea and publishes their own versions of those and adds them to the SRD. Because the GSL forbids redefining terms, the third party is now in violation and must destroy all violating products immediately.
Alternatives
Three alternatives come to mind regarding those who want to publish D&D material:
- Continue to publish under the original WotC OGL, making products compatible the 3.5 edition D&D rules, or perhaps a major branch such as Paizo's Pathfinder RPG. This is ironclad and tested. WotC might withdraw the D20 trademark license, but one would have 30 days to change and the market has shown that one can successfully publish without using the D20 logo.
- Release compatible works without a license, avoiding use of trademarked logos. This was done in the eighties and nineties by third parties without the permission of TSR. Mayfair Games published their "Role Aids" line, and even Wizards of the Coast published compatible works under their "Primal Order" line. However, this is risky since it is quite possible to overstep and violate copyright even though the legal principle is well-founded.
- Create a new OGL game based on the previous SRD that is similar enough that supplements for it would also be compatible with 4th edition. The rules don't have to match exactly, just enough so a stat block for one can be used for the other. This is similarly risky, but gives you legal grounds for using most of the D&D terms.