# GSL FAQ up



## jedrious (May 2, 2008)

FAQ Link 

The Poison Pill Rumors are wrong


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 2, 2008)

Can anyone explain to me how its not a poison pill, it seems to skirt the issue of how its not a poison pill. It seems to me to be a more localized poison pill rather then poisoning the well its poisoning the drink. 

Perhaps I am misunderstanding?


----------



## NebtheNever (May 2, 2008)

I simply don't see how it is a poison pill. A company can produce products under the 4e GSL and the 3e OGL.


----------



## ppaladin123 (May 2, 2008)

This seems very reasonable. Everyone got upset for nothing.


----------



## Festivus (May 2, 2008)

I wonder if Paizo will be forced to destroy any back issues they might still have.  Were those magazines d20?  They most certainly were not OGL.  Perhaps something entirely different?

Anyhow, d20 is the only thing dying here according to that document.  OGL and GSL both remain.  Makes me happy that it's by product line as well, that means that we might still see some good stuff from Paizo for 4E.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 3, 2008)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain to me how its not a poison pill, it seems to skirt the issue of how its not a poison pill. It seems to me to be a more localized poison pill rather then poisoning the well its poisoning the drink.
> 
> Perhaps I am misunderstanding?



No, you're right.  Lots of things are "poison pills", it's just bad marketing to use the term.  Even the Wall St. "poison pill" is really called a "Stockholders' Rights Agreement."  Doesn't that sound nicer?

Frankly though the only thing this prevents is some third party straddling the fence with a particular setting book; like releasing a Lankmar with NPCs statted out for both 3.5 and 4E (or with both PrC's and Paragon Paths).  If a publisher releases a new book or line he just has to pick whether it's going to be a 3.5 book or a 4E book.


----------



## Filcher (May 3, 2008)

The d20 STL was supposed to die. That won't be news to anyone at Paizo. (Do they even use the d20 STL on any of their products any more? It lost all consequence years ago.)

No PP here, as best I can tell. We chicken little'd it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 3, 2008)

Heck yeah we did.

It's always nice when I see that WotC is as smart as I think they are.


----------



## Rechan (May 3, 2008)

I think this is only problematic for folks like say, Sinister Adventures, who want to release a d20, Trued20, someothersystem and 4e version conversion of their rules as PDFs.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 3, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Heck yeah we did.
> 
> It's always nice when I see that WotC is as smart as I think they are.



I think it is just sad that when I TPP releases something new they HAVE to choose either 3 or 4 E. It would be better for everyone (maybe apart from WotC) if you could publish, say, and adventure path series .pdf which you could DL as 3E or 4E. It would maximise profits for the TPP (converting all the bits wouldn't be to hard IMO) and mean that whatever edition you are playing you could use that AP if you wanted. 
I think it is reasonable for WotC but a bit sad. 
So now I gotta hope that most TPPs convert to 4E


----------



## pawsplay (May 3, 2008)

_Q. Why are there two different licenses?
A. The D&D 4e GSL is specific to the Dungeons & Dragons brand. The d20 GSL allows for *non-fantasy genres.* Both licenses tie to the 4th edition rule set. 
_

What exactly does this mean?


----------



## Green Knight (May 3, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> _Q. Why are there two different licenses?
> A. The D&D 4e GSL is specific to the Dungeons & Dragons brand. The d20 GSL allows for *non-fantasy genres.* Both licenses tie to the 4th edition rule set.
> _
> 
> What exactly does this mean?




They're going to be putting out a new D20 Modern and making a GSL for it, too.


----------



## tenken (May 3, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> _Q. Why are there two different licenses?
> A. The D&D 4e GSL is specific to the Dungeons & Dragons brand. The d20 GSL allows for *non-fantasy genres.* Both licenses tie to the 4th edition rule set.
> _
> 
> What exactly does this mean?



As best I can guess, it means that if you want to produce a fantasy product, you tie it into D&D or you use another system.  If you want to produce some other genre, you can use the GSL.


----------



## pawsplay (May 3, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> They're going to be putting out a new D20 Modern and making a GSL for it, too.




That's not exactly what it says, though. D20 Modern isn't a non-fantasy RPG, it's a modern RPG. I guess my question is whether the SRD and the allowed stuff will just be different, or if there will some kind of clause forbidding you from making a swords-and-sorcery RPG with the GSL. And if so, how do you define "fantasy RPG?"


----------



## Kishin (May 3, 2008)

jedrious said:
			
		

> FAQ Link
> 
> The Poison Pill Rumors are wrong




You mean the people who said wait and see were right? Shock and awe.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> That's not exactly what it says, though. D20 Modern isn't a non-fantasy RPG, it's a modern RPG.




Modern = Non-fantasy RPG.


----------



## am181d (May 3, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> That's not exactly what it says, though. D20 Modern isn't a non-fantasy RPG, it's a modern RPG. I guess my question is whether the SRD and the allowed stuff will just be different, or if there will some kind of clause forbidding you from making a swords-and-sorcery RPG with the GSL. And if so, how do you define "fantasy RPG?"




They're releasing the 4e D&D GSL this year to cover fantasy products that use the Dungeons & Dragons core books. They'll be making a separate more-generic d20 GSL down the road, presumably using some new iteration of d20 Modern as the base product.


----------



## jedrious (May 3, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> You mean the people who said wait and see were right? Shock and awe.
> 
> 
> 
> Modern = Non-fantasy RPG.



true but not entirely acurate

modern is a non-fantasy, but all non-fantasy is modern

historical is non-fantasy but not modern
sci-fi is non-fantasy but not necessarily modern


----------



## Spinachcat (May 3, 2008)

What is non-fantasy? 

This is a tricky question.   Let's look at some games...

Gamma World...non-fantasy? Are mutations fantasy? 

Shadowrun...non-fantasy?  What is Guns + Magic?

World of Darkness...non-fantasy? Are Vamp powers magic? 

Dark Heresy...non-fantasy?  Are psionics fantasy? 

I suspect WotC will not try to define non-fantasy.    Instead they will create a definition of "D&D related Fantasy" which are based on the core tropes of D&D.   However, that won't be easy either.


----------



## Kishin (May 3, 2008)

Spinachcat said:
			
		

> What is non-fantasy?
> 
> This is a tricky question.   Let's look at some games...
> 
> ...




Let's not get into semantical debate over the term 'fantasy', please.  There's enough of that clogging up the internet. Its clearly implied what they're doing here.


----------



## malraux (May 3, 2008)

jedrious said:
			
		

> true but not entirely acurate
> 
> modern is a non-fantasy, but all non-fantasy is modern
> 
> ...



But the ruleset that d20 modern covered was adaptable to historical settings and future settings.


----------



## HeinorNY (May 3, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> Let's not get into semantical debate over the term 'fantasy', please.  There's enough of that clogging up the internet. Its clearly implied what they're doing here.



I agree. 
Just say the name of the game and we will give our opinions if it should be released under D&D GSL or d20 GSL.


----------



## Lizard (May 3, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> I agree.
> Just say the name of the game and we will give our opinions if it should be released under D&D GSL or d20 GSL.




Your opinion isn't legally binding. 

"I know it when I see it" has no place in contract law.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 3, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> I agree.
> Just say the name of the game and we will give our opinions if it should be released under D&D GSL or d20 GSL.



Would that be a _legal _opinion? In writing?


----------



## HeinorNY (May 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Your opinion isn't legally binding.
> 
> "I know it when I see it" has no place in contract law.



I think it will fall on the 3PP's decision.
If some 3PP wants to release Spycraft under D&D GSL, it's up to them. But they will have to refer the rules to the D&D core book, so it might not be a good idea.
I don't see why WOTC would oppose to that, they wanna sell books.


Maybe some obvious games like Spycraft must be released under the D20 GSL. Products that fall in the middle ground, those which people could argue that it's a modern and fantasy game, are up to the 3PP's decision.

I can't see an issue here.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (May 3, 2008)

Festivus said:
			
		

> I wonder if Paizo will be forced to destroy any back issues they might still have.  Were those magazines d20?  They most certainly were not OGL.  Perhaps something entirely different?



You want to pick door number three.

Paizo's publication of _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ was arranged under a completely separate license from either the d20 System Trademark License or the Open Game License. It was more of an actual contract between Wizards of the Coast and Paizo Publishing.

As I understand it, Paizo actually has (or, at least, had at some point) all of Wizards of the Coast's backstock of physical _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ issues, including those that date from the TSR era, long before the d20 STL, the OGL, or even Third Edition itself. They *may* have had to return those to Wizards of the Coast when their license to publish the magazines was terminated, but perhaps not.


----------



## drothgery (May 3, 2008)

Spinachcat said:
			
		

> I suspect WotC will not try to define non-fantasy.    Instead they will create a definition of "D&D related Fantasy" which are based on the core tropes of D&D.   However, that won't be easy either.




I'm going to guess that what we'll end up is
D&D 4e GSL - supplements to D&D (campaign settings, classes, races, specialized rulesets, adventures, etc.)
d20 GSL - standalone games and supplements to any new semi-open d20 games (presumably starting with a revised d20 Modern)


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 3, 2008)

Apropos of nothing, am I the only one who thinks "Gslfaq" (or something comparable) sounds like the name of a member of a primitive goblin tribe?


----------



## jedrious (May 3, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Apropos of nothing, am I the only one who thinks "Gslfaq" (or something comparable) sounds like the name of a member of a primitive goblin tribe?



side effect of an acronym-happy society


----------



## lkj (May 3, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> _Q. Why are there two different licenses?
> A. The D&D 4e GSL is specific to the Dungeons & Dragons brand. The d20 GSL allows for *non-fantasy genres.* Both licenses tie to the 4th edition rule set.
> _
> 
> What exactly does this mean?





Does this help?:



			
				Enworld front page said:
			
		

> _
> Q. Does the so-called "poison pill" non-compete clause apply to ALL OGL, or only D&D-based fantasy? (i.e. what if it's based on d20 Modern, d20 Future, or a non-d20 source?)
> 
> A. It’s not a “poison pill.” It’s a conversion clause. The D&D 4E GSL applies to fantasy-based products. The d20 GSL, which will come out at an undetermined point in the near future, will be for non-fantasy genres such as Modern, Future, etc. Publishers will be able to decide on a product line by product line basis which license will work best for them._


----------



## Yair (May 3, 2008)

I am disappointed that Wizards didn't answer the key question for fan sites, especially as it took the questions from ENWorld:



> 8) How does the new licensing policy affect fan created works? What is WotC's current policy on such works?




Of course, their interest lies with aiding the publishers right now - but I would have thought fan sites would be on their mind as well.

At any rate, this is fast looking to be the best license for 3rd-party publishers yet. The poison-pill ain't too bad at all, and the freedom to make use of Wizards' IP seems much more promising than with the OGL (the SRD would be far easier to update, for one). 

For myself, since it is revocable it is totally unacceptable so I'll probably be moving away from 4e in a year or so.


----------



## am181d (May 3, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I'm going to guess that what we'll end up is
> D&D 4e GSL - supplements to D&D (campaign settings, classes, races, specialized rulesets, adventures, etc.)
> d20 GSL - standalone games and supplements to any new semi-open d20 games (presumably starting with a revised d20 Modern)




I wouldn't expect the d20 GSL to allow for standalone games either. New product will need to be compatible with d20 Modern 2e or Urban Arcana: The RPG or whatever WotC winds up designating as their new core non-D&D RPG. Far as I can tell from published news and interviews, I don't think WotC themselves have yet come to a decision on this.


----------



## pawsplay (May 3, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> You mean the people who said wait and see were right? Shock and awe.
> 
> 
> 
> Modern = Non-fantasy RPG.




Urban Arcana is both modern and fantasy.


----------



## Jack99 (May 3, 2008)

Yair said:
			
		

> I am disappointed that Wizards didn't answer the key question for fan sites, especially as it took the questions from ENWorld:




Because it is a stupid question. WoTC doesn't care about free stuff on a web-site. 



			
				Yair said:
			
		

> For myself, since it is revocable it is totally unacceptable so I'll probably be moving away from 4e in a year or so.




So you will not play a game unless it is under the OGL? Or something else? And either way, why bother staying a year?


----------



## Yair (May 3, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Because it is a stupid question. WoTC doesn't care about free stuff on a web-site.



Yes it does. It cares about ENWorld, it cares about having fan sites and a vibrant fan community. What WotC doesn't, apparently, do is consider the issue worth commenting on in the GSL-related FAQ - or perhaps they haven't made up that policy, or want to keep it a secret for now (until Gleemax is operational?), or whatever.



> So you will not play a game unless it is under the OGL? Or something else? And either way, why bother staying a year?



So I won't play my fun-lighthearted-hack-and-slash game unless it's OGL; I'm playing other games that are closed. My favorite game is Ars Magica - all closed up.

I'm staying for a year to check out the system. After that, I intend to move to an open system, or make my own. The stay will allow me to gather impressions from 4e, which I intend to use to alter/create the system I actually want to play, i.e. to create my homebrew.

I wish to be able to post about my games, including rule variants, setting information and whatnot, legally. To do this I have to either a) rely on the WotC's (or whomever's) good graces and fan-site policy, b) rely on ambigous and hard-to-follow Fair Use exceptions in the law, or c) publish under the OGL (or some similar copyright scheme). Since I don't like option (a), and am unconvinced and uncomfortable with (b),  I'm going to go with option (c). I would have gone with (a) if the policy was unrevocable, but I don't like the idea of me having to remove my site in the future or somesuch. Nothing compelling about this argument, I'm not trying to convince anyone to do likewise or anything - this is just my personal preference.


----------



## Jack99 (May 3, 2008)

Yair said:
			
		

> I wish to be able to post about my games, including rule variants, setting information and whatnot, legally. To do this I have to either a) rely on the WotC's (or whomever's) good graces and fan-site policy, b) rely on ambigous and hard-to-follow Fair Use exceptions in the law, or c) publish under the OGL (or some similar copyright scheme). Since I don't like option (a), and am unconvinced and uncomfortable with (b),  I'm going to go with option (c). *I would have gone with (a) if the policy was unrevocable, but I don't like the idea of me having to remove my site in the future or somesuch*. Nothing compelling about this argument, I'm not trying to convince anyone to do likewise or anything - this is just my personal preference.




Do you honestly think WOTC would ask you to remove your site with your homebrewed campaign world and alternate rules if they decided to revoke the GSL?

Cheers


----------



## AZRogue (May 3, 2008)

Very nicely done, WotC. The issue I was most concerned about--that a company would have to choose one system only--has been addressed. I have to say that I'm very pleased. I bet Clark's happy, too.


----------



## Jack99 (May 3, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Very nicely done, WotC. The issue I was most concerned about--that a company would have to choose one system only--has been addressed. I have to say that I'm very pleased. I bet Clark's happy, too.




Can't believe he hasn't posted yet. He must be without Internet (or extremely busy)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 3, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Can't believe he hasn't posted yet. He must be without Internet (or extremely busy)



I saw a post from him somewhere - was it the OGL forum? I suppose he is off writing his 4E supplement.


----------



## sinecure (May 3, 2008)

Cross posted from the thread in the 4e News Forum
(That's where that guy you're talking about posted)



			
				sinecure said:
			
		

> "Product line" is unlikely to be designated as anything other than one of 3 categories:
> 
> A. Products published under the 4e D&D GSL.
> B. Products published under the non-D&D GSL (to be released in 2009 or later).
> ...


----------



## Yair (May 3, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Do you honestly think WOTC would ask you to remove your site with your homebrewed campaign world and alternate rules if they decided to revoke the GSL?



No.

The issue isn't that I'd like to do something WotC would be opposed to, but rather that I'd like to do something without them having any right to tell me not to. I just don't want to depend on their good graces. I have full, complete, total confidnece that they would not exploit their rights to hinder me. I still don't want them to have these rights. I want to create and post without being beholden to anyone. It's a purely emotional state.


----------



## sinecure (May 3, 2008)

Also, I noticed in the FAQ Wizards is going to be using product line as a legal term, so it appears as if any product line in its entirety is either under a GSL or not.

This is far more reaching than what I had thought, but it could backfire if gaming companies refuse to legally define their products into GSL defined "lines".  Meaning each book or product is particularized into its own entity, if only to allow themselves double publishing rights for a particular world or entity they hold.  

Truthfully that would be difficult though as even if a Mutants & Masterminds was marketed against a GSL Mutants & Master_brains_, the two lines could never have books which related to each other.  And the fact each may have some setting similarities could also cause copyright infringement as one line of the company's is infringing upon the other (the other being GSL and not wholly theirs without restriction).


----------



## hong (May 3, 2008)

Yair said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> The issue isn't that I'd like to do something WotC would be opposed to, but rather that I'd like to do something without them having any right to tell me not to. I just don't want to depend on their good graces. I have full, complete, total confidnece that they would not exploit their rights to hinder me. I still don't want them to have these rights. I want to create and post without being beholden to anyone. It's a purely emotional state.



 Stop thinking too hard about fantasy law.


