Gsl?

[Babbage]

Anyone seen the GSL for 4e yet? I thought it came out today - but I guess we'll have to wait for Wizards (and the rest of the US) to wake up first. :)

[Ged]

It seems the wait is extended until "early next week", as they were excited to announce. This (https://www.wizards.com/d20) is where they will post it.

[Sorontar]

You know another thing what WotC aren't going to be ready for?

MMO style forum demands.

They've not delivered DDI atm, if they fail on a deadline once people are paying that sub all hell will break loose.

If their site goes down due to a natural disaster and people can't get in to the foyer to game, it will be their fault no matter that their centre now has a lorry parked in the middle of it that was dropped by a tornado.

They will suffer in ways they haven't dreamed of and if they thought the Optimization boards got snarky sometimes they'll be viewing them for a break ;)

Having said all that I have now made up a DB Warlord, Dwarven Fighter and Human Rogue. One thing that struck me at 2am was there was no apparent reason for a Rogue to be intelligent unless I missed something. Maybe they are now instinct based rogues who go with their gut and natural talents.

The basics of the system do seem to fit together well though.

[balth]

They aren't charging a sub until they have the PC tools, which at this rate will probably be Q4 of this year *or later* as they've previously announced.

All that will be there is the rules compendium (called buying the books) and the magazines.

I've made a DB Paladin and a Tiefling Warlord for players so far; and I have to say that I'm impressed how well the classes gel together. I'm quite digging the system, so to speak.

I sincerely hope the GSL isn't a killer for you guys. I JUST bought this product, and although I still don't know all the ins and outs, I have to say it's ace; and is already better than probably anything DDI will amount to, so kudos!

[Sorontar]

They aren't charging a sub until they have the PC tools, which at this rate will probably be Q4 of this year *or later* as they've previously announced.



I take it the characters will be stored on WotC DDI servers? Assuming they will be so people cannot tinker offline-

Can you imagine if like most MMO companies, who are meant to be pro's at this stuff, they have a server out which corrupts data and someone didn't run the back-up and a weekends data is lost.

Thats what I'm thinking they may not be ready for, the pure hate and loathing that will hit those boards will be monumental.

I'm liking the system so far, glad the books were bought for my birthday but don't think I'll be touching DDI pay to play tools even with the legendary 10ft pole. :)

[Livor Mortis]

One thing that struck me at 2am was there was no apparent reason for a Rogue to be intelligent unless I missed something. Maybe they are now instinct based rogues who go with their gut and natural talents.

Not much reason indeed... The only ones I can find are the Int-based Knowledge skills, and the "Jack of All Trades" feat.

[Griogre]

Unless you are going to take some muti class feats I don't see any reason for a rogue to have int. Just go with a Dex.

I think WotC just got a pretty hard dose of reality when they admitted they won't have DDI ready any time soon. At least they have learned not to release non fuctioning software. The GamerZero interview with Young was interesting in a, well duh, sort of way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sccNc_UnsbE&eurl=https://www.enworld.org/

[mr_h]

I was reading this thread (https://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1044855) over at the WOTC site and saw this post in there regarding when the GSL is going up.

WotC_ScottR
I hope, oh god do I hope this frickin thing goes up today. The license is done but late yesterday we added a bunch of new stuff to the SRD to cover some books coming out next year (like PH2 classes, power sources, and weapons).

I am still at home but when I get in this morning I'll get an update from LurkingLidda (Linae) on ripping it to PDFs and posting it today.

[middlemonster]

I wonder if it'll even come out at all, maybe they're taking all the anger personally and delaying on purpose, or maybe its some trick to keep the 3pps from coming out with a VTT before they do?

[richvalle]

Nah. By all accounts Scott is an honest guy trying to do his best. It will be there, its just a question of when.

rv

[mr_h]

They just posted it here (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/welcome).

[Tenian]

Does this mean you could have a module that listed the powers, by class, but you couldn't have any of the flavor text or combat stats within the module?

Or maybe I'm totally wrong...given my lack of experience in reading leagalese :)

[mr_h]

I don't speak leagalise well either, but from what I understand...

Does this mean you could have a module that listed the powers, by class, but you couldn't have any of the flavor text or combat stats within the module?
Yes.

We can make a character sheet for use with FG, no problem.

