Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnRTroy Well, that's fine to say, but you shouldn't speak for all publishers. Just because you prefer the OGL and don't like the restrictions doesn't mean you should make the judgment that no license would be better--let the people decide if they want to make GSL products. |
I was unaware I'd been empowered to make that decision for other people. Wow! I am LIKE UNTO A GOD!
If I say "I really don't like the guy who was elected. I think someone else should have won.", does that mean I am somehow cancelling other people's votes, or expressing a desire to do so?
If I say, "I hated the Star Wars Prequels. They should have just stuck to the original three.", will George Lucas recall them all from the DVD racks?
I stated an opinion. You may disagree with it, which is fine, but you seem to be attacking my right to state it.
As it is, I might still do work under the
GSL, if anyone is going to be publishing under it, or take a chance with my own line of PDFs, which offer minimal risk of loss. I'm also looking at Pathfinder, as I suspect a lot of people are. I don't consider a willingness to use the
GSL while considering it an inferior license is hypocritical. This is, as many have noted, what we've got, and it's way too early to see how things will shake out. In a perfect world,
4e was released under the
OGL, with a revised Trademark license which would make the logo worthwhile. In a somewhat less perfect world,
WOTC would have said "No open license" and made deals with specific publishers as needed. In our world, we have the
GSL, and I'm not going to ignore it because it isn't as good as it could be, but I expect my opportunities, both as a freelancer and a (hopeful) self publisher, will be limited.
My point above was not "The
GSL is utterly worthless!", but, rather, that if there had been none announced or expected, the process of "forking" D&D that Pathfinder has begun would have started in August, 2007, and by Gencon 2008, some sort of core rules, "bought into" by several major D20 publishers, would have been on sale at GenCon. I can see where
WOTC desperately did not want this scenario to occur (and almost certainly knew it would), and using "bait and switch" tactics with the
GSL (August, 2007:"It will be released under the
OGL". December, 2007:"We have a revised
OGL, pay us 5 grand." January, 2007 "Did we say
OGL? We meant
GSL." Feb, Mar, April 2007:"Any day now...", May 2007:"June 6!", June 6, 2007:"Next week!") looks just a little bit underhanded, even if every statement made was believed true at the time. It takes a certain degree of faith to believe there is no connection between the "nightmare scenario" of a multi-publisher 3.5 clone being on sale within two months of
4e and the long delay in the
GSL which kept a lot of publishers from committing one way or the other. Based on the comments by people who know the people involved, I will say I do believe that there was no planned larceny and that it was all a series of corporate snafus and miscommunications.