----------



## Shades of Green (May 3, 2008)

<deleted>


----------



## Lizard (May 3, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Do you honestly think WOTC would ask you to remove your site with your homebrewed campaign world and alternate rules if they decided to revoke the GSL?
> 
> Cheers




TSR did.

Are the people currently at WOTC that dim? Probably not. Are the people who run Hasbro, who might see Gleemax not doing as well as it might and blame 'free competition' that dim? Very possibly.

It's obvious WOTC put a lot of eggs into Gleemax. It's not obvious why I'd give up ENWorld and RPG.NET to go there. (My time is limited; I can't keep up with more than two gaming sites.)


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> TSR did.



WotC is not TSR-stupid. If you really think Hasbro-suits are a) that stupid AND b) have such an influence on WotC decisions, we wouldn't have a GSL at all.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Lizard (May 3, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> WotC is not TSR-stupid. If you really think Hasbro-suits are a) that stupid AND b) have such an influence on WotC decisions, we wouldn't have a GSL at all.
> 
> Cheers, LT.




Time will tell.

TSR had no motive for going after fan sites -- they weren't losing any money. They were just stupid. Hasbro does have a motive.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (May 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Time will tell.
> 
> TSR had no motive for going after fan sites -- they weren't losing any money. They were just stupid. Hasbro does have a motive.



Just like they have a motive to go after Transformers and G.I. Joe fansites.

Wait, they don't. Fansite = free advertising.


----------



## Lizard (May 3, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> Just like they have a motive to go after Transformers and G.I. Joe fansites.
> 
> Wait, they don't. Fansite = free advertising.




I must have missed where Hasbro's marketing plan for Transformers included a 15/month subscription to Transformers.com. 

(And, actually, as a former active Transformers fan, I can tell you the relationship between Hasbro and fandom has been....rocky, including things like them throwing a hissy fit over the art show at BotCon, for example. It really depends on who's in charge at the moment and what the current bug up their butt is -- relationships with fan communities can go from friendly to hostile in seconds. You might also wish to look at the history of Star Trek and X-Files fan sites, or the current JK Rowling lawsuit, where she's suing someone for publishing the contents of a web site she'd previously singled out as excellent, and so on.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Time will tell.
> 
> TSR had no motive for going after fan sites -- they weren't losing any money. They were just stupid. Hasbro does have a motive.



Hasbro is not losing money to fan sites, either. Rules from fan-sites are rarely accepted in gamer groups. They might serve as an inspiration, but it's also likely that the sentence "I've got these rules from the internet" leads to a cruel and bloody human sacrifice. 


I think one of the big differences to then and today is that people gauge the internet a little bit better these days. 

If you begin telling your fans they can't put up fan material for other fans, they will tell everyone about it, and quickly you either have enraged fans or simply ex-fans. 

Stuff like the OGL/GSL problems might be something many fans don't care that much about. But acting like a prick over your fans? That causes hurt feelings among all fans.

Whatever happened to Amigo, the (first) German Publisher for 3e D&D? They wrote our webmaster an email that we should remove or rename a Prestige Class called "Rage Mage" because a class with its name and general was published in some Dragon magazine (probably none of us - especially not me, the creator of the class - ever read up to that point). As far as I know, we weren't the only one emailed about such matters. 
Amigo is no longer publishing 3E in Germany. (There is another publisher now. But I never picked up any of the German books.)
A similar thing happened (before my time) with either FASA or TSR (or both). I hope that the businesses that are still around have learned how to handle this.


----------



## Shades of Green (May 3, 2008)

Shutting down fan pages and, more importantly, censuring fan forums kills the community, and thus most of the market. TSR did that. TSR died.

I fear that WotC or their bosses at Hasbro might be temped to outlaw sites providing fan-created character classes and options that don't exist in PHB I but do exist in PHB II or III. Say, if I make my own Druid from scratch after getting PHB I, I fear WotC ordering me to remove it from the 'net once PHB II comes out, even though it is _my_ class created _from my imagination_ and having _no relationship whatsoever_ to the PHB II class except for the name ("Druid") and the core concept (nature-priest).


----------



## Doc_Klueless (May 3, 2008)

Oi. Ok, Lizard. I stand corrected (honestly). I misunderstood what was going on.


----------



## Wormwood (May 3, 2008)

ppaladin123 said:
			
		

> This seems very reasonable. Everyone got upset for nothing.



I'm shocked. Shocked.


----------



## Lizard (May 3, 2008)

Doc_Klueless said:
			
		

> I'm gonna go off on a tangent here, but the dude was/is a wank.
> 
> Yes, she liked his website. She still does. She thought it was very well thought out, put together and helpful.
> 
> ...




Publishing analysis/guides to fiction is standard practice. Ask Cliff Notes. It is also protected by copyright law.

Here's a good analysis of it: http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-i-2008-04-24-177772.112113_JK_Rowling_Lexicon_and_Oz.html

It's worth noting that, prior to HP7, the bookstores were full of third party tomes analyzing and discussing the books, and none of them garnered lawsuits.


----------



## Piratecat (May 3, 2008)

No Harry Potter hijacks, please. That's an interesting topic in and of itself, but I'd rather not have the thread shoot off on a tangent.


----------



## Lizard (May 3, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> No Harry Potter hijacks, please. That's an interesting topic in and of itself, but I'd rather not have the thread shoot off on a tangent.




Fair enough.

IAE, to clarify, I am not saying WOTC *would* do horrible things, but rather that a part of the purpose of the OGL was to create a "safe harbor" so that they *couldn't* -- no matter what changes in management or policy might occur. In many ways, the OGL was a sort of insurance policy for D&D -- because of it, D&D can never be shut down/closed/eliminated. The core classes, races, spells, monsters, magic items, and so on are now and forever open, and can be reincarnated in other game systems or preserved against all corporate shifts. The GSL, however good it is for publishers, doesn't offer this. 4e can be killed; 3e, and all of its variants, cannot be.

I doubt anyone at WOTC or Hasbro is, right now, plotting to send C&D letters to fansites. I merely note that the GSL leaves open that possibility while the OGL removed it. I *do* wish the FAQ clarified the use of the GSL for both ad-free and ad-supported sites, especially the use of the logo/branding in such places.


----------



## Shades of Green (May 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The core classes, races, spells, monsters, magic items, and so on are now and forever open, and can be reincarnated in other game systems or preserved against all corporate shifts. The GSL, however good it is for publishers, doesn't offer this. 4e can be killed; 3e, and all of its variants, cannot be.



If I understand correctly, once a company has released a product under OGL, the OGL for that content could never be withdrawn even if the company has moved over to GSL. Am I correct?


----------



## Lizard (May 3, 2008)

Shades of Green said:
			
		

> If I understand correctly, once a company has released a product under OGL, the OGL for that content could never be withdrawn even if the company has moved over to GSL. Am I correct?




Yes.

Once open, always open. If Green Ronin decided to, say, stop producing True 20 core rule books, another company could take the OGC and reuse it, with a different name (because the name is PI). There's a LOT of OGC out there, more than I think a lot of people realize. Some people seem to have the impression the only 'open' content is that posted on the net as SRDs. Tain't so.


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 3, 2008)

Of course, fansites have nothing to do with GSL, OGL, or anything along those lines. They have never been targeted, to my knowledge, by WotC, and if for some reason that changes in the future, it isn't going to be "ThirdWizard's Hall of Trinkets" that gets the cease & desist letters first, it would be something like ENWorld with its House Rule and Creature Catalogue forums. And, if ENWorld isn't worried, I don't see what reason any of us have to be.

The sky wasn't falling with the GSL. Jumping on another chicken little scenario, especially in _this_ thread, seems like just another far fetched "WotC is going to screw us all for no reason" theory.


----------



## Shades of Green (May 3, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The sky wasn't falling with the GSL. Jumping on another chicken little scenario, especially in _this_ thread, seems like just another far fetched "WotC is going to screw us all for no reason" theory.



I'm not blaming WotC, in its current form and outlook, for attempting anything against fan-sites and EN-World. But the sad TSR case has shown us that someone having the capability to do so might, in certain (*and unlikely*) circumstances, harass fans. OGL was a total immunization against such attempts - no matter what happens, you can't close open content. Ever. GSL is a somewhat weaker defense...


----------



## lurkinglidda (May 3, 2008)

Festivus said:
			
		

> I wonder if Paizo will be forced to destroy any back issues they might still have.  Were those magazines d20?  They most certainly were not OGL.  Perhaps something entirely different?



Dragon and Dungeon were official licensed products, not OGL.


----------



## lurkinglidda (May 3, 2008)

Shades of Green said:
			
		

> I'm not blaming WotC, in its current form and outlook, for attempting anything against fan-sites and EN-World. But the sad TSR case has shown us that someone having the capability to do so might, in certain (*and unlikely*) circumstances, harass fans.



Past behaviour is a good indication of future behaviours as far as individuals are concerned, but not necessarily so with organizations, esp when there is a turnover of individuals within the organization. I wouldn't apply TSR's actions to possible WotC actions. We're different folks, with different motivations in a new environment. The most harassing you'll see from me is an occassional frowny face in a forum. And even those are few and far between


----------



## Green Knight (May 3, 2008)

Hey, Linae. I was curious about something, and I hope it's alright if I ask. 

Is the GSL still the same GSL from two or three weeks ago, or was it rewritten in the past two weeks? I'm just curious. Thanks.


----------



## Lizard (May 3, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Past behaviour is a good indication of future behaviours as far as individuals are concerned, but not necessarily so with organizations, esp when there is a turnover of individuals within the organization.




I think that's my point, too. 

It's obvious that if Ryan Dancey were still at WOTC, the GSL would be, well, the OGL. 

The thing about the OGL, WRT fan sites, is that it protected fans from precisely the change of personnel/policy you're discussing. The GSL does not. And that's all I'm saying.


----------



## drothgery (May 3, 2008)

am181d said:
			
		

> I wouldn't expect the d20 GSL to allow for standalone games either. New product will need to be compatible with d20 Modern 2e or Urban Arcana: The RPG or whatever WotC winds up designating as their new core non-D&D RPG. Far as I can tell from published news and interviews, I don't think WotC themselves have yet come to a decision on this.




They've all but said straight out that standalone games will be allowed by the d20 GSL.


----------



## lurkinglidda (May 3, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Hey, Linae. I was curious about something, and I hope it's alright if I ask.
> 
> Is the GSL still the same GSL from two or three weeks ago, or was it rewritten in the past two weeks? I'm just curious. Thanks.



It's still the same doc


----------



## xechnao (May 3, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> It's still the same doc




Heh


----------



## Green Knight (May 3, 2008)

So people were in an uproar over something that was never there, huh? _Eeenteresting._


----------



## xechnao (May 3, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> So people were in an uproar over something that was never there, huh? _Eeenteresting._




Never say never


----------



## MrGrenadine (May 3, 2008)

Before folks start pointing fingers and claiming that others were Chicken-Littling the topic of the GSL, its important to note that despite the fact that the *wording* of the GSL hasn't changed, (according to Linae), clearly stating that the GSL is *product-line* based and not *company* based is a significant change from the information provided earlier.  And a fantastic one, IMO.


----------



## Tao (May 3, 2008)

MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> Before folks start pointing fingers and claiming that others were Chicken-Littling the topic of the GSL, its important to note that despite the fact that the *wording* of the GSL hasn't changed, (according to Linae), clearly stating that the GSL is *product-line* based and not *company* based is a significant change from the information provided earlier.  And a fantastic one, IMO.



A lot of people are claiming a lot of things that aren't necessarily 100% true, and I'm glad Linae has confirmed that there weren't any changes to the GSL in those two weeks.  The only thing that has changed, apparently, is our perception and how much we know and as a result the attitude has shifted dramatically.  Honestly, I didn't know for sure either way on the poison pill issue, but I think it was fairly obvious where I stood on the issue (which is to say, staunchly incredulous that WotC would include a "poison pill" and strain its 3pp relationships more than necessary).  I am all for a reasonable amount of openness, and it seems to me that the new GSL is exactly that: *reasonable* (for all involved parties).  I also think that there are some (as of yet unseen) advantages inherent to the somewhat closed nature of the new GSL will work even better for everyone involved as well: for example, the ability to allow additional sourcebooks into the GSL without risk that someone else is going to rip off and republish their work sans-flavor.  Overall, I think this could actually be a big step forward in the 3pp arena if the GSL continues to gain support from both sides of the fence and could be an even bigger success than the OGL for everyone involved.

Also, I figure this was worth cross-posting from the WotC boards, since its my (completely unofficial and completely unendorsed and will probably get me in trouble with someone) perspective on the whole situation.  



			
				Me on WotC boards said:
			
		

> To be completely honest (and giving my own opinion on this, rather than WotC's), unless you are developers and publishers a lot of this won't affect you one bit, and if it hadn't had such a stink around it most would never have even noticed any changes at all. A lot of people are looking for problems where there are none.
> 
> At no point did anyone from Wizards of the Coast confirm the rumor that the GSL would be on a company-by-company basis. At that time (and even now) the GSL was not technically complete. Scott and Linae and everyone else at WotC are all under NDA, which limits what they can say and when. Even the much (mis)quoted Scott Rouse Post doesn't confirm that they would limit a companies ability to post through the OGL, simply that they would be actively encouraging the use of the GSL amongst third party publishers and that 3pp would be free to choose between OGL and GSL, but that there would be a choice involved. At no point did any major 3PP complain about the actual GSL. Chris Pramas said that he was contacting for clarification, but if the allegations were true than Green Ronin would stick with the OGL so that it could continue to support M&M. Clark Peterson actively supported it even when he thought that it might be on a company basis (though he didn't claim to believe that particular fact).
> 
> As it is, this is about what everyone expected. I can't imagine that anyone was really planning on releasing the same exact product lines for both 4e and 3.5 anyways. Quite simply put, it wouldn't have made economic sense to split development time for a product with such a narrow audience. I can, however, see the desire for publishers to maintain at least one of their current lines in 3.5 while transitioning the others to 4e, and the GSL apparently allows this.


----------



## Shades of Green (May 3, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Past behaviour is a good indication of future behaviours as far as individuals are concerned, but not necessarily so with organizations, esp when there is a turnover of individuals within the organization. I wouldn't apply TSR's actions to possible WotC actions. We're different folks, with different motivations in a new environment. The most harassing you'll see from me is an occassional frowny face in a forum. And even those are few and far between



Thanks for the reassurance. You've just made my day and removed my greatest fear about 4E


----------



## hexgrid (May 3, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Urban Arcana is both modern and fantasy.




This is beside the point. The point is that the D&D 4E GSL only allows for products to be published specificity as D&D supplements. Because this wouldn't be appropriate for all genres (or non-fantasy, as the interview puts it) there will be another license. 

There's no need to decide what fantasy means, you just need to decide wether the product makes sense as a supplement for D&D. If it does, you use the D&D 4E GSL, if it doesn't you use the d20 GSL.

That's how I interpret it, at least.


----------



## Oldtimer (May 3, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Past behaviour is a good indication of future behaviours as far as individuals are concerned, but not necessarily so with organizations, esp when there is a turnover of individuals within the organization.



And that's exactly the point some of us are trying to make. And why the OGL was such a reassurance. And the GSL not.



			
				lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> The most harassing you'll see from me is an occassional frowny face in a forum. And even those are few and far between



But what if you aren't Licensing Manager for life, Linae? Like you said, with a turnover of individuals could come new behaviour...


----------



## ruemere (May 3, 2008)

Umm... excuse me, but what is the cause for celebration?

1. GSL is a revocable. Meaning, among other things, that it is changeable.

2. GSL is revocable, so any products released under this license have timer attached. Meaning: your investments may be in real and reasonable danger of being liquidated by license onwer (there is no OGL for 4E products to escape to).

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 3, 2008)

ruemere said:
			
		

> Umm... excuse me, but what is the cause for celebration?
> 
> 1. GSL is a revocable. Meaning, among other things, that it is changeable.
> 
> ...



That didn't stop the d20 System License either. (What stopped it was that it didn't provide any value for customer or publisher, since the logo didn't stand for high quality or compatibility with D&D, as it was implied to do...)


----------



## The Little Raven (May 3, 2008)

ruemere said:
			
		

> Umm... excuse me, but what is the cause for celebration?




Because you get the benefit of the world's largest roleplaying game company's R&D department doing the vast majority of the heavy lifting involved in game design, which a publisher can benefit from free of charge. You get to use the biggest name in the industry for free, and enjoy the benefits of network externalities that come with said name.


----------



## Ximenes088 (May 3, 2008)

ruemere said:
			
		

> Umm... excuse me, but what is the cause for celebration?
> 
> 1. GSL is a revocable. Meaning, among other things, that it is changeable.
> 
> 2. GSL is revocable, so any products released under this license have timer attached. Meaning: your investments may be in real and reasonable danger of being liquidated by license onwer (there is no OGL for 4E products to escape to).