The character sheet can be auto calculating.
There can be a section on the character sheet (or pop up boxes) for Powers, using the template from the books. But you can not include specific data (SRD Page 2, Applied Mechanical results, You might also print the specific attack bonus and damage for a npc's paladin power, even though you cannot reprint the power text)

There wont be a SRD Ruleset release like 3.5 had (with all the feats and racial information), but we can provide the tools for people to manually enter stuff (Templates), so they could in theory fill out the information they want for personal use. You just can't provide the information for them.

Course, you can have a List of powers with the names that could be dragged over to the character sheet (IE, Cleave).

[joshuha]

The no license product can be an interactive product one is way broader than the d20 system license was and may prohibit FG from doing anything official. I believe lawyers are probably going to have to be consulted by Smiteworks to see exactly what qualifies as as interactive product.

[Tenian]

The SRD doesn't list the paragon powers by name.

It has a template for them but they don't show up in the class lists (or anywhere else).

[DNH]

I may be being naive here but is it not the case that Smiteworks cannot officially provide a 4e ruleset with its licensed product, issue a release which includes the 4e ruleset, but that the community can create one for use with FG2. It's rather like the thing about not being able to sue the developers of MS Word because it was used to write libellous documents.

I suppose Joshuha will keep us informed as to what Smiteworks discovers following legal advice, is able to do and decides to do.

[richvalle]

I'm guessing that a full ruleset is out. But all I need is a 4.0 Ed. character sheet. The rest is just extra.

Oh, and Joshuha isn't in the role of Smiteworks spokes person any more. :(

But SOMEONE will be along to let us know what this means for FG. Might take a few days for things to sort themselfs out.

rv

[The Scriven One]

I'm waiting with baited breath, seriously. I just bought Fantasy Grounds hoping to use it with 4e.

[Thore_Ironrock]

This is a post I made in another thread regarding the GSL, mixing in a few new comments:


Actually that only means you have to do your own layout on the charactersheet.

No, that is not true. The statement "interactive products" is a CLEAR shot at Fantasy Grounds and other electronic-based RPG software (i.e. PCGen and other character generators). Software use to play games, RPG or not, are considered interactive products. The character sheet has nothing to do with it, and for the life of me I cannot understand why people thought that just because you only had a character sheet that WOTC was going to look the other way.


We can make a character sheet for use with FG, no problem.

Again ... you are wrong. The character sheet in FG IS an interactive product. What do you call all of that coding behind the scenes that calculates rolls, stats, skills, etc? WOTC knows for a fact that you can't take the 4E rules and plop them into a ruleset anymore like we did with the d20/SRD, which is why they likely added the interactive products statement, to cover things like an FG character sheet. If you think otherwise then I have some brand new swampland here in Wisconsin to sell you.

There are many other portions of the GSL that also specifically target competition to DDI, and that should really come as no surprise. I'm sure there are others out there that might think differently, but IMHO I think the writing on the wall is clear. Even if you might see things differently, you still have to get the approval of the people that wrote it before you can even think about selling it. Good luck with that.

BTW, you might also noticed that that the wording in the says the agreement applies to (I don't have the exact wording in front of me) products to be sold such as printed books/products, and electronic PDF downloads. VGT software clearly does not fit into those categories either. There is also some gray area surrounding exactly "who" can apply for a GSL license, an whether or not you have to be an actual "publisher" and not a group of people wanting to put out a free product.

Lastly, for all of the armchair lawyers out there ... since you have to "apply" to use the GSL legally, you are subject to WOTC's interpretation of the GSL -- not what you think it means. I'm also sure that if you're caught trading or offering up 4E stuff for download online w/o talking to them, you will be made an example of in short order. If you think they are not watching this community, you are a fool.

Now ... that all said ... myself ... SmiteWorks, and a few others are trying to find out "if" something like a 4E character sheet ruleset is possible for FG. So, if you want to do things by the numbers, then my advice to the community is patience. In doing these 4E creations for Fantasy Grounds that are currently floating around out there, people may have already damaged any chance to legally get 4E into Fantasy Grounds. That in itself is sad, and frankly people should have known better. Typically, it is always better to work with the establishment then to give them a reason to squash you. It may not be tomorrow, but we will find out if I have to ask people personally at Gen Con. Even so, nothing can be released until October 1st anyway, so I would strongly urge the community to err on the side of patience so we can find out 100% what can or cannot be done.