Yeah, that looks to be the case. That's what you get when you hitch your wagon to somebody else's star. If you're looking for some sort of license that gives you perpetual rights to leverage the market leader's product to sell your own, with no way for that leader to curtail or end such leverage, then you're out of luck. WotC hasn't got any reason to guarantee 3PP an iron dice bag. Their motivation is to give 3PP a chance to expand their market coverage by providing niche products that can't profitably be undertaken by them. When 4e goes under in a decade or so, 3PP are just going to have to either trust that WotC will give them an escape hatch into 5e or be ready to homebrew their own system.

And I don't really see anything wrong with that. Anything WotC gives is morally and legally pure charity. They've got no special obligation to loan their IP out for someone else to sell on, and this new contract makes clear up-front that it exists at WotC's pleasure. If you think it's a good deal, you take it, and if you don't, you keep with OGL.


----------



## Nom (May 3, 2008)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> This is beside the point. The point is that the D&D 4E GSL only allows for products to be published specificity as D&D supplements. Because this wouldn't be appropriate for all genres (or non-fantasy, as the interview puts it) there will be another license.



Yep, that's the critical point.  The OGL allowed 3PP to make _games_.  The GSL allows 3PP to make _supplements_ (and badge them as such, like the STL).  Presumably, the d20 GSL  will allow 3PP to make supplements for the non-D&D d20 rules, once those rules are published.


----------



## mxyzplk (May 3, 2008)

ruemere said:
			
		

> Umm... excuse me, but what is the cause for celebration?




Well, the celebration is that WotC isn't trying to drive open gaming out of the market.  You're right, it's sad that they are no longer participating in it.

The GSL is in no way open, but they don't claim it is.  It's no more or less than any other company does with closed licensing agreements.

So no, this clarification didn't move then from closed to open - but it did move them from probably-illegal definitely-hateful anticompetitive activity in their closed license to a normal closed license, which is definitely something.  Yes, they could change it to be more draconian any day, but hopefully inertia will rule.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 3, 2008)

mxyzplk said:
			
		

> So no, this clarification didn't move then from closed to open - but it did move them from probably-illegal definitely-hateful anticompetitive activity in their closed license to a normal closed license, which is definitely something.  Yes, they could change it to be more draconian any day, but hopefully inertia will rule.




This "probably-illegal definitely-hateful anticompetitive activity" was simply a product of your (and other's) misinterpretation of the information they released. As Linae has already stated that the document is exactly the same as it was weeks ago when this brouhaha started, nothing on their end has actually changed.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 3, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> So people were in an uproar over something that was never there, huh? _Eeenteresting._




if we were given permission to read the license, their would have *not* been an uproar... I find that interesting.

*lost in a edit i guess


----------



## am181d (May 4, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> They've all but said straight out that standalone games will be allowed by the d20 GSL.




Source? I tend to follow this stuff fairly carefully, but I haven't heard anything about the d20 GSL and standalone games...


----------



## Greg K (May 4, 2008)

I know WOTC is calling it a "conversion clause". However, it appears if  Green Ronin, who provides Freeport support for True20, Savage Worlds, couldn't make  a single Freeport product for 4e that is different from the True20 and Savage World products without having to give up supporting the True20 and Savage World versions. I imagine that, when the d20 GSL is released, the same would hold true for RPGObjects's  "Blood and [x]" line which not only suppports d2O Modern, but also True20 with the True20 version of Blood and Fists.

So, if making a single 4e product in a  line requires the rest of the existing  line  to be converted or abandoned, how is  this not  a "poison pill" albeit  a smaller one aimed at product lines rather than the entire companies? And, I am asking this out of true curiousity rather than sarcasm or anything else.


----------



## Piratecat (May 4, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> So, if making a single 4e in a product line requires the rest of the existing  line has to be converted or abandoned, how is  this not  a "poison pill" albeit  a smaller one aimed at product lines rather than the entire companies? And, I am asking this out of true curiosity rather than sarcasm or anything else.



Greg, in my opinion it's vastly less onerous than requiring an entire publishing house to choose or switch. I don't see it as unreasonable.

It's going to do one of two things: create large-scale conversion of great existing product lines to 4e, or inspire innovation as brand new 4e product lines are launched. The company has full control of choosing which to do, and has the freedom to do both if desired. Compared to the strong-arming we feared was going to happen, it doesn't throttle innovation at all.

My hope is that this will let companies use current product lines as a cash cow, generating income while they develop really interesting and new 4e material.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 4, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> So, if making a single 4e product in a line requires the rest of the existing line to be converted or abandoned, *how is this not a "poison pill"* albeit a smaller one aimed at product lines rather than the entire companies? And, I am asking this out of true curiousity rather than sarcasm or anything else.




Simple.



			
				Merriam-Webster said:
			
		

> poison pill  [origin:1983]:  a financial tactic or provision used by a company *to make an unwanted takeover* prohibitively expensive or less desirable






			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> It has since become a term referring to any strategy, generally in business or politics, *to increase the likelihood of negative results over positive ones for a party that attempts any kind of takeover.*






			
				Random House Unabridged Dictionary said:
			
		

> poison pill
> –noun
> 2.	Financial Slang. *any of various business devices created to prevent a company from being taken over by another*, as issuing a new class of stock or stock warrants that would become costly to the buyer in the event of a takeover.
> 
> [Origin: 1945–50]






			
				Inigo Montoya said:
			
		

> You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## ki11erDM (May 4, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> Anything WotC gives is morally and legally pure charity. They've got no special obligation to loan their IP out for someone else to sell on, and this new contract makes clear up-front that it exists at WotC's pleasure. If you think it's a good deal, you take it, and if you don't, you keep with OGL.





This needed to be in all caps and bolded.  One of the few truths spoken in this whole mass of trollmongering.


----------



## Treebore (May 4, 2008)

ppaladin123 said:
			
		

> This seems very reasonable. Everyone got upset for nothing.





Since I know for a fact WOTC people were reading our posts about this I am going to positively assume we helped them change their language to be much more friendlier.

Congrats to WOTC for going more in the direction of team player rather than Empire Builder. I may be able to bring myself to check out 4E after all. Keep it up.


----------



## Green Knight (May 4, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Since I know for a fact WOTC people were reading our posts about this I am going to positively assume we helped them change their language to be much more friendlier.




And Linae stated that nothing was actually changed. So your assumption is factually incorrect, unless now you want to start calling people liars.


----------



## Treebore (May 4, 2008)

ki11erDM said:
			
		

> This needed to be in all caps and bolded.  One of the few truths spoken in this whole mass of trollmongering.




Your only right when we, the consumers and fans, make it OK for them to behave poorly. Apparently they decided to "play nice" and listen to those of us who called them on their poor behavior.

So I wish to applaud WOTC for taking a higher road rather than being the empire building bully on the block they were looking to be.

So cheers, whistles, and applause to WOTC from me. There are enough corporations out there bullying the small guys. Glad to see WOTC feels confident enough to play nice with their competitors.


----------



## Treebore (May 4, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> And Linae stated that nothing was actually changed. So your assumption is factually incorrect, unless now you want to start calling people liars.




I don't care. I read the threads, I know what WOTC employees said in those threads. So I don't really care if they did, or did not change the language. The important thing is they aren't going to be the "bully" that it sounded like they were going to be.

If you want to worry about what the "truth" was/is, feel free. I'll just be happy that they put out a much friendlier GSL license than was feared.

That is the truth that matters.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 4, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> That is the truth that matters.




Not to me. It's the facts that matter.


----------



## Green Knight (May 4, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Not to me. It's the facts that matter.




Exactly. And this... 



> Apparently they decided to "play nice" and listen to those of us who called them on their poor behavior.




...is not a fact, and is wholly unfair to the people who put out the GSL. 



> That is the truth that matters.




That the GSL is out matters. But what also matters is treating people fairly. And that's something you're not doing, by claiming they weren't "playing nice" or "behaving poorly" when that's not the case.


----------



## Greg K (May 4, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Simple.



Mourn,
 I thought there is also a useage in sports contracts meaning a clause with unbalanced impact. To me, the clause seems to have unbalanced impact. However, not being a lawyer I could still be misunderstanding the useage in sports contracts.


----------



## Voadam (May 4, 2008)

> 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.




I'm not sure if they just mean 3.x or any OGL versions here. Can Goodman Games do 4e Dungeon Crawl Classics and still put out Castles and Crusades versions of the same modules as long as they don't do 3.5 versions?


----------



## tomBitonti (May 4, 2008)

*Concrete product lines*

So ... we have been talking about product lines and how the restriction on product is less strict than a restriction on companies as a whole.  I am thinking that a few concrete examples would be useful so to know what this means practically.

For example:

Necromancer Games
- Rappan Athuk

Monte Cook
- Ptolus

Green Ronin
- Freeport

Paize
- Pathfinder: Rise of the Runelords


----------



## Voadam (May 4, 2008)

Tao said:
			
		

> The only thing that has changed, apparently, is our perception and how much we know and as a result the attitude has shifted dramatically.  Honestly, I didn't know for sure either way on the poison pill issue, but I think it was fairly obvious where I stood on the issue (which is to say, staunchly incredulous that WotC would include a "poison pill" and strain its 3pp relationships more than necessary).




The only change in the "poison pill" situation is that they state in the FAQ that it applies on a product line basis instead of a company-wide one.

It is still there exactly as everyone was discussing it before, just limited to product lines.

It is still an attempt to cut out ogl products and drive D&D consumers from 3e to 4e by cutting out 3e published options in the market.

This is a change in degree, not in nature IMO.

Am I mistaken and overlooked something here?


----------



## Voadam (May 4, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> So ... we have been talking about product lines and how the restriction on product is less strict than a restriction on companies as a whole.  I am thinking that a few concrete examples would be useful so to know what this means practically.
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...




Goodman
- Dungeon Crawl Classics
- Complete Guide
- Morningstar
etc.

For Necromancer I think its an open question if their modules in general are a single product line or if each one without the same name is an independent product line.

I expect that Tome of Horrors is a product line for Necromancer.


----------



## GVDammerung (May 4, 2008)

ruemere said:
			
		

> Umm... excuse me, but what is the cause for celebration?
> 
> 1. GSL is a revocable. Meaning, among other things, that it is changeable.
> 
> ...




Exactly correct.  This license is one giant step _BACK_ from open gaming as in OGL.  It is not "O;" it is faux "O."  Ask Paizo how easy it is to have a revocable license that forms the core of your existing business model revoked - Dragon and Dungeon Magazines.  

Revocable licenses are made to be revoked.  So.  Get everybody playing 4e.  Put 3X years in the rear window so no one remembers it as other than "old.".  Issue 5e as a closed system and revoke the 4e license.  That's about as close to being able to put the OGL genie back in the bottle as possible.  

The GSL isn't a "poison pill."  Its a Trojan Horse.  Now open those gates real wide for the nice horsey.  Pony rides for everyone!


----------



## The Little Raven (May 4, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Its a Trojan Horse.




Except the Trojan Horse was an act of deception, while the openly declared nature of the GSL and it's revocable status is anything but deceptive.


----------



## Lizard (May 4, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> The GSL isn't a "poison pill."  Its a Trojan Horse.  Now open those gates real wide for the nice horsey.  Pony rides for everyone!




To be fair, that's what a lot of people said about the OGL...It was WOTC's Secret Plan To Destroy Gaming, And By 'Secret' We Mean Ryan Dancey Spelled Out Everything Out Explicitly.

It's somewhat amusing how times (don't) change:
2000: By allowing people to just use the D20 system to make their own games, WOTC is destroying the industry!
2008: By NOT allowing people to just use the D20 system to make their own games, WOTC is destroying the industry!

I supported the OGL fully in 2000; I think the GSL is misguided. I think the end result will be slowing adaption of 4e. WOTC's policy here is more likely to hurt them than third parties; I think we'll see a lot more "innovative" systems and market fragmentation due to it. ("Innovative" in quotes because, really, the world doesn't need yet another dice mechanic to swing an axe at an orc. It really doesn't. Honestly, if you look at the OGL systems out there -- Tri-Stat, FUDGE, FATE, Action!, Runequest, Traveller, True20, D20, and I'm probably missing some more -- it's hard to see a setting/game/style, other than wonky self-indulgent naval gazing Forgie stuff, which can't be done within the space of OGL games.)


----------



## Lizard (May 4, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Except the Trojan Horse was an act of deception, while the openly declared nature of the GSL and it's revocable status is anything but deceptive.




Next you'll be trying to convince people WOTC wasn't "surprised" or "exploited" by people republishing the SRD, just because the FAQ on their web page said you could. Good luck with that.

Annoying when people try to see conspiracy or deception in things stated openly and plainly, ennit?


----------



## Fifth Element (May 4, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> It is not "O;" it is faux "O."



I'm sorry, where is the "O"? It's the GSL now. There is no "O" in the name.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 4, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> So I wish to applaud WOTC for taking a higher road rather than being the empire building bully on the block they were looking to be.



Your assumption that they were looking to be that is simply incorrect. It's based on misinformation and misinterpretation.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 4, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Goodman
> - Dungeon Crawl Classics
> - Complete Guide
> - Morningstar
> ...




My impression is that product lines are products which reference each other.  (I would think that having a common branding would count, but that is just my sense of it, and I have no idea if my sense is correct.)


----------



## Fedifensor (May 4, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I expect that Tome of Horrors is a product line for Necromancer.



So, can Necromancer Games create a 4E monster book called "Fiend Folder" or somesuch that does exactly what ToH did for 3E, but call it a separate product line (since it's a monster sourcebook with a different name)?  What if 99% of the monsters are the same ones in the ToH?  What if it's only 50%?


----------



## Jack99 (May 4, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> And Linae stated that nothing was actually changed. So your assumption is factually incorrect, unless now you want to start calling people liars.




Thats not what Linae said. She said it was the same doc. Which doesn't mean the wording wasn't changed. Subtext FTW.


----------



## jedrious (May 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Thats not what Linae said. She said it was the same doc. Which doesn't mean the wording wasn't changed. Subtext FTW.



in other words to you the speculators are always right and there is in no possible way that it could have been misinterpreted and you won't believe WotC did things right before a public outcry despite any evidence


----------



## Jack99 (May 4, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Exactly correct.  This license is one giant step _BACK_ from open gaming as in OGL.  It is not "O;" it is faux "O."  Ask Paizo how easy it is to have a revocable license that forms the core of your existing business model revoked - Dragon and Dungeon Magazines.




While it is never fun to lose a license, do you really think Paizo would have the position they have today, if it were not for the license they had? I feel that it would be more than fair to say that Paizo has benefited A LOT from that license, even if it was taken away from them, with (too little?) warning.

Cheers


----------



## The Little Raven (May 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Thats not what Linae said. She said it was the same doc. Which doesn't mean the wording wasn't changed. Subtext FTW.




The question (aka context) specifically was "Is it the same GSL as two weeks ago, or has it been rewritten?" She said it's the same one, which states that it hasn't been rewritten. Last I checked, changing the wording of something would qualify as rewriting it.


----------



## Jack99 (May 4, 2008)

jedrious said:
			
		

> in other words to you the speculators are always right and there is in no possible way that it could have been misinterpreted and you won't believe WotC did things right before a public outcry despite any evidence




Heh, have a search and read my posts. I am one of the biggest WoTC fanbois around here. So please don't lump me in with those other nut-cases   . No, what I am saying is that in this case, I do believe (based on Linae's comments here the last 24 hours) that the basic intention of the GSL was never changed. However, I do think they might have realized that some of the wording they had chosen wasn't, shall we say, optimal, and rephrased some parts.

Either way. In my mind, GSL > closed system > OGL. So I was pretty sure I would end up at least partially happy.


----------



## Mistwell (May 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Thats not what Linae said. She said it was the same doc. Which doesn't mean the wording wasn't changed.




Yes, it does.

People who continue to make the accusation, subtly though the accusation may be, that Linae is either lying or being deceptive through clever use of subtext, are not meeting the pretty high burden they are under.  People calling out a WOTC employee directly in that manner should offer a level of evidence for that "speculation" that is fairly substantial.  This is not a theoretical claim about a game rule you are making - it's an accusation against the reputation of an actual person.  

I wish folks would stop these unsubstantiated claims against a person, unless they have the proof to back it up.  It's unfair, and rude, at best.


----------



## Jack99 (May 4, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> The question (aka context) specifically was "Is it the same GSL as two weeks ago, or has it been rewritten?" She said it's the same one, which states that it hasn't been rewritten. Last I checked, changing the wording of something would qualify as rewriting it.




Respectfully I disagree.

The question was "Is it the same GSL as two weeks ago, or has it been rewritten?"
Linae answers: It's the same doc.

It's a classic example of answering so that you think, that you get the answer you want/need/expect, while in fact, she is saying something else. (Sorry, I can't recall if there is an English expression for this). 

I just want to point out, that either way, I personally don't care. They could have written all of it just the other night, as far as I care. At the end, we now have a GSL that will allow my favorite 3PPs to produce some more content for me to spend my hard-earned money on, after I have bought WoTC's books. That's all I wanted. 