"Boy, do I hate being right all the time!"
- Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

[The Scriven One]

It's not possible under the GSL, but is it really necessary to use the GSL at all? What's to stop a fan or group of fans from creating a free interactive character sheet? It's been brought up elsewhere that Microsoft isn't liable for files created for or with its software.

So yeah, it might not be possible to make money off of a 4e character sheet, but that doesn't mean that such a sheet won't be coming along - even if I have to learn the scripting to do it myself.

[mr_h]

I stand corrected. Like I said, leaglise isn't one of the languages I took at character creation:)

[arcath]

question to Thore_Ironrock (https://member.php?u=4374): I understand that, but isn't all of that about selling a product for actual profit?

What is to stop a user from making a 4E Char Sheet and distributing it for free? Was there anything in the GSL about this?

I am content to wait, but I always thought that it just prevented anyone from selling a licensed product under the GSL, not a person distributing something for free.

::shrugs::

[Thore_Ironrock]

question to Thore_Ironrock (https://member.php?u=4374): I understand that, but isn't all of that about selling a product for actual profit?

What is to stop a user from making a 4E Char Sheet and distributing it for free? Was there anything in the GSL about this?

I am content to wait, but I always thought that it just prevented anyone from selling a licensed product under the GSL, not a person distributing something for free.

::shrugs::

I never said anything about me making a profit over this. However, even if you give it away for free you still have to follow the rules of the GSL. It is all about using their 4E property.

As for if you want to do it yourself and give it to your friends or whatever ... I'm sure you could do that just like any other publisher's product, just don't put it up for public download and don't get caught.

This issue is not about whether or not someone CAN or CANNOT do 4E with FG, but the community's goal (i.e. Josh and John) wanted to do a 4E sheet that could be distributed to everyone legally. Unfortunately, that does not look possible now, based on the wording I see, without the direct permission of Wizards of the Coast.

WOTC is going to protect this property like a rabid hyena, make no mistake. It is their choice to do what they did, and you have to respect it. Probably the biggest reason WOTC is doing this is to get out from under the d20/OGL agreement that was basically set in stone by Peter before he sold out. Hasbro owns D&D now, not some rich gamer from Wizards of the Coast, and people tend to forget that.

[Livor Mortis]

question to Thore_Ironrock (https://member.php?u=4374): I understand that, but isn't all of that about selling a product for actual profit?

What is to stop a user from making a 4E Char Sheet and distributing it for free? Was there anything in the GSL about this?

I am content to wait, but I always thought that it just prevented anyone from selling a licensed product under the GSL, not a person distributing something for free.

::shrugs::
Judging by the wordings, I believe the only difference between making something for free and asking money for it is when you can release it. Commercial products cannot be released under the GSL before 1 October, 2008.

[Xorn]

Is interaction the same as automation?

If I make five fields on the character sheet, and require you to input numbers for 4 of them, and it performs a formula on them to yield the fifth field--that's automation.

That's an excel spreadsheet.

Now if I had a drop down box of at will powers, and you could just open the drop down box and select one from a list, and it filled in a power template for you--that's interaction.

But I'm hardpressed to believe that you can't make a character sheet that calculates fields from other fields you had to enter manually. WotC doesn't own math. They also don't own the words/acronyms Name, Race, Strength, HP, Fortitude, Bloodied, or Inventory, so I can label my fields however the hell I want.

Otherwise, I can't make a 4E character sheet in Excel that calculates all the math out, and release it to the public. And like four have already been released. If a 4E ruleset doesn't get released officially, I don't think it will be because the GSL prohibits it, it will be because companies are afraid to go to court to prove it doesn't.

[Ged]

Is interaction the same as automation? No, I don't suppose interaction means automation, but it does not really matter as far as the GSL goes: agreeing to the terms of GSL gives Wizards the right to kill any product using GSL at will. They can both change the terms or terminate the license just by saying so. Thus, if they don't like something, they can get rid of that, and on the other hand, if they like something even if it violates the license, they don't have to act... Therefore, pendantry about terms is futile, unfortunately. :(

[Thore_Ironrock]

Is interaction the same as automation?

If I make five fields on the character sheet, and require you to input numbers for 4 of them, and it performs a formula on them to yield the fifth field--that's automation.

That's an excel spreadsheet.

Now if I had a drop down box of at will powers, and you could just open the drop down box and select one from a list, and it filled in a power template for you--that's interaction.

But I'm hardpressed to believe that you can't make a character sheet that calculates fields from other fields you had to enter manually. WotC doesn't own math. They also don't own the words/acronyms Name, Race, Strength, HP, Fortitude, Bloodied, or Inventory, so I can label my fields however the hell I want.

Otherwise, I can't make a 4E character sheet in Excel that calculates all the math out, and release it to the public. And like four have already been released. If a 4E ruleset doesn't get released officially, I don't think it will be because the GSL prohibits it, it will be because companies are afraid to go to court to prove it doesn't.

Maybe; BUT an excel spreadsheet is not an interactive "product" in the sense of their reference. This is why we are trying to get confirmation on the issue.

One other thing I would like to mention ... there is all this talk of legal this, and lawyer that, and it will be decided in court ... blah blah blah. Let's be serious people, no one is going to go to court over this unless they are foolish enough to defy WOTC openly. Remember, they can change the wording of the GSL at ANY time. If this character sheet issue becomes a thorn in their side, they'll just reword the GSL to be more specific so as to get their way. By making this a point of disagreement you are giving them perfect reason to do just that.

All of this "cry lawyer" crap happened the last time too, when the 3E OGL came out, and all of the closet lawyers emerged screaming lawsuit to the high heavens. In the end what happened ... nothing. Remember, WOTC didn't have to do any sort of agreement for 4E; they could have just closed it off 100%. People should respect that and work with them to bebefit gaming, rather than shoot first and ask questions later.

As soon as we hear something, we will let the community know.

[Xorn]

Absolutely. My point (that I was fuzzy about) was that the GSL doesn't specifically prohibit automation, but that I don't think it will matter--because if Hasbro says "Stop or we'll sue you" who has the resources to actually stand up to them? I wouldn't expect Smiteworks to do so--so I just find it unfortunate.

I figure in the end Smiteworks says, "Can we release a ruleset that only has a character/NPC sheets, and a combat tracker that automates calculations publicly?" and Hasbro/WotC will say yes or no. People playing over FG2 buy books too, but it's a direct competitor to their GameTable.

I'm pretty sure they'll say no, and we'll all use a generic ruleset or a fan-ruleset that can't be hosted here. (Like most of us are already.)

[middlemonster]

Maybe; BUT an excel spreadsheet is not an interactive "product" in the sense of their reference. This is why we are trying to get confirmation on the issue.

One other thing I would like to mention ... there is all this talk of legal this, and lawyer that, and it will be decided in court ... blah blah blah. Let's be serious people, no one is going to go to court over this unless they are foolish enough to defy WOTC openly. Remember, they can change the wording of the GSL at ANY time. If this character sheet issue becomes a thorn in their side, they'll just reword the GSL to be more specific so as to get their way. By making this a point of disagreement you are giving them perfect reason to do just that.

All of this "cry lawyer" crap happened the last time too, when the 3E OGL came out, and all of the closet lawyers emerged screaming lawsuit to the high heavens. In the end what happened ... nothing. Remember, WOTC didn't have to do any sort of agreement for 4E; they could have just closed it off 100%. People should respect that and work with them to bebefit gaming, rather than shoot first and ask questions later.

As soon as we hear something, we will let the community know.

WotC is making a mistake if they start using the GSL as a weapon to attack competitors. If they're trying to corner the market on 4e vtts by using legalities then thats just monopolizing to me. If they corner the market by making a superior 4e vtt product that has good pricing, then thats just good business. But if they start pulling a legal chain and making sure that the competition can't beat them, they are just greedy bastards, and they may end up driven into the ground by disgruntled fans.

I'm pretty sure this won't be the case, they aren't dumb enough to hide behind laws they made. Because the more they fight the more customers will resist and it will be their demise, just like TSR and just like the music industry.

Wizards problem is that they want to start a new cashcow system, a never ending supply of cash leeching from every D&D player who wants to play online. But players who already play online for free aren't going to pay monthly to play a game they already play for free. This is a bad move on Wizards behalf, they are going to end up with probably about 1/4 of the online community and won't be making very much money from D&Di, but they'll still make money out of it. Cause I'm sure at least 80% of that monthly charge goes right in Hasbro's pocket.