Cheers


----------



## AllisterH (May 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> While it is never fun to lose a license, do you really think Paizo would have the position they have today, if it were not for the license they had? I feel that it would be more than fair to say that Paizo has benefited A LOT from that license, even if it was taken away from them, with (too little?) warning.
> 
> Cheers




So, do people believe Paizo would be were they were WITHOUT the license?


----------



## The Little Raven (May 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> It's a classic example of answering so that you think, that you get the answer you want/need/expect, while in fact, she is saying something else. (Sorry, I can't recall if there is an English expression for this).




This is an example of people applying a subtext to her words based on their own personal interpretation. She was direct and meant what she wrote at face value. The fact that people read some kind of deception into those statements speaks volumes more about their character than Linae's. As Mistwell so eloquently stated, this is simply a case of people accusing her of dishonesty (whether by omission or intentionally misleading statements) with absolutely no evidence to support such a claim... and that's just rude.


----------



## Yair (May 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Thats not what Linae said. She said it was the same doc. Which doesn't mean the wording wasn't changed. Subtext FTW.



Hah. Good joke.

.... it's a joke, right?


....right?


In other news...

I'd note that since I have no intention of registering with WotC, the GSL has no impact on my fan sites - unlike the OGL, which had when I wanted it to. I'm rather disappointed with this provision, but I suppose this isn't such a huge barrier to entry. Just... irritating.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 4, 2008)

Yair said:
			
		

> I'd note that since I have no intention of registering with WotC, the GSL has no impact on my fan sites - unlike the OGL, which had when I wanted it to. I'm rather disappointed with this provision, but I suppose this isn't such a huge barrier to entry. Just... irritating.




Do we have any direct, official confirmation that fan sites will be required to register with WotC? And if so, a link please.


----------



## Shades of Green (May 4, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> Anything WotC gives is morally and legally pure charity. They've got no special obligation to loan their IP out for someone else to sell on, and this new contract makes clear up-front that it exists at WotC's pleasure. If you think it's a good deal, you take it, and if you don't, you keep with OGL.



IMHO morality, legality and charity have nothing to do with this. This is pure business sense. 3PPs don't exist on the expense of WotC - they actually increase WotC sales. OGL/GSL means that even if you aren't initially interested in any given WotC product, but rather in a niche product, you will still get exposed to WotC's D20 system, and, in many cases, the 3PP product would require you to own one of the WotC core books. Also, it means that the WotC core-books are _supported_ by 3PP splat-books and settings which WotC benefit from (it increases the sales of their core books and even of their splat books) while the 3PP pays the people working on these splat books and settings.

In regard to fan material and fan discussion this is even more important. The community is the market. Treat the community well, and they'll provide you with _free advertisement_, as well as keep the market alive for you; the community is also a great pool of quality fans to recruit new employees from. Treat the community badly, and they'll run away, and your market will shrink and wither away. TSR didn't understand this, and it killed them. WotC understand this, and they flourish.

OGL was the best business decision ever made by WotC.


----------



## xechnao (May 4, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> And Linae stated that nothing was actually changed. So your assumption is factually incorrect, unless now you want to start calling people liars.




No, she did not say "nothing" the way you put it (after all it is obvious things have changed: they gave an official faq now while two weeks ago it was just rumors). She just said that the GSL we are now receiving the faq about was not actually rewritten in the last couple of weeks.


----------



## ruemere (May 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> That didn't stop the d20 System License either. (What stopped it was that it didn't provide any value for customer or publisher, since the logo didn't stand for high quality or compatibility with D&D, as it was implied to do...)



Respectfully, comparing both situations may be wrong. 

D20 SL filled the void and, for those whose were worried about their products, provided escape route (OGL).
GSL aims to replace D20 SL without allowing to use OGL as an escape mechanism.


GSL will probably come with definitions of "product line" and "fantasy game".


Finally, given experiences till now, GSL will be probably revoked around 2014. New version of the license may provide several changes, which may or may be not to the liking of those who make GSL products.
However, by that time, each third party publisher who ventures GSL path, will have its products clearly labelled as "GSL product line" and because of this, it will be much harder to make indepedent decision with regard to following (or rejecting) GSL successor.


It's not charity. It's business. Just like OGL was.
There is no reason to panic or to celebrate. It's just an attempt to improve control over the market by WotC. 


Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## ruemere (May 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> [...]
> The question was "Is it the same GSL as two weeks ago, or has it been rewritten?"
> Linae answers: It's the same doc.[...]



Subject to interpretation. She could have meant the same filename or that the file's content is unchanged and so on.

I don't think we should discuss this - it's not polite to assume that the other party is attempting to use half-truths.

With all due respect, let's go back to the topic.

Regards,
Ruemere


----------



## sinecure (May 4, 2008)

Can 3rd party publishers declare some of their GSL content as "limited open content" meaning it is open exclusively to other products also published under the GSL?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 4, 2008)

ruemere said:
			
		

> It's not charity. It's business. Just like OGL was.
> There is no reason to panic or to celebrate. It's just an attempt to improve control over the market by WotC.



No, it is a reason to celebrate. The fact that there is no so-called poison pill forcing every publisher to decide now to abandon his OGL products and focus on the GSL line, or stay OGL increases the number of publishers that can easily jump on the 4E bandwagon, while still selling their old (or possibly new) products. That's especially important for those companies that have created their OGL stand-alone games and make reasonable amounts of money with them. 

For me as a customer this means that there will be more publishers that will support 4E then in the other case, which means I have a larger set of products to chose from. (And in the case of my group, this might especially mean that there will be more adventures, from which we will never have to little). 

Just because something means "business as usual" doesn't mean it's not a reason to celebrate, not if the alternative was "worse business as usual".


----------



## Yair (May 4, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Do we have any direct, official confirmation that fan sites will be required to register with WotC? And if so, a link please.



The FAQ says registration would be needed to use the GSL, 







> Q. Can anyone participate?
> A. Yes. Interested third party publishers will be required to submit a registration card, agreeing to the terms of use. This registration card will be part of the materials available to publishers on our website beginning June 6, 2008.



For fan sites, at least for fans not registered as publishers with WotC, this means the GSL will be totally irrelevant. You can't simply publish a fan site under the GSL, you need to register with WotC as a publisher to publish anything under the GSL - that's what the FAQ says.

Which doesn't address WotC's fan-site policy, but does make it clear that the GSL is directed at publishers, not fans.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 4, 2008)

If the license is the same as two weeks ago, why did they need all this time to answer the questions?

Also, someone told Clark Peterson that the restriction was on a per company basis... personally I think that things changed in the last two weeks. Since, IMO, things changed for the better, I'm glad for it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 4, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> If the license is the same as two weeks ago, why did they need all this time to answer the questions?



The Rouse was traveling, and he wanted to read the GSL again to make sure he didn't tell anything wrong. That, plus the usual overhead for putting out something official.



> Also, someone told Clark Peterson that the restriction was on a per company basis... personally I think that things changed in the last two weeks. Since, IMO, things changed for the better, I'm glad for it.



Clark wasn't told this directly. IIRC, there was something he heard that sounded like this could be the case, and the reasoning for it was plausible enough to ask about it.

---

For clarification: Is anyone outside of WotC know in posession of the GSL? I seem to remember something that print publishers would receive it a little earlier to be ready for October, but my information is probably out of date, and honestly, it is getting a little confusing.


----------



## Jack99 (May 4, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> This is an example of people applying a subtext to her words based on their own personal interpretation. She was direct and meant what she wrote at face value. The fact that people read some kind of deception into those statements speaks volumes more about their character than Linae's. As Mistwell so eloquently stated, this is simply a case of people accusing her of dishonesty (whether by omission or intentionally misleading statements) with absolutely no evidence to support such a claim... and that's just rude.




I am sorry that you see me as rude, that was certainly not the intention of my posts. And I sincerely hope that Linae (assuming she has read them) hasn't taken them as such.

My point was merely that it is possible to interpret her answer in more than one way. You assume from the way you understand her answer, that the GSL has not changed over the last 2 weeks, I assume that it has changed, at least a little bit.

This has IMO nothing to do with half-truths nor misleading answers, and certainly not of dishonesty. 

Maybe I have just spent too much time around politicians  

Cheers,


----------



## Jack99 (May 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Clark wasn't told this directly. IIRC, there was something he heard that sounded like this could be the case, and the reasoning for it was plausible enough to ask about it.




Well...



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> Hmmm... am I missing something? I'm trying to put together a news item compiling all the posts made by WoTC here, and I've found the "can't have the same product in two different licenses" stuff, but can't seem to find where people are getting the "a company may only use one license, period" implication from. I've scoured this thread, and I must have missed that post; could someone point me towards it so that I can include it in the news item?






			
				Orcus said:
			
		

> I was told that specifically by Wizards of the Coast. In direct response to that direct question. The answer was, "we dont want fence sitters. Companies have to choose.




Post 334  if you wish to see for yourself.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 4, 2008)

Jack99 said:
			
		

> Well...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, I stand corrected. (But luckily, so does Orcus "informant")


----------



## Nikosandros (May 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Ah, I stand corrected. (But luckily, so does Orcus "informant")



I still think that the restriction was lessened in those two weeks.


----------



## Piratecat (May 4, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Ah, I stand corrected. (But luckily, so does Orcus "informant")



Yeah, if I've taken anything from this incident it's that different departments in WotC don't have completely synchronized communication. I'm glad that for whatever reason Orcus's understanding didn't make it into the final GSL. I suspect that these last few weeks were used by the lawyers to tweak the license a little. We'll probably never know how much, but I'd like to say thank you to everyone at Wizards who worked to get a less restrictive clause in.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 4, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> We'll probably never know how much, but I'd like to say thank you to everyone at Wizards who worked to get a less restrictive clause in.



Well said. With all this discussion, it might seem that we are actually unhappy that the license was changed...


----------



## Henry (May 4, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> Well said. With all this discussion, it might seem that we are actually unhappy that the license was changed...




The old saw, _"can't please all the people all the time"_ comes to mind. If WotC gets _"nigh-rebellious"_ down to _"mildly unhappy,"_ they're some of the most successful people I've ever seen.


----------



## Lizard (May 4, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> Well said. With all this discussion, it might seem that we are actually unhappy that the license was changed...




Jonah told the Ninevahns, "Repent or God will kill you!"

They repented. God didn't kill them.

This annoyed Jonah.

So it goes.


----------



## Simon Marks (May 4, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I suspect that these last few weeks were used by the lawyers to tweak the license a little. We'll probably never know how much, but I'd like to say thank you to everyone at Wizards who worked to get a less restrictive clause in.




Post #65 of this very thread suggests otherwise.

That post suggests that Orcus (Clark) was misinformed.


----------



## lurkinglidda (May 4, 2008)

My statements are always written at face value. If anyone thinks there's room for misinterpretation or that my answers are ever unclear feel free to ask me to expound. I'll answer as best I can. 

This is the part that baffles me: no one has asked me to follow up on the last question. No one wants to know about my 4e character? Come on - I'm dying to tell you all about her!


----------



## Simon Marks (May 4, 2008)

Tell me about your character, please.

(I find it hard to write that sentence in a non-sarky tone of voice. Take it from me, I really do want to know about your charcater! Really!)


----------



## jedrious (May 4, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> My statements are always written at face value. If anyone thinks there's room for misinterpretation or that my answers are ever unclear feel free to ask me to expound. I'll answer as best I can.
> 
> This is the part that baffles me: no one has asked me to follow up on the last question. No one wants to know about my 4e character? Come on - I'm dying to tell you all about her!



Actually I wouldn't mind knowing about some of the crazy off the wall characters that are played at WotC, I mean come on you work at a place that encourages geekiness, bring on the concepts


----------



## Green Knight (May 4, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> My statements are always written at face value. If anyone thinks there's room for misinterpretation or that my answers are ever unclear feel free to ask me to expound. I'll answer as best I can.




 So was there ever a "poison pill" provision, or was the person who spoke to Clark misinformed or wrong? 



> This is the part that baffles me: no one has asked me to follow up on the last question. No one wants to know about my 4e character? Come on - I'm dying to tell you all about her!




Ok, ok, ok, tell us about your character.


----------



## Jack99 (May 4, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> My statements are always written at face value. If anyone thinks there's room for misinterpretation or that my answers are ever unclear feel free to ask me to expound. I'll answer as best I can.
> 
> This is the part that baffles me: no one has asked me to follow up on the last question. No one wants to know about my 4e character? Come on - I'm dying to tell you all about her!




I didn't ask simply because I assumed you had said all you could. With that out of the way, I am curious. Has the GSL changed in any way the last two weeks. And when I use the word change, I do mean changes which aren't merely punctuation or change a word for one that is synonymous.

Oh, and I want to hear about your character. A class/race/feats and powers list would be nice


----------



## Wolfspider (May 4, 2008)

I am overall very pleased with the way things have developed regarding the GSL.  It could have been much, much more restrictive.  I'm glad WotC decided to ease these restrictions. 

It is a bummer that Sinister Adventures, one of my new favorite publishers, will seemingly have its ambitious plans dampened by the GSL, though. 

EDIT:  And Kobold Quarterly, of course.


----------



## Mark (May 4, 2008)

The FAQ means little without the license.  If the license says one thing and the FAQ another, the license is what will be legally binding.  I understand that a "license FAQ" is meant to give insight into how WotC would like a license to be interpreted, but if the license turns out to be less generous or contradictory to what is in the FAQ, it is the license that will be binding.  I will continue to wait for the official license to make any decisions regarding the license.


----------



## Piratecat (May 4, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> This is the part that baffles me: no one has asked me to follow up on the last question. No one wants to know about my 4e character? Come on - I'm dying to tell you all about her!



I will be mightily amused if I have to ask you not to hijack the thread. Start a new one!


----------



## lurkinglidda (May 5, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> So was there ever a "poison pill" provision, or was the person who spoke to Clark misinformed or wrong?



It's meant to be a conversion clause, not a poison pill. In fact, I almost lost my breakfast when I saw the misinterpretation and how it mutated and spread. 

We had a few pow-wows over the past two weeks to make sure we all had the same understanding of the clause. Turns out we didn't need to change a single word of the license.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 5, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> Turns out we didn't need to change a single word of the license.




Let's see if this bald-faced statement will cause the semantic song-and-dance people to abandon their "Linae is being deceptive by the way she said 'same doc'" nonsense and man up to being wrong.


----------



## Voadam (May 5, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> It's meant to be a conversion clause, not a poison pill. In fact, I almost lost my breakfast when I saw the misinterpretation and how it mutated and spread.
> 
> We had a few pow-wows over the past two weeks to make sure we all had the same understanding of the clause. Turns out we didn't need to change a single word of the license.




Does the conversion clause apply to pdf sales of old products?

Say for instance Necromancer makes its 4e Tome of Horrors as planned. Do they contractually have to stop offering their 3e tome of horrors books (and whatever else counts as the same product line) as pdfs?

If Goodman Games makes a 4e Dungeon Crawl Classic do they have to pull their 50+ DCC OGL line of pdfs from rpgnow?


----------



## Voadam (May 5, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> My statements are always written at face value. If anyone thinks there's room for misinterpretation or that my answers are ever unclear feel free to ask me to expound. I'll answer as best I can.




From http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4171443&postcount=17



			
				 Lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> I might end up saying this a lot over the next few days/weeks/months: We are absolutely confident in 4E - to the point that we are only producing 4e products ourselves from here on out.




I just want to verify, WotC does not plan to discontinue selling pdfs of old edition D&D products does it? I buy a couple most every month. There are still literally hundreds I'm interested in eventually picking up that I have not gotten yet.


----------



## Wolfspider (May 5, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I just want to verify, WotC does not plan to discontinue selling pdfs of old edition D&D products does it? I buy a couple most every month. There are still literally hundreds I'm interested in eventually picking up that I have not gotten yet.




I am also in the process of completing my pdf collection.  I would hate to be unable to pick up the books that I lack....


----------



## AZRogue (May 5, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> It's meant to be a conversion clause, not a poison pill. In fact, I almost lost my breakfast when I saw the misinterpretation and how it mutated and spread.
> 
> We had a few pow-wows over the past two weeks to make sure we all had the same understanding of the clause. Turns out we didn't need to change a single word of the license.




Gaming. It's serious business. 

I just wanted to say thanks again for the clarification on the GSL. While it may not be as open as before and not as open as some (including me) would like, it is more than enough for me to get the products I want, so for that I am very grateful. The effort to continue third party publishing as a means to enrich our DnD games is much appreciated.


----------



## Voadam (May 5, 2008)

Linae, along those same lines, any word on the GSL termination clauses? The GSL has been said to be revocable.

3e d20 products the plan as I understand it is to update the d20 license to terminate it and allow them to be sold as OGL products if they cover up the d20 logo. OGL products are independent of WotC control absent their owners agreeing to such control such as through the GSL's conversion clause.

However if the GSL is revoked what happens to those 4e products made under the license? There is no OGL for them to be turned to if they cover up the new d20 license.

As a consumer I'm interested in the availability of products even after new editions are created.


----------



## Piratecat (May 5, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Does the conversion clause apply to pdf sales of old products?
> 
> Say for instance Necromancer makes its 4e Tome of Horrors as planned. Do they contractually have to stop offering their 3e tome of horrors books (and whatever else counts as the same product line) as pdfs?
> 
> If Goodman Games makes a 4e Dungeon Crawl Classic do they have to pull their 50+ DCC OGL line of pdfs from rpgnow?



My understanding is that it absolutely does. So Necromancer can't offer 3e ToH pdfs if they have a 4e ToH, and Goodman would have to make a 4e line of modules that aren't in the DCC line.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I just want to verify, WotC does not plan to discontinue selling pdfs of old edition D&D products does it? I buy a couple most every month.



Notice she said they would only be "producing" 4e products from now on. Those old products have already been produced.


----------



## Jack99 (May 5, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> It's meant to be a conversion clause, not a poison pill. In fact, I almost lost my breakfast when I saw the misinterpretation and how it mutated and spread.
> 
> We had a few pow-wows over the past two weeks to make sure we all had the same understanding of the clause. Turns out we didn't need to change a single word of the license.




Thanks for the confirmation. Once again, I really hope you didn't take my comment as an attack on your integrity and truthfulness, but merely as an observation on how your .doc comment could be interpreted. 

Cheers


----------



## Orcus (May 5, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Very nicely done, WotC. The issue I was most concerned about--that a company would have to choose one system only--has been addressed. I have to say that I'm very pleased. I bet Clark's happy, too.




I'm thrilled.   

Clark


----------



## Orcus (May 5, 2008)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> If the license is the same as two weeks ago, why did they need all this time to answer the questions?
> 
> Also, someone told Clark Peterson that the restriction was on a per company basis... personally I think that things changed in the last two weeks. Since, IMO, things changed for the better, I'm glad for it.




I agree, and that is correct. I was told that. Word for word. So, yes, perhaps the document is the same, but I dont think everyone at Wizards was on the same page on what the document meant. It appears that has now all been straightened out, and straightened out in a way that is what I was hoping for. Luckily our very public discussion motivated Wizards to clear things up, which is good. Things did change these last two weeks, even if the document didnt. 

So lets please stop pointing fingers. The clarification has been given and it is wonderful. Dont try to suggest Linae is dodging your questions, she isnt. She is about as straight up and nice as you could possible meet. She is awesome. There is no treachery here. 

Scott and Linae deserve our thanks for getting this handled. They did an amazing job. 

Thanks Scott, thanks Linae and thanks Wizards!

Clark


----------



## Orcus (May 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Clark wasn't told this directly. IIRC, there was something he heard that sounded like this could be the case, and the reasoning for it was plausible enough to ask about it.




Dont speak for me, please. 

Yes, I was told this directly. I asked directly if it was a product by product or company by company choice and I was told directly that it was company by company. 

That is what started my concern and that is what led to this discussion. And I am glad we had that discussion. And I am glad we had it publicly. 

What appears to be the case is that there were differing internal understandings of what that meant. And I think the answer we have gotten is reasonable and acceptable and is likely what the person who told me that meant in the first place. But I asked directly and I was told directly. 

Clark


----------



## Orcus (May 5, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Yeah, if I've taken anything from this incident it's that different departments in WotC don't have completely synchronized communication. I'm glad that for whatever reason Orcus's understanding didn't make it into the final GSL. I suspect that these last few weeks were used by the lawyers to tweak the license a little. We'll probably never know how much, but I'd like to say thank you to everyone at Wizards who worked to get a less restrictive clause in.




I agree.

Thanks to everyone at Wizards. I'm glad we were able to discuss all of this. I really, really think that Scott and Linae listened to all of us. They understand the issues that face the third party publishers and they understand our value to D&D. And it really, really feels good to be a part of this process and to be valued and to have input. You have to give a ton of credit to Wizards (Scott and Linae in particular) for that. Without those two, this process would have been alot different, of that I am convinced.

Clark


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> Dont speak for me, please.



Well, the IIRC should have put earlier, and I clearly did not remember correctly. 

So, do we now have to demand the head of the person that mis-informed you, or would it be unfair to do so, since legalese is a difficult language?


Spoiler



Who knows, it might hit someone I'd prefer to continue working for WotC? What if it was Mearls? Or The Rouse himself?


.
.
.

Nah, we're fans, not some reasonable guys! I demand his head. On a silver plate. And Orcus should animate his corpse!


----------



## Piratecat (May 5, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I agree, and that is correct. I was told that. Word for word. So, yes, perhaps the document is the same, but I dont think everyone at Wizards was on the same page on what the document meant. It appears that has now all been straightened out, and straightened out in a way that is what I was hoping for. Luckily our very public discussion motivated Wizards to clear things up, which is good. Things did change these last two weeks, even if the document didnt.
> 
> So lets please stop pointing fingers. The clarification has been given and it is wonderful. Dont try to suggest Linae is dodging your questions, she isnt. She is about as straight up and nice as you could possible meet. She is awesome. There is no treachery here.
> 
> Scott and Linae deserve our thanks for getting this handled. They did an amazing job.



Well said, Clark. I have a warm fuzzy feeling about the next six years of D&D that wasn't there before. This makes me very, very happy.


----------



## phloog (May 5, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Well said, Clark. I have a warm fuzzy feeling about the next six years of D&D that wasn't there before. This makes me very, very happy.




I wish I could share your feelings.  

For me the concern stems from the facts that:

1) there WERE interpretation issues within WOTC, and
2) the document apparently did NOT change a bit in the recent weeks, and
3) the document is revocable, and
4) WOTC is clearly trying to move away from Open (insert your definition here) gaming

My concern is that with so many fingers in the pie, there is technically NOTHING preventing WOTC from issuing a GSL1.1 that provides further 'clarity', and immediately revokes the current GSL.    The 1.1 version would be so close as to allow them to pitch it as no big deal, but further restricting companies in any way they chose.

Someone at WOTC, likely MANY someones, wanted it to be company-by-company...others read it differently.   Clark talked to one of the company-level contingent.

The uproar on the web caused the 'product line' interpretation to win out, but apparently the document can be read to be either company-level or product level.

That's frightening.  

Luckily, since their FAQ says one thing, they will likely never be able to successfully argue for company-level in court under the CURRENT GSL, but it's apparently the most trivial move in the world to add a line 'clarifying' the restrictions as company-level.  

As soon as some threshold number of gamers start using 4E, they can drop in the poison pill.

I'm not saying they're evil or anything, but if I was a publisher I'd be extremely worried about jumping in on this.  "Here's the new GSL, the old one is dead...but of course you can continue to publish your popular GSL products, if only you would just drop all support for OGL stuff" 

They appear to be trying a lot of new business models based on established successed (micro-transactions for miniatures, Insider as a stream of consumer 'touchpoints', a monthly revenue stream through DDI)...this is great in some ways, but I think it implies that your six-years-out  optimism may be unfounded - - if they continue to adapt new models from existing businesses, a six-year update cadence is a bit 'old school'


----------



## Green Knight (May 5, 2008)

> Someone at WOTC, likely MANY someones, wanted it to be company-by-company...others read it differently. Clark talked to one of the company-level contingent.
> 
> The uproar on the web caused the 'product line' interpretation to win out, but apparently the document can be read to be either company-level or product level.
> 
> That's frightening.




No it's not. You're just blowing it up to be larger then it actually is. 

One person made a _mistake_ in saying it was company by company. That's it. Is it so incomprehensible that someone got it wrong? Just look at how many people disagree over rules in game books. It isn't altogether inconceivable that someone misread or misheard something about the GSL and reported it incorrectly to Clark. There's nothing "frightening" about that. It's just simple human error. And for people to take what was just an honest mistake and blow it up into something nefarious is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## phloog (May 5, 2008)

I don't know that I am (and of course, neither do you):

The GSL is a legal document.  I'm a fairly reasonable person, and if I was working for WOTC and was asked by someone if a clause was p-level or c-level, I would absolutely NOT say that it was company level unless there was the perception by one or more others that it was.  It's big enough, and is a legal document, so I'm not going to answer unless I 'know' - meaning my answer is shared by people.

The fact that there wasn't an announcement the next HOUR, regardless of travel schedules and whatnot, means that there WAS a discussion....

I'm not suggesting that the statement (or what you are teeming as a simple misstatement) was nefarious - - I am CERTAIN (because of my faith in people) that the statement was made honestly based on what they believed.

I'm suggesting that the structure of a document that is easily revokable, and that has already apparently led to interpretation differences at WOTC, can easily lead to situations that are bad for 3pp.


----------



## Green Knight (May 5, 2008)

phloog said:
			
		

> I don't know that I am (and of course, neither do you):
> 
> The GSL is a legal document.  I'm a fairly reasonable person, and if I was working for WOTC and was asked by someone if a clause was p-level or c-level, I would absolutely NOT say that it was company level unless there was the perception by one or more others that it was. It's big enough, and is a legal document, so I'm not going to answer unless I 'know' - meaning my answer is shared by people.




Except that Linae said the following: "We had a few pow-wows over the past two weeks to make sure we all had the same understanding of the clause. Turns out we didn't need to change a single word of the license." 

They checked it over to make sure it didn't contain anything that can be misconstrued as to read that way, and seeing as how nothing was changed, apparently it can't. The person who reported that to Clark just got it flat out wrong. 



> The fact that there wasn't an announcement the next HOUR, regardless of travel schedules and whatnot, means that there WAS a discussion....




Because they were taking the time out to make sure the GSL said exactly what they meant it to say, and that it can't actually be misconstrued to read another way. 

After all this, I feel really sorry for the poor guy who Clark talked to. The guy made a mistake, and now his employers are being villified for his miscommunication. Poor guy's probably being taken to the woodshed as we speak.  



> I'm suggesting that the structure of a document that is easily revokable, and that has already apparently led to interpretation differences at WOTC, can easily lead to situations that are bad for 3pp.




What's ridiculous is now you're accusing them of planning to drop in the poison pill in the future. Honestly, it's amazing. WotC apparently can't do anything right no matter what. The GSL is delayed, so WotC must be planning on killing open gaming! The GSL is released, but wait, there's a poison pill which WotC's trying to use to kill the OGL with! There's no poison pill and there never was, but hold on, that doesn't mean that WotC won't throw one in in the future! Doesn't matter what the situation is, as the argument can always be adjusted to support the "WotC is Evil" meme.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 5, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> It's meant to be a conversion clause, not a poison pill. In fact, I almost lost my breakfast when I saw the misinterpretation and how it mutated and spread.
> 
> We had a few pow-wows over the past two weeks to make sure we all had the same understanding of the clause. Turns out we didn't need to change a single word of the license.




Future misinterpretations would be much fewer if the GSL was just released to everyone at the same time. The logic that the publishers need to see it early has lost almost all of its credibility with the delays pushing things back to one month or less head start. Why not just release it to everyone at this point (or whenever you do release it to the publishers) so that everyone can discuss it from fact instead of rampant speculation and false rumors (that so far have just resulted in bad PR).


----------



## phloog (May 5, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> What's ridiculous is now you're accusing them of planning to drop in the poison pill in the future. Honestly, it's amazing. WotC apparently can't do anything right no matter what. The GSL is delayed, so WotC must be planning on killing open gaming! The GSL is released, but wait, there's a poison pill which WotC's trying to use to kill the OGL with! There's no poison pill and there never was, but hold on, that doesn't mean that WotC won't throw one in in the future! Doesn't matter what the situation is, as the argument can always be adjusted to support the "WotC is Evil" meme.




Actually, you're misinterpreting what I said.  I won't call you 'ridiculous' for it, but what I used were phrases like 'CAN easily lead to' and 'CAN drop in' (caps new).  I don't believe that I am 'accusing them of planning to drop in the poison pill' - - I believe I am correctly stating that it would be a trivially easy (from a legal standpoint) move to do this.  

I understand that you feel the need to defend WOTC, but I'm simply not saying the things you are claiming about evil plots and schemes.

What is frightening to me is that a company that already harmed a business I liked (Paizo) is producing a license that can be easily revoked.  

But if history is to be ignored to support your argument then I guess that's about it.  

They didn't do that to Paizo because they are EEEvil - they did it because it was in line with what they wanted as a business - - I'm merely suggesting that if it turns out that adjusting the GSL ends up being something their business wants, they won't hesitate to do it, and in fact the change from open to this model just makes that easier...thus the need for 3pps to still have a bit of worry.  With OGL, if they realize there's a need to change the business, they can't get rid of the Open license.

3pps should fear not because WOTC is out to get them or because they are in league with the devil - which seems to be what you think I'm saying.

3pps should fear because the instant a key person at WOTC believes it is worth a $ 1.38 more to kill the GSL than to leave it alone, they will kill it - it's just good business for them - - I just would worry if I was thinking of tying MY business to it.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that there were internal discussion at WOTC - - I do think it's interesting that everyone who believes that there was an internal disagreement is 'ridiculous' and acting with no data, but people can make assumptions of great altruism and nobility on the part of a corporation with just as little actual data.  

They had to have pow wows to align on interpretation, and someone told an outside party that it was company-level. 

If there truly was NOTHING that could cause it to be misconstrued that way, nothing at all, then maybe they need to fire the guy who is so incredibly moronic as to take a document that was absolutely crystal clear and botch it so badly, creating this PR nightmare - - either it was open to interpretation and not as clear as you say, or this person is unfit to handle information at a large company.


----------



## Piratecat (May 5, 2008)

Phloog, thanks for being reasonable and polite even when disagreeing with someone. Very cool.


----------



## Lalato (May 5, 2008)

The "PR nightmare" is largely in the heads of those that want to be offended about open gaming going away... which is a small, tiny, infinitesimal minority of the general D&D playing public.

For the vast majority of D&D players, there is no "PR Nightmare".  I'm not saying that you're not allowed to feel that way.  Just saying that most folks probably don't agree with you.

Based on your comments, it sounds like you think WotC would sell souls to the devil if it meant a profit of $1.38.  Oh wait...  you didn't actually say that.  Am I extrapolating something from your statements that has no basis in reality?  Oops.  

--sam


----------



## phloog (May 5, 2008)

Thanks for the winkie at the end.

It's actually a big concern of mine, but probably journeying too far off the main thread....my big concern is based on a definition of business ethics given to me by a business professor that explained those ethics as rules for behavior that are 'ethical' within the norms of an industry.

I'm a bit of an absolutist, and it's always bothered me that this definition (which I've seen in various forms since as I've worked in business) makes it clear that as long as enough of the competition is doing it, it's ethical.  

I see corporations as neither good nor evil, but blinded - - or perhaps victims of tunnel vision - the tunnel being shareholder value.  As long as the shareholder is rewarded, the activity is valid.  

So when I say $1.38, I'm serious - - of course most companies will include in that calculation lost customers, bad PR, etc...but when all is said and done, not only will they do something that I might find horrible to net an extra $1.38, but they are 'ethically' BOUND to do so - it is their promise to the shareholder.

In terms of 'PR Nightmare', you might well be right...but it seemed like that small number of people was significant - not necessarily in terms of count, but in terms of share of voice/mind.  If only ten people are concerned or annoyed, but they include the heads of major third party publishers, that could be a 'nightmare'....but I get the difference between a real widespread perception and a 'tempest in a browser'.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2008)

phloog said:
			
		

> The fact that there wasn't an announcement the next HOUR, regardless of travel schedules and whatnot, means that there WAS a discussion....



Yes, Linae _told_ us there were discussions. What you don't know is what those discussions were _about_, exactly. You seem to be assuming the worst ('the fact they did this _means_ that') when they could have simply been discussing: "okay, we thought the GSL was clear on this, but let's go over it again to see if it could legitimately be misinterpreted the way they are doing it on the internets".

I understand that you are not arguing WotC are evil, or anything of the sort. But you seem to be assuming the worst.


----------



## GVDammerung (May 5, 2008)

phloog said:
			
		

> 3pps should fear because the instant a key person at WOTC believes it is worth a $ 1.38 more to kill the GSL than to leave it alone, they will kill it - it's just good business for them - - I just would worry if I was thinking of tying MY business to it.






			
				phloog said:
			
		

> As long as the shareholder is rewarded, the activity is valid.




While the calculus can vary, this is exactly correct, IMO.  The GSL could be used as a sort of "bait and switch" to get companies away from 3x, then close out the 4e GSL and offer nothing to replace it.  3pps would then have to activate the "way back machine," retool for 3x and try to convince their customers that this is a good thing, not likely and not a pleasant prospect.  Alternatively, 3pps could try to launch their own systems, based on the OGL or otherwise; again, this would be an uphill move more likely than not.

If one does not care much about open gaming, never found 3pp support for 3x D&D that valuable or defines D&D as the logo, etc., the GSL should be of little concern.  For everyone else, the GSL should be by degrees problematic as it has the potential to put the opening gaming genie substantially back in the bottle from a practical stand point to the detriment of any 3pp reliant upon the GSL for their business.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2008)

phloog said:
			
		

> I'm a bit of an absolutist



LOL. One would think you're either an absolutist, or you're not. If you're only a bit of an absolutist, you're not an absolutist.