[Dachannien]

My advice: If the GSL doesn't fit your needs as the developer of a game product, don't sign anything and don't use the GSL. Examine your product (or your planned product) very carefully. Even better, examine it with a lawyer familiar with both IP law and gaming. Determine how much your product truly overlaps WotC's materials.

The reason I say this is because, depending on your product, you may overlap WotC's stuff so little (or not at all) that you don't have to worry about licensing at all. In fact, agreeing to the GSL may actually limit your rights beyond that which the law provides by default. (Whether this constitutes an unfair restraint of trade - a common law concept which would prevent WotC from hindering your ability to participate in trade through a one-sided licensing agreement - is not clear, but don't take chances if you don't have to.)

The d20 system - its ideas, game mechanics, etc. - are not copyrightable. Nor is the new system used in 4ed. What is copyrightable is the text and art used in presenting those rules to the public. While, to my knowledge, it's never been tested in court, a character sheet - even an interactive or automated one - does not violate copyright as long as your work is original and is not based on their character sheet.

However, there are two other parts of IP law to be concerned about: trademarks and patents. For trademarks, the key is not to claim a trademark that isn't yours. Don't label your product with the D&D logo or the "Dungeons and Dragons" name. But you should be able to say that it is "compatible with WotC's 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons system", for example (and for good measure, disclaim the trademarked terms by including small print saying that the terms are trademarks of WotC).

For patents, a game system could possibly be patented, at least in part. The question is whether 4th Edition has been patented. It's too late now, as I understand it - they've already gone to commercial press and started selling the game, so if they don't have a patent, they're not going to get one. (In this case, I believe they don't have a patent, so this isn't a concern - I do think they have a patent covering stuff like their D&D miniatures game and similar stuff, though.)

Finally, remember that I am not a lawyer, so what I tell you here isn't legal advice, but rather food for thought when you go to talk to your own lawyer about it. Also remember that you can be 100% in the right, and a company will still bludgeon you with their lawyers (and perhaps even with a lawsuit) in the hopes that you can't afford to oppose them. While US copyright law provides for the winner of a case to be able to claim legal fees against the loser, actually getting the judge to order payment is a lot harder to do.

[Ged]

Although most here know these things already, I will say it anyway for those new to the topic.

Copyright does not care whether something is free or not free, or if it is commercial or not. Copyright does not protect "ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices" and it does not protect "titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents" either.

Still, the copyright owner has the exclusive right to produce derivative works and it is less clear what is the distinction between derivative work and just mixing up ingredients from the above list of unprotected items.

No answers here, only more "food for thought", as Dachannien put it.

Edit: I forgot to write my main point: even though the limitations of the copyright, found easily by Googling, are rather clearly written, the whole topic is less clear, thus it's always best to think through the big picture and find out if a work based on some other work really is legally doable or not.

[Xorn]

I don't think there's any grey area regarding a ruleset under the GSL. It's prohibited for FG to make a GSL ruleset without WotC saying it's okay, and they can revoke that, too.

But how does copyright stop SmiteWorks from releasing a character sheet (the calculates stuff), an initiative tracker, and power/personality/item templates (that are blank) that is labled "compatible with 4E". My limited understanding (and I might be wrong) is that as long as the sheets and templates are all blank, requiring the user to input information from the game system, none of those things violate copyright law, unless Hasbro managed to copyright math and/or the word Bloodied, somehow.

So the question, again: isn't SmiteWorks able to make a 4E-compatible ruleset without the GSL, as long as they respect copyright?

[Foen]

At the risk of prolonging a debate that should probably settle for the time being ...

I'd have to say I agree with Xorn (and admit to having nothing but an interest in law, rather than any grounding in it).

For my part, it seems that developing outside of the GSL is less restrictive than from within (why sign up to something that controls the use of terms like 'elf' and 'd6', for a logo and no access to content), and that it seems plausible that a ruleset that isn't branded 'D&D' and doesn't include copyright content is quite legal.

However, 'plausible' doesn't equal 'watertight', and being legal isn't a defence against a deeper pocket. So the bottom line is: would you bet your business on it? Not me.

I would, however, be prepared to act as an individual not acting for any commercial enterprise, and publish a non-D&D ruleset on public servers that had comparable mechanics.

Stuart