----------



## Jer (May 5, 2008)

phloog said:
			
		

> 3) the document is revocable, and
> 4) WOTC is clearly trying to move away from Open (insert your definition here) gaming




Personally, I think 3 & 4 are going to bite Wizards in the end more than they (or anyone else around here) thinks that they are.  Some folks seem to be looking at this as Wizards trying to "crush" the open game idea - that's frankly impossible.  It can't happen - it's too late.  They can't put the genie back into the bottle and, what's more, when Ryan Dancey proposed the whole thing 10 years ago he KNEW that they'd never be able to put it back into the bottle.  If they really think they can do it they're kidding themselves.

However - by making the GSL revocable what they ARE going to end up doing is fracturing the market far more than it currently is.  There is a strong incentive for NOT switching your game line over to the new edition - because once you do you're at the mercy of Wizards decisions on edition releases.  If you're making D&D adventures and campaign settings this is probably fine for the next five or so years - but I'd hate to have to make the call on whether or not to put out a new campaign setting when we start getting into "new edition" speculation territory, which will be anytime after the first five or so years unless Wizards specifically decides to share its new edition plans with the 3rd party publishers, and I tend to doubt that that will be coming on the horizon anytime soon.

And meanwhile there is now zero incentive to put your new game out using 4e mechanics.  Some really good non-D&D games were spun off from 3e - Spycraft and Mutants and Masterminds both immediately come to mind.  Regardless of what the d20 GSL looks like if it is revocable there is zero incentive for anyone to publish a new game with those mechanics - better to come up with your own mechanics so that you don't have to worry about revocation.  Even sticking with OGL 3e mechanics loses its strong incentive - the reason to do that in the past was to maintain a certain level of compatibility with the current edition of D&D to draw on that pool of potential buyers.  You may be able to do that to some extent by sticking with 3e OGL mechanics (the basic roll a d20 and add a number mechanic is still there, after all), but the level of compatibility is going to be less than it used to be, making the incentive much, much weaker than it is now.

And this is where Wizards is making, IMO, an error.  Those games weren't stealing customers from Wizards - they were keeping customers playing D&D-like games.  If your sessions are bouncing between d20-based games you're going to move back into regular D&D play pretty easily once the inevitable thirst for dungeon crawling rears its head again.  If you've moved off to play a modern game in GURPS or Savage Worlds or some non-d20 system, you start to think about how you might do your fantasy game in those systems instead and now Wizards loses some customers for the longer term.  This is what happened in the 90s when TSR was busily non-innovating and threatening to sue the pants off any fan website posting any D&D material - many of us started moving our fantasy campaigns to different systems because we were playing those systems more than we were D&D.

And sure, Mutants and Masterminds and Spycraft and other d20-based game systems will probably stay out there, but the less they are like the current edition of D&D the less "pull" they have on players to come back to D&D.  Heck they might even encourage players to pull out their 3.5 edition books when they want a dungeon crawl instead of going 4e.

So personally that's where I think the error is - and who it's going to hurt the most.  Wizards is going to get bit by this more than anyone else is because Wizards CAN'T fulfill all of the gaming needs of all players at all times.  Under the old licensing scheme they could at least keep those players in a "D&D orbit" when they decided to shelve their D&D games and play something else.  With this one they're not going to have that.  Which ultimately may be good for innovation in the market for game mechanics, but is probably not the intent that Wizards has by "closing up" their license.  Meanwhile I think most of the 3rd party companies will do fine with this licensing schema - provided they recognize that putting all of their eggs into the 4e basket probably isn't the best move unless they JUST want to be a 3rd party D&D publisher.  Nothing wrong with that - there's obviously a market for it - but if you want to put out your own game lines you're going to want to keep your games as far from the 4e GSL as possible, I would think.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2008)

Jer said:
			
		

> And meanwhile there is now zero incentive to put your new game out using 4e mechanics.



Zero incentive? Being able to advertise compatibility with the industry's leading game is no incentive at all? People didn't need the d20STL to publish new games in the past, and yet they used it anyway, because of the perceived benefit.

I understand the point you're trying to make. And while the revocability of the GSL reduces the incentive to use it (compared to a hypothetical GSL with no such feature), to claim the incentive is zero is hyperbole.


----------



## Jack99 (May 5, 2008)

nm. Missed a crucial line.


----------



## Orcus (May 5, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> No it's not. You're just blowing it up to be larger then it actually is.
> 
> One person made a _mistake_ in saying it was company by company. That's it. Is it so incomprehensible that someone got it wrong? Just look at how many people disagree over rules in game books. It isn't altogether inconceivable that someone misread or misheard something about the GSL and reported it incorrectly to Clark. There's nothing "frightening" about that. It's just simple human error. And for people to take what was just an honest mistake and blow it up into something nefarious is absolutely ridiculous.




I dont think either your position or the one you are responding to is correct. From my perspective (and this is just my perspective), the person who made the mistake (or misspoke or I misunderstood or whatever, or maybe was correct and that view has now been changed) was not just one person. It seems clear there was a (small) camp at Wizards that shared that interpretation. But it is not this evil "were out to kill open gaming" that the poster you were responding to suggests, either. Its somewhere in the middle of that. Are there camps at Wizards that are anti-open gaming? Yes, I believe there are. Are there camps that are very pro open gaming? Yes, that is obvious and that voice is still carrying the day. Frankly, it would be crazy to believe that there wouldnt be different points of view on an issue as big as this. 

I do agree with you that there is nothing nefarious going on at Wizards. Far from it, in fact. 

For goodness sake, we're about to have a public license to use D&D content and the name and some version of the logo--for free. THAT didnt even happen back in the golden days of gaming. Is it the OGL? No. But in some ways it is better. This is still a very very significant move and one that should be applauded.


----------



## Lacyon (May 5, 2008)

Jer said:
			
		

> However - by making the GSL revocable what they ARE going to end up doing is fracturing the market far more than it currently is.  There is a strong incentive for NOT switching your game line over to the new edition - because once you do you're at the mercy of Wizards decisions on edition releases.  If you're making D&D adventures and campaign settings this is probably fine for the next five or so years - but I'd hate to have to make the call on whether or not to put out a new campaign setting when we start getting into "new edition" speculation territory, which will be anytime after the first five or so years unless Wizards specifically decides to share its new edition plans with the 3rd party publishers, and I tend to doubt that that will be coming on the horizon anytime soon.




Getting to republish the same campaign setting 4 or 5 times and sell it again to the same people with new mechanics behind it (all while another company is taking the heat for being the money-grabbing edition whores) is the opposite of a disincentive.

EDIT - I think I misunderstood. If you're talking about separate games like M&M, my comments may not apply.


----------



## Orcus (May 5, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> After all this, I feel really sorry for the poor guy who Clark talked to. The guy made a mistake, and now his employers are being villified for his miscommunication. Poor guy's probably being taken to the woodshed as we speak.




I doubt "that person" is getting into any trouble 

Clark


----------



## tomBitonti (May 5, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> My understanding is that it absolutely does. So Necromancer can't offer 3e ToH pdfs if they have a 4e ToH, and Goodman would have to make a 4e line of modules that aren't in the DCC line.




Hi,

I'm wondering about that.  My (laymans) understanding of product line doesn't seem to match the technical definition that is relevant for the license.

The ToH may be a special case, and not a good example, because wasn't there a special license that was created specifically for ToH?

Setting that aside, if ToH were to be split into product identity, which is wholly owned by Necromancer and presumably free of entangling restrictions, and the 3/3.5E open content, and then the product identity alone were put into a 4E product, with Necromancer creating a new "4E" product line and placing the new product in this "4E" product line, will that satisfy the conditions of the new GSL?  That may seem to be avoiding the intent of the restrictions contained by the GSL, but I don't think that matters as much as the actual technical / legal requirements of the GSL.


----------



## Jer (May 5, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Zero incentive? Being able to advertise compatibility with the industry's leading game is no incentive at all? People didn't need the d20STL to publish new games in the past, and yet they used it anyway, because of the perceived benefit.




You're right - I misspoke.  Not zero incentive, there's actually a negative incentive to put out a new game with the d20 GSL IF it includes a revocation clause.  Your game falls to the mercy of Wizards publishing calendar as well as to the whim of whether the next edition will have a similar GSL or not.  With the OGL/d20STL you have the option of continuing your game on without the d20 trademark.  If the d20 GSL has a revocation clause you'd be a fool to put out a new game line under it, unless you plan your game's lifespan to be less than 4e D&D's lifespan.  D&D supplements are a completely different story - in fact the new D&D GSL looks like you'll actually be able to use the D&D brand.  Which is a good thing for 3rd party publishers.  But putting out a new "Mutants & Masterminds" or Spycraft when another company has the revocation clause on the mechanics?  Silly.  Even if you can "advertise compatibility" with D&D.



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I understand the point you're trying to make. And while the revocability of the GSL reduces the incentive to use it (compared to a hypothetical GSL with no such feature), to claim the incentive is zero is hyperbole.




Not compared to a "hypothetical GSL" at all - compared to the actual d20 STL and OGL that have been in effect for the last 8 years.  The OGL and d20 STL gave publishers strong incentive to take the d20 mechanics and play with them for their own game lines.  You got the benefit of having something compatible with D&D AND you didn't have to give up your control over your publishing schedule.  That was a strong incentive to put your game out using OGL mechanics.  If the new d20 GSL is revocable like the D&D GSL is (and if it isn't that changes things), then the incentive for putting out new games using it is not only going to be severely reduced, you actually have a very strong incentive NOT to do it.

Again, I'm speaking specifically about new games, not 3rd party D&D supplements.  For those the benefit is all about putting out D&D compatible products, and the benefit of having a non-revocable license is negligible - if you're in the business of putting out D&D supplements you probably want to keep with the current version of D&D anyway, and if they "force" you to upgrade to the next edition each time they're probably only "forcing" you to do something you would do anyway.  If you've invested heavily into your own new game separate from the D&D brand, however, the cost of a revoked license is going to be much more of a burden.

(My hope is that the D&D GSL will be revocable while the d20 GSL will not - honestly that would be the best route for Wizards to take IMO as it would give them the most control over the 3rd party products for their own D&D brand while simultaneously allowing publishers the freedom to do their own thing with the d20 system as a whole.  Which, as I said, keeps players in the "D&D orbit" instead of pushing them out to new systems and other publishers.  I doubt that this will be the case, but I do think that it would be the best of both worlds for Wizards.)


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2008)

Jer said:
			
		

> If the new d20 GSL is revocable like the D&D GSL is (and if it isn't that changes things), then the incentive for putting out new games using it is not only going to be severely reduced, you actually have a very strong incentive NOT to do it.



True, but then you have to weigh this disincentive against the incentive that comes with the GSL (being able to use a D&D logo, etc). If you believe the positives outweigh the negatives, then it makes sense to use the GSL.

And you have to remember that the positives are immediate and real, while the negative you mention (revocation) is only a possibility, not guaranteed to happen.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2008)

Jer said:
			
		

> Not compared to a "hypothetical GSL" at all - compared to the actual d20 STL and OGL that have been in effect for the last 8 years.



The d20STL is being revoked, so it doesn't enter into the discussion for future products. And the OGL does not allow for direct compatibility language, or the use of a recognizable logo, so it does not have the same benefits as the GSL. So you have to weigh these benefits that the OGL cannot give you against the potential negatives of the more-restrictive GSL.


----------



## Green Knight (May 5, 2008)

> For goodness sake, we're about to have a public license to use D&D content and the name and some version of the logo--for free. THAT didnt even happen back in the golden days of gaming. Is it the OGL? No. But in some ways it is better. This is still a very very significant move and one that should be applauded.




Exactly. Yet it seems like there're people who're intent on casting every single bit of news in the most negative light possible. I'm sure there are people at WotC who would've preferred there be no GSL, but you'd think that the complete absence of a "poison pill" clause would make people happy. And yet here and elsewhere we've got people dreaming up scenarios in which WotC may yet institute it. 



> I doubt "that person" is getting into any trouble




Boy, I hope not.  I also don't care for calls by some posters, here and elsewhere, that the guy should be fired. He didn't accidentally slip rat poison into food that got served to preschoolers. He didn't leave a live power line unattended in the middle of a playground. He made a mistake on a gaming license which, as far as I know, didn't cost anybody any money, and did nothing except get a bunch of people on the intranets up in arms. Firing the guy, or calling for his firing, seems to me like a pretty big overreaction.


----------



## Jer (May 5, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> True, but then you have to weigh this disincentive against the incentive that comes with the GSL (being able to use a D&D logo, etc). If you believe the positives outweigh the negatives, then it makes sense to use the GSL.




The D&D GSL lets you use the D&D logo.  Since they're putting out two different versions of the license, my understanding was that the D&D GSL lets you use the D&D logo while the d20 GSL will let you use the d20 logo.  In fact, I thought there was a post from someone (Rouse? Linnae?) that indicated this very difference a few weeks ago, but I can't find it now, so I'm willing to believe I was wrong.  I don't see why you'd need two different licenses if that were the case, but the minds of corporate lawyers are often opaque in my experience .  

I suppose that if you can put a D&D logo onto your game that might be an incentive.  I can definitely see it as an incentive if you're putting out a campaign setting or a set of adventures for D&D, but if you're putting out a new sci-fi game, or a new modern horror game, I'm not sure it's THAT much of an incentive.  (And if the d20 GSL only lets you put a "d20 logo" on your product I'm not sure that counts as an incentive at all - the d20 logo isn't THAT big of a draw these days as far as I can tell.  That may change with the new system, but it's not something that's really a big incentive today.)



> And you have to remember that the positives are immediate and real, while the negative you mention (revocation) is only a possibility, not guaranteed to happen.




If I were putting out a new game line, I'd pretty much presume that Wizards was going to revoke the license at the next edition upgrade.  Without some kind of contractual agreement from them, if there's a revocation clause in the mix that's the safest bet to make and the most responsible assumption to make for long term planning.  Especially given this part of the Q&A posted on the front page:



			
				Mike Lescault Q&A said:
			
		

> Q) Is the GSL a perpetual license, or is it revocable by WotC for reasons other than violation?
> 
> A. The 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.




Now again, if this isn't the same for the d20 GSL then that puts a new spin on things.  In fact if the only reason there's a revocation clause in the D&D GSL is to prevent people from putting the D&D logo on 4e products after 5e is released down the road then there'd be no reason to build it into the d20 GSL and 3rd party publishers could merrily continue to do what they've been doing with the OGL 3e mechanics.  But if the d20 GSL is similar in spirit to the D&D GSL then I don't see it being adopted nearly as much as the 3e OGL was for new games.  In fact I would think that successful game companies would avoid tying any long-term, non-D&D product plans to that kind of license (though again, it looks to be a great license for folks putting out D&D supplements -- better in some ways than the d20STL/OGL might have been).  And I really do think THAT will impact Wizards more negatively than anyone might think at first blush.


(Edited because I didn't see this before


			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> The d20STL is being revoked, so it doesn't enter into the discussion for future products. And the OGL does not allow for direct compatibility language, or the use of a recognizable logo, so it does not have the same benefits as the GSL. So you have to weigh these benefits that the OGL cannot give you against the potential negatives of the more-restrictive GSL.




No, this isn't what I'm getting at.  I'm talking about the benefit that Wizards _received_ from the d20STL/OGL combination that they're not going to get from the new GSL given the facts that we know about it so far.  I'm not talking about future support or future usage or companies staying under the OGL instead of going with the new GSL, I'm talking about a benefit that Wizards actually GOT over the last 8 years from having the d20STL/OGL in the form that they had it that the new license format does NOT give them.

Under the old license a company could spin the mechanics off into their own game.  They could create a Spycraft or a Mutants and Masterminds or a True20 or whatever and maintain their own control over that gameline.  The cancelling of the d20 STL doesn't affect this because by this point these game lines are their own things.  But those games are still using 3e mechanics, which means that Wizards received the benefit of keeping those players in a D&D orbit.  The new license doesn't seem to have a strong incentive for publishers to continue to do that.  Which means that there is more of an incentive to come up with their own mechanics or to keep using modified OGL mechanics.  Which is fine for those publishers but it moves players of those games one step out of that "D&D orbit" which in the long run is bad for Wizards.  Not hugely bad, really, but enough that it creates more of a fractured market that didn't exist before.

What I'm saying is that, if the d20 GSL is like the D&D GSL, we're not going to see NEW games come out of it.  We're going to mainly see supplements for Wizards games.  Which may be exactly what Wizards intends but its going to fracture the market in ways that the d20STL/OGL licenses were specifically crafted to avoid.  And it will be in a way that harms Wizards more than the other publishers.  (Not much harm, mind you, but it will probably make the market look more like it did in the 90s than it has for the last 8 years in the long term).


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2008)

Jer said:
			
		

> If I were putting out a new game line, I'd pretty much presume that Wizards was going to revoke the license at the next edition upgrade.  Without some kind of contractual agreement from them, if there's a revocation clause in the mix that's the safest bet to make and the most responsible assumption to make for long term planning.



Why? Why wouldn't you assign some probability to it and go from there? Assuming the probability is 100% will make your decisions very conservative, and maybe that's the way you want to go. But you seem to be advocating giving up a large chance of a more successful product because of a small chance of something out of your control happening.

And even if you assume the GSL will be revoked at the next edition change, doesn't that give you several good years (at least) to benefit from the GSL before it's revoked?

I guess it's my training in financial decision-making talking here, but I just can't see how you take one potential risk that exists and decide that it trumps all potential benefits, in all cases.

Say you do a NPV analysis and determine that, even with this risk, the value of using the GSL greatly outweighs not using is. How is it then "responsible" to not use the GSL when planning long-term (remembering that long-term in the RPG industry is a few years at most, I would suggest)?

Sometimes you have to take risks in business, in order to reap rewards. Deciding not to undertake a venture simply because there is risk involved is extremely conservative, and does not follow from systematic decision-making.


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 5, 2008)

A revocation clause is usually a part of any product license out there.  It's not sinister.  Most licenses are designed to never last forever.  Those that aren't revocable end up in legal battles.  Any publisher worth his salt realizes that this is the standard for any licensed property.  D&D is one of those properties.  

The OGL was a very unusual license in this industry.  So, just because Wizards decided not to be that open doesn't automatically mean that they have sinister motives.  A revocation clause usually keeps both parties honest and helps to prevent exploitation by either side.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2008)

Jer said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is that, if the d20 GSL is like the D&D GSL, we're not going to see NEW games come out of it.  We're going to mainly see supplements for Wizards games.  Which may be exactly what Wizards intends but its going to fracture the market in ways that the d20STL/OGL licenses were specifically crafted to avoid.



I guess that depends on how you define what WotC's market is. I'm not sure that players playing M&M or some other mostly-d20 game that does not require the use of WotC products really benefits them at all.

I'm also not sure if I agree with the assertion that _fewer_ new games = a more fractured market.


----------



## Henry (May 5, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> While the calculus can vary, this is exactly correct, IMO.  The GSL could be used as a sort of "bait and switch" to get companies away from 3x, then close out the 4e GSL and offer nothing to replace it.




I'm not sure if this is a huge concern for most publishers. For someone like Green Ronin, who has a bread-and-butter line with Mutants and Masterminds, they simply retool "Bleeding Edge" or similar for 4e adventures and material. If the GSL suddenly later drops a hypothetical "poison pill" in, they stop producing 4e stuff, pure and simple, because the OGL is more profitable. WotC is not likely to do such without a "sell-through" period, just as they're doing now (and did in the past), so the 3e/OGL base is not lost, they're in fact MORE catered to.

For companies who switched completely to the GSL, they'd just go along with whatever the GSL 2 said. THe only way they'd lose out is if the GSL 2 said, "THERE IS NO GSL 2", in other words, it's hereby revoked, and there's no more use of our content at all. This might happen, but it's not as likely.

I still forsee some turbulent airlanes ahead for OGL and GSL in general, because there's still a lot of questions to answer legally about the extent to which one can mimic another (in other words, if innovations push the OGL to include some rules similar to 4e, what can happen and how similar can it be), but to me, all this stuff is exciting times, interesting times, instead of "herald of the Dark Times" kind of stuff.


----------



## Jer (May 5, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Why? Why wouldn't you assign some probability to it and go from there? Assuming the probability is 100% will make your decisions very conservative, and maybe that's the way you want to go. But you seem to be advocating giving up a large chance of a more successful product because of a small chance of something out of your control happening.




Because given past performance we can only assume that it WILL be revoked?  They're revoking the d20 STL, they have every reason to revoke this GSL when the next edition comes out for the exact same reasons that they're revoking the d20 STL now.  If they wanted to let this version stand as is they wouldn't need the revocation clause at all.



			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> And even if you assume the GSL will be revoked at the next edition change, doesn't that give you several good years (at least) to benefit from the GSL before it's revoked?




Sure.  And if I were putting out D&D supplements I'd be all over that.  And if there's a d20 Modern line coming out I'd be all over that too.

But if I'm putting out a new modern horror or superhero game or what have you that wasn't  a d20 Modern supplement - the way Green Ronin put out Mutants & Masterminds based on 3e mechanics - I wouldn't touch this at all.  Why would I wrap up my IP with a license that Wizards is telling me that they have control over and they can revoke?  




			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I guess it's my training in financial decision-making talking here, but I just can't see how you take one potential risk that exists and decide that it trumps all potential benefits, in all cases.
> 
> Say you do a NPV analysis and determine that, even with this risk, the value of using the GSL greatly outweighs not using is. How is it then "responsible" to not use the GSL when planning long-term (remembering that long-term in the RPG industry is a few years at most, I would suggest)?
> 
> Sometimes you have to take risks in business, in order to reap rewards. Deciding not to undertake a venture simply because there is risk involved is extremely conservative, and does not follow from systematic decision-making.




So I guess the part I'm not getting - I don't see what benefit any publisher would get from putting a new game out under the GSL that would outweigh the substantial risk of Wizards stepping in and saying "we're revoking your license - you need to upgrade".  If I know I'm going to spend a considerable amount of energy massaging mechanics and marketing my new "Mutants and Masterminds" or "Spycraft" game to get my trademark to the point where my game is making a mark to gamers, why would I do it with the GSL when I can either start from the OGL mechanics that are already there OR develop my own mechanics?

(Again, I can see the benefit if you're doing D&D supplements or "d20 Modern" supplements - that's not an issue to me at all.  I cannot, however, see anyone putting out the next "Mutants & Masterminds" or "Spycraft" or "True20" under a license scheme like this.  But I'm willing to believe that I'm wrong and that control over your own IP isn't as important as tying into the d20 logo - I just don't see it myself).

(Again edited because I didn't see this earlier)


			
				Fifth Element said:
			
		

> I guess that depends on how you define what WotC's market is. I'm not sure that players playing M&M or some other mostly-d20 game that does not require the use of WotC products really benefits them at all.
> 
> I'm also not sure if I agree with the assertion that fewer new games = a more fractured market.




NOT "fewer new games" - fewer new games that use the same mechanics as D&D.  I don't think we're going to see less games come out over the next few years than we did over the previous decade.  I think these licensing changes will just lead to fewer of them that _use D&D mechanics_.  One of the original purposes of the OGL was to create a common ruleset that would keep people in the D&D orbit.  I think it worked beautifully at that - most of the groups I know that aren't playing "old school" games play some form of d20 game consistently.  And when they tire of playing M&M or Spycraft they gravitate back to D&D for their dungeon crawling needs.

And that is something that I think will impact Wizards negatively in the coming years.  People will gravitate away and not come back because they're out of the D&D orbit.  It happened before, it will happen again.  The d20STL/OGL has worked wonderfully to keep the market "D&D-focused" in that regard.  I don't think that GSL is designed to do that, and that's where I think Wizards is making their error.


----------



## phloog (May 5, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> LOL. One would think you're either an absolutist, or you're not. If you're only a bit of an absolutist, you're not an absolutist.




Good point...or maybe not.

Me no work so good with my word usements sometimes - - I should have said 'absolute about some things'...or probably more correctly 'absolute about some things' - -also, there was a posted reply about 'bait and switch' - - while I can't say they are NOT thinking this way, I think it's more likely that they are doing what seems right NOW...my point was not that there was a grand bait-and-switch plan or trap, but that when business dictates, they will do things that could harm 3pp in a way not possible under OGL.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2008)

Jer said:
			
		

> So I guess the part I'm not getting - I don't see what benefit any publisher would get from putting a new game out under the GSL that would outweigh the substantial risk of Wizards stepping in and saying "we're revoking your license - you need to upgrade".



I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. The GSL is not intended for games that are substantially different from standard D&D. I agree that using the GSL to publish something it is  not intended for is a bad idea.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 5, 2008)

phloog said:
			
		

> I should have said 'absolute about some things'...or probably more correctly 'absolute about some things'



No, I think you got it right the first time.


----------



## phloog (May 5, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> I dont think either your position or the one you are responding to is correct. From my perspective (and this is just my perspective), the person who made the mistake (or misspoke or I misunderstood or whatever, or maybe was correct and that view has now been changed) was not just one person. It seems clear there was a (small) camp at Wizards that shared that interpretation.(SNIP1)
> I do agree with you that there is nothing nefarious going on at Wizards. Far from it, in fact.
> 
> (SNIP2) .




I don't think we disagree all that much, but perhaps - - I don't read evil intent, I simply believe that the end result of actions, taken for legitimate business purposes and without ill intent, can lead to bad things for 3pps....and of course even that is likely moot when I think about it, because only a particularly dim 3pp would enter the GSL without full understanding that it could be revoked and damage them.


----------



## phloog (May 5, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Boy, I hope not.  I also don't care for calls by some posters, here and elsewhere, that the guy should be fired. He didn't accidentally slip rat poison into food that got served to preschoolers. He didn't leave a live power line unattended in the middle of a playground. He made a mistake on a gaming license which, as far as I know, didn't cost anybody any money, and did nothing except get a bunch of people on the intranets up in arms. Firing the guy, or calling for his firing, seems to me like a pretty big overreaction.




To keep this interesting civil discourse going, I need to point out that I am NOT calling for his or her firing.  But that is only because I am one of those people who believes that they HAD discussions, that the GSL was ambiguous, and that there were disputes at WOTC about what it meant.  

I only think that person's job should be in jeopardy if YOUR opinion about what happened is correct - if the document was clear, and this person was spouting nonsense.

I say that because it DID potentially cost WOTC money.  I know of quite a few gamers who - though this might be an overreaction, cancelled their pre-orders when they heard that there might be a poison pill.  

Now that it seems there is no pill, I also know that some of those people may recreate their orders, but at least two that I personally know of used this time to reflect on what is known of 4E, and decided to stay with 3.5 or PRPG.  It might only be a boxed set here or there, or it might be a flood of cancelled orders....but the potential for damage is there.

No one was killed - it's a silly little game we all love...but if your scenario is correct you had an employee of a company handing out incorrect information about a legal document pertaining to a major moneymaker, and which resulted in an internet....poostorm.  If not fired, there should definitely be a stern talking-to.  

If I'm correct, and there were internal 'camps' and some degree of uncertainty...or even a CHANGE to the GSL, then this person did no wrong.  But if it was a clear document, was never changed, and never had the content that this person relayed to Clark, then they were (for this event at least) incompetent in a manner that lead to non-trivial issues.


----------



## Voadam (May 5, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Exactly. Yet it seems like there're people who're intent on casting every single bit of news in the most negative light possible. I'm sure there are people at WotC who would've preferred there be no GSL, but you'd think that the complete absence of a "poison pill" clause would make people happy. And yet here and elsewhere we've got people dreaming up scenarios in which WotC may yet institute it.




"Complete absence"? It is the same contractual agreement not to publish/sell 3e products, it is just on a product line basis instead of a company-wide basis.

Product line basis is definitely better than company-wide for both 3rd party publishers and consumers who want OGL products, but it still is a detriment to both groups to have less products available for sale/purchasing.

I bought Tome of Horrors Revised 3.5 and I am interested in buying the Tome II and III at some point (along with many other existing products), however if they are the same product line and this clause applies to pdfs I will not be able to purchase the pdfs after Necromancer makes the 4e Tome.

I own about 10 or so of the 50+ Dungeon Crawl Classics. If Goodman makes a 4e DCC and is no longer able to sell the 50+ OGL DCCs they currently sell then I won't be able to pick up any of those 40 others I keep eyeing.

This is better, but I still see downsides to this product line conversion clause.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2008)

phloog said:
			
		

> To keep this interesting civil discourse going, I need to point out that I am NOT calling for his or her firing.



Me neither, I just asked for his head on a plate, and his corpse animated by Orcus. He can continue working for WotC after that. 

Okay, I am okay if that doesn't happen. We're living in the real world, after all. (At least that's what THEY tell us)

On a more serious note:
Past evidence (D20 License) suggests that WotC will eventually also revoke the GSL. 
The evidence also suggests they will do that on context of an edition change, and will give people a "phase-out"-time where they can sell their stock, before they adapt to a different license, or not at all. 
This sounds fair. It still has some risks involved, but it's certainly not the end of the world or even just the end of a business.


----------



## Piratecat (May 5, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> I own about 10 or so of the 50+ Dungeon Crawl Classics. If Goodman makes a 4e DCC and is no longer able to sell the 50+ OGL DCCs they currently sell then I won't be able to pick up any of those 40 others I keep eyeing.



I think doing this would be a bad idea for them, incidentally, when they can create a new 4e product line named "Dungeon Dive Classics" and keep their old 3e catalog intact for any remaining 3e sales. Later, when sales volume trickles to a halt, they always have the right to concert the DCC line to 4e and sell it anew.


----------



## lurkinglidda (May 5, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> The person who reported that to Clark just got it flat out wrong.



I have a LOT of respect for Clark's "informant." They had a different interpretation of the license. It happens. I wouldn't say they got it flat out wrong, rather had a different take. We've since cleared things up.


----------



## Orcus (May 5, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> [snip]...but you'd think that the complete absence of a "poison pill" clause would make people happy... [snip]




You and I are going to have to disagree on that one--"complete absence of a poison pill." I dont see it that way. I dont begrudge WotC spinning it and using marketing speak and not calling it a poison pill. I mean, who in the world would want to call it that. And I agree that it was not the poison pill that we thought it would be. But thats still a poison pill, in my parlance. Just a smaller one. And one that is much easier to swallow  But I'll let Wizards spin it how they want. They deserve that much at least. 

Clark


----------



## lurkinglidda (May 5, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> The GSL could be used as a sort of "bait and switch" to get companies away from 3x, then close out the 4e GSL and offer nothing to replace it.



The day that happens is the day I turn in my notice.


----------



## Orcus (May 5, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> I have a LOT of respect for Clark's "informant." They had a different interpretation of the license. It happens. I wouldn't say they got it flat out wrong, rather had a different take. We've since cleared things up.




You just cant say it any better than Lidda  Perfect summary. Different take, now its cleared up, no one is evil, everyone is working hard to make third party support happen. 

Thanks again, Lidda, for listening and for caring. You guys have been teriffic. 

Clark


----------



## keterys (May 5, 2008)

I'm going to quote Rodney Thompson's blog because I can almost feel the sentiment here, and I think it's important for people to see that:

'In other news, clarifications were issued regarding the GSL which mollify me. As someone who owes much of his career to the ability to write for some awesome third party publishers, I've been rooting for the ability for 3PPs to have some freedom when it comes to publishing 4E compatible products. And, frankly, I'm jazzed to see what my favorite publishers do with it. I may yet be proven wrong, but I think once some of my fellow designers get their hands on 4E they're going to quickly find themselves addicted to how easy it is to design for.

The one GSL thing I want now? For the love of God, when can I start playing D&D with my friends from other companies again?!'


----------



## Jack99 (May 5, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> 'In other news, clarifications were issued regarding the GSL which mollify me. As someone who owes much of his career to the ability to write for some awesome third party publishers, I've been rooting for the ability for 3PPs to have some freedom when it comes to publishing 4E compatible products. And, frankly, I'm jazzed to see what my favorite publishers do with it. I may yet be proven wrong, but I think once some of my fellow designers get their hands on 4E they're going to quickly find themselves addicted to how easy it is to design for.




Yeah. I agree. But it is a pity that it does seem as we have "lost" Paizo for 4e. I had hoped they would produce some sweet 4e adventures on the side of their 3.75.


----------



## Roland55 (May 5, 2008)

lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> The day that happens is the day I turn in my notice.




Hmm.  I just don't think you're going to have to worry about that.


----------



## Mistwell (May 5, 2008)

phloog said:
			
		

> I don't know that I am (and of course, neither do you):
> 
> The GSL is a legal document.  I'm a fairly reasonable person, and if I was working for WOTC and was asked by someone if a clause was p-level or c-level, I would absolutely NOT say that it was company level unless there was the perception by one or more others that it was.  It's big enough, and is a legal document, so I'm not going to answer unless I 'know' - meaning my answer is shared by people.
> 
> ...




Clark posted the issue to begin with based on a conversation he had.  He has since said:

"and I think the answer we have gotten is reasonable and acceptable and *is likely what the person who told me that meant in the first place*"  I think that answers some of your concerns.


----------



## GVDammerung (May 5, 2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GVDammerung
The GSL could be used as a sort of "bait and switch" to get companies away from 3x, then close out the 4e GSL and offer nothing to replace it.  



			
				lurkinglidda said:
			
		

> The day that happens is the day I turn in my notice.




Meaning no offense but I anticipate that day to be sometime in the 2012/2013 range when 5th Edition is released.  I believe 5e will be completely closed after 4e puts the OGL genie as far back in the bottle as possible.  I do not mean to ascribe such an intent to you personally but my theory is simple - one does not build a weapon, or insert a legal right, unless one has some thought about using it.  The 4e GSL could have been non-revocable.  Its not and its not for some reason; that reason, by one measure or another, is it seems some unhappiness with the way the original OGL worked out.  As the GSL is not open in the sense the OGL was/is, I suspect that unhappiness had to do with the open nature of the OGL, as that is a clear "fix" the GSL implements with the GSL revocation provision. I could be wrong; matters could play out differently, but I do not think they will.  Those celebrating the GSL are, I believe, celebrating the end of open gaming in any true sense of the word "open."


----------



## Jack99 (May 5, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Meaning no offense but I anticipate that day to be sometime in the 2012/2013 range when 5th Edition is released.  I believe 5e will be completely closed after 4e puts the OGL genie as far back in the bottle as possible.  I do not mean to ascribe such an intent to you personally but my theory is simple - one does not build a weapon, or insert a legal right, unless one has some thought about using it.  The 4e GSL could have been non-revocable.  Its not and its not for some reason; that reason, by one measure or another, is it seems some unhappiness with the way the original OGL worked out.  As the GSL is not open in the sense the OGL was/is, I suspect that unhappiness had to do with the open nature of the OGL, as that is a clear "fix" the GSL implements with the GSL revocation provision. I could be wrong; matters could play out differently, but I do not think they will.  Those celebrating the GSL are, I believe, celebrating the end of open gaming in any true sense of the word "open."




This is pure guesswork. They might as well close down the 4e GSL and offer an identical GSL for 5e. Maybe it is time to chill on the far-fetched speculations.


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 5, 2008)

I think that if WotC leaving the OGL behind means the end of Open Gaming, then the whole Open Gaming thing was a failure. I mean, if the entire premise of publishing under the OGL depends on one company, how can anyone possibly call it a success? Paizo wishes to prove that there was such traction, as well as perhaps a few other companies. Bemoaning the end of Open Gaming because WotC is no longer involved... well I know complaining is what you do on the Internet, but it does anyone involved in the OGL a disservice for fans of their products to talk like that. Maybe its true, but I've now decided to wait and see.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 5, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by GVDammerung
> The GSL could be used as a sort of "bait and switch" to get companies away from 3x, then close out the 4e GSL and offer nothing to replace it.
> 
> ...



Maybe I am giving lurkinglidda more leeway then she does herself, but if the 5E will com with a new GSL, I'd say she might stay around.  The 5E GSL would be an alternative, at least in my eyes.


----------



## drjones (May 5, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Meaning no offense but I anticipate that day to be sometime in the 2012/2013 range when 5th Edition is released.  I believe 5e will be completely closed after 4e puts the OGL genie as far back in the bottle as possible.  I do not mean to ascribe such an intent to you personally but my theory is simple - one does not build a weapon, or insert a legal right, unless one has some thought about using it.  The 4e GSL could have been non-revocable.  Its not and its not for some reason; that reason, by one measure or another, is it seems some unhappiness with the way the original OGL worked out.  As the GSL is not open in the sense the OGL was/is, I suspect that unhappiness had to do with the open nature of the OGL, as that is a clear "fix" the GSL implements with the GSL revocation provision. I could be wrong; matters could play out differently, but I do not think they will.  Those celebrating the GSL are, I believe, celebrating the end of open gaming in any true sense of the word "open."



Well obviously, but everyone will be working the alien slave mines by 2013 anyway so I don't think it matters much.

CRISWELL  PREDICTS!!


----------



## Green Knight (May 5, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> You and I are going to have to disagree on that one--"complete absence of a poison pill." I dont see it that way. I dont begrudge WotC spinning it and using marketing speak and not calling it a poison pill. I mean, who in the world would want to call it that. And I agree that it was not the poison pill that we thought it would be. But thats still a poison pill, in my parlance. Just a smaller one. And one that is much easier to swallow  But I'll let Wizards spin it how they want. They deserve that much at least.
> 
> Clark




Ah, point. I was considering just the "company by company" bit as a poison pill. Didn't know we were calling the "product line by product line" bit a poison pill, too.  Though yeah, not a bad one. More like a Flintstones Kids pill.


----------



## Lacyon (May 5, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Meaning no offense but I anticipate that day to be sometime in the 2012/2013 range when 5th Edition is released.  I believe 5e will be completely closed after 4e puts the OGL genie as far back in the bottle as possible.  I do not mean to ascribe such an intent to you personally but my theory is simple - one does not build a weapon, or insert a legal right, unless one has some thought about using it.  The 4e GSL could have been non-revocable.  Its not and its not for some reason; that reason, by one measure or another, is it seems some unhappiness with the way the original OGL worked out.  As the GSL is not open in the sense the OGL was/is, I suspect that unhappiness had to do with the open nature of the OGL, as that is a clear "fix" the GSL implements with the GSL revocation provision. I could be wrong; matters could play out differently, but I do not think they will.  Those celebrating the GSL are, I believe, celebrating the end of open gaming in any true sense of the word "open."




It's quite possible that this will happen.

It doesn't seem likely that this will happen.

The original OGL _is_ at least somewhat of a threat to WotC in the long term because it leaves open the possibility of a prior edition of D&D rules to continue competing with the current edition. That ship has already sailed - the license is irrevocable and there will always be the possibilty of 3rd-party publishers either returning to 3E or maintaining a 3E line "just in case".

The GSL itself, being revocable, is no threat to 5th-edition D&D. Likewise, a revocable 5E GSL would be no threat to 6E, etc. While this is of course a disappointment to those who favor ideological purity to practicality, most of the benefits of openness remain - fans get more product options to choose from, WotC benefits from the fact that this ensures more fans find what they want in D&D instead of some other RPG.

I can't see any real reason that the GSL would cost WotC more than it benefits them, and thus can't see why they'd forgo having one in future editions. If, for some reason, openness _does_ cost more than it brings in benefits, I can't think of very many unselfish reasons to continue supporting openness in general.


----------



## trancejeremy (May 5, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> You and I are going to have to disagree on that one--"complete absence of a poison pill." I dont see it that way. I dont begrudge WotC spinning it and using marketing speak and not calling it a poison pill. I mean, who in the world would want to call it that. And I agree that it was not the poison pill that we thought it would be. But thats still a poison pill, in my parlance. Just a smaller one. And one that is much easier to swallow  But I'll let Wizards spin it how they want. They deserve that much at least.
> 
> Clark




Well, it's really all a matter of branding, I think.

For a company like Necromancer Games, the company name basically is the branding, since I don't think there were any product lines.  So the company rule is more important to them.

On the other hand, other companies have built up a lot of brand name recognition for product lines.  Dungeon Crawl Classics and Pathfinder most notably.  DCC was already going 4e anyway, so this doesn't matter much, it just closes the door on any special DCCs down the road (for C&C and 1e, I'd imagine)

And for companies like Green Ronin, its probably a mixed bag.  Their Bleeding Edge adventures was probably a flop, so it's no great loss to them not offering 3.x versions if they go 4e with them.  But they probably can't release a 4.0 Freeport book, at least not at the expense of their True 20 support of their setting.


----------



## kenmarable (May 5, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Meaning no offense but I anticipate that day to be sometime in the 2012/2013 range when 5th Edition is released.  I believe 5e will be completely closed after 4e puts the OGL genie as far back in the bottle as possible.  I do not mean to ascribe such an intent to you personally but my theory is simple - one does not build a weapon, or insert a legal right, unless one has some thought about using it.  The 4e GSL could have been non-revocable.  Its not and its not for some reason; that reason, by one measure or another, is it seems some unhappiness with the way the original OGL worked out.  As the GSL is not open in the sense the OGL was/is, I suspect that unhappiness had to do with the open nature of the OGL, as that is a clear "fix" the GSL implements with the GSL revocation provision. I could be wrong; matters could play out differently, but I do not think they will.  Those celebrating the GSL are, I believe, celebrating the end of open gaming in any true sense of the word "open."



While I love the OGL and wish 4e was just OGL'ed as well, I just gotta say "Geez!" You are purely speculating from an outside perspective while she is actually privy to a couple orders of magnitude more information and does this as her actual daily job. I'd cut a wee bit of slack for knowing what she is talking about. 

Also, considering the GSL will also license a form of the D&D logo and a compatibility claim, they'd be on crack not to have a revocation clause in there. Opening up mechanics for eternity is one thing, opening up the brand name for eternity is pretty far out there. Even with the great open gaming movement, the d20 brand nor the D&D one were never opened for eternity.

If you want to be all doom and gloom "this is the death of open gaming", of course no one can stop you. But A) there's been some pretty big assurances than they actually are committed to open gaming just like the claim they are (I know I wouldn't publicly state I'd quit my job over predictions of what a corporation would do several years from now unless I was pretty darned sure of it), and B) the open gaming movement can only die if consumers allow it. 

The OGL is eternal. So if it's really that important to that many consumers, then they will spend their money accordingly and keep it alive. If it's not worth their time and money, then yeah, it'll fade out. But, there's nothing stopping my grandchildren from publishing their own d20 games decades from now, regardless of anything WotC does or does not do with 4e and 5e. 

So doom and gloom all you want, there's a great system that is open forever for anyone to publish under, and another system that sounds like it might be cool that people can also publish for about to come out. Anything else is just intertube speculation and ranting.


----------



## Alzrius (May 5, 2008)

kenmarable said:
			
		

> Also, considering the GSL will also license a form of the D&D logo and a compatibility claim, they'd be on crack not to have a revocation clause in there. Opening up mechanics for eternity is one thing, opening up the brand name for eternity is pretty far out there. Even with the great open gaming movement, the d20 brand nor the D&D one were never opened for eternity.




I think the point he was trying to make is that a revocation clause is overkill for just protecting the D&D brand.

If WotC just wanted to make sure that GSL products didn't still say "Dungeons & Dragons" on them when 5E comes out, they don't need a revocation clause for that. They can just have a line in there about reserving the right to update the GSL at any time, and anyone using the GSL must use the current version. This allows them to later go in and remove lines allowing products to display the D&D logo - in essence, giving them the same level of control that they're exercising now regarding the current d20 logo on d20 STL products.

However, having a revocation clause means that they can effectively demand that any such books published under the GSL no longer be sold. To most, this probably won't seem like a big deal, since some companies might not care about lasting until 5E comes out, or are banking on a new 5E license when it does, but that does raise some issues regarding long-term sales. It's only in the last few years that PDF publishing became viable, so 4E books produced in the next few months could conceivably still be selling PDF copies of them over a decade from now. Those residual sales, for whatever they'd be worth, would have to cease once the GSL was revoked.

In other words, the GSL could still have been irrevocable without WotC losing control of the D&D brand.


----------



## Lacyon (May 5, 2008)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> If WotC just wanted to make sure that GSL products didn't still say "Dungeons & Dragons" on them when 5E comes out, they don't need a revocation clause for that. *They can just have a line in there about reserving the right to update the GSL at any time, and anyone using the GSL must use the current version*. This allows them to later go in and remove lines allowing products to display the D&D logo - in essence, giving them the same level of control that they're exercising now regarding the current d20 logo on d20 STL products.




(emphasis mine)

Functionally this is no better than a revocation clause. They could "update" the GSL to disallow all publishing by third parties under the license whatsoever, for example.

It's actually worse, IMO, because a revocation clause makes very clear what WotC can and likely will do in the future - third parties go to publication with eyes open.


----------



## Yair (May 5, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I think that if WotC leaving the OGL behind means the end of Open Gaming, then the whole Open Gaming thing was a failure. I mean, if the entire premise of publishing under the OGL depends on one company, how can anyone possibly call it a success? Paizo wishes to prove that there was such traction, as well as perhaps a few other companies. Bemoaning the end of Open Gaming because WotC is no longer involved... well I know complaining is what you do on the Internet, but it does anyone involved in the OGL a disservice for fans of their products to talk like that. Maybe its true, but I've now decided to wait and see.



Having the market leader (by far) leave the open-game community is a big blow to said community. Is it an end to Open Gaming? I'd wager it isn't - that product lines such as M&M and True20 will continue, and that OGL-licensed games will continue to be published and developed. But the volume of OGL in the market is going to see a sharp decline. Whether this will end up decreasing further in the longer run, and whether this will ultimately lead to the dwindling of the Open Gaming movement to irrelevance is something I'm not willing to bet on  

Either case, I don't think anyone can say Open Gaming is the a raving story of success - it has successes, but it also failed to tempt the OTHER big gaming company to go Open (on its main lines), it failed to encourage very succesful "OGL" lines to be really Open (rather than just use the OGL but cripple their content), it failed to create substantial build-up of ideas and cross-polination and development between publishers, and more. Open Gaming is admired by its adherents not so much for its economic success as for the possibilities it raises and maintains.


----------



## Orcus (May 5, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Ah, point. I was considering just the "company by company" bit as a poison pill. Didn't know we were calling the "product line by product line" bit a poison pill, too.  Though yeah, not a bad one. More like a Flintstones Kids pill.




I agree  And I'm swallowing the pill as we speak. Oh, yummy! Mine is grape flavor!


----------



## The Little Raven (May 5, 2008)

Orcus said:
			
		

> You and I are going to have to disagree on that one--"complete absence of a poison pill." I dont see it that way. I dont begrudge WotC spinning it and using marketing speak and not calling it a poison pill. I mean, who in the world would want to call it that. And I agree that it was not the poison pill that we thought it would be. But thats still a poison pill, in my parlance. Just a smaller one. And one that is much easier to swallow  But I'll let Wizards spin it how they want. They deserve that much at least.






> In professional sports, a poison pill is a component of a contract, which one team offers a player, that makes it difficult or impossible for another team (which has the right of first refusal) to match.




Technically, if we're using the sports industry definition of "poison pill," then the original OGL and d20 STL were a huge poison pill, since no competitor in the industry could match WotC's offer of "use the D&D rules and claim compatibility," since no RPG comes close to matching D&D for mainstream penetration or network externalities (and I remember the huge brouhaha about how this was WotC's attempt to monopolize the industry).


----------



## Arrond Hess (May 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> This "probably-illegal definitely-hateful anticompetitive activity" was simply a product of your (and other's) misinterpretation of the information they released. As Linae has already stated that the document is exactly the same as it was weeks ago when this brouhaha started, nothing on their end has actually changed.



And it was their (Linea and Scott) providing answers to these concerns that also fueled the misinformation.

Just saying...


----------



## mudbunny (May 6, 2008)

Arrond Hess said:
			
		

> And it was their (Linea and Scott) providing answers to these concerns that also fueled the misinformation.
> 
> Just saying...




And if they hadn't answered, people would have been calling for the heads of those at WotC for not providing the information. 

If you want to see dedication, check the timestamps on their posts in the thread. Well after working hours.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 6, 2008)

Arrond Hess said:
			
		

> And it was their (Linea and Scott) providing answers to these concerns that also fueled the misinformation.




"It's their fault we misinterpreted what they said" is a BS argument.


----------



## Shroomy (May 6, 2008)

I thought we misinterpreted what someone else misinterpreted about the GSL.


----------



## Maggan (May 6, 2008)

ruemere said:
			
		

> Umm... excuse me, but what is the cause for celebration?




For me, it's a cause for celebration that there will be a license that allows me and others to create D&D-compatible material, and clearly brand it as a D&D product.

Sounds cool to me.

As for the possibility/certainty that the license will be revoked some time or another, I reckon most products put out have a shelf-life measured in months, where the producer sells most of his stock. The rest sits there in perpetuity.

It's not as if there are hordes of customers clamouring to buy years-old modules and expansions. Dealing with gamers and moving product is very much an exercise in "get it while it's hot!", and less "I have an evergreen product that will sell, and sell, and sell and then they'll revoke the license and my product will be worthless."

Might be different for PDF:s, but then again, at this point in time, we're talking about having to pull a product that probably has sold tens of copies, maybe hundreds, if/when the license is revoked. I would just pull the product, edit it to conform to the OGL instead (or already have a version ready), and put that one up instead. 

IMO and all that.

/M


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 6, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> "It's their fault we misinterpreted what they said" is a BS argument.




Except that from the very first denials about 4e almost everything that WotC spokespeople have said has required heavy parsing to know if the obvious interpretation is in fact the correct one.


----------



## Mark (May 6, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Except that from the very first denials about 4e almost everything that WotC spokespeople have said has required heavy parsing to know if the obvious interpretation is in fact the correct one.





Until the license is released, no one knows exactly what the language in it will support by way of third party publisher products.


----------



## Voadam (May 6, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I think doing this would be a bad idea for them, incidentally, when they can create a new 4e product line named "Dungeon Dive Classics" and keep their old 3e catalog intact for any remaining 3e sales. Later, when sales volume trickles to a halt, they always have the right to concert the DCC line to 4e and sell it anew.




Goodman is going with 4e DCCs, even continuing with the current number scheme.

http://www.ogrecave.com/news/goodman_dcc4e_preview.shtml

I want to know if this means I soon won't be able to buy pdfs of #1-50.


----------

