Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Jenkin  I doubt it. It is likely a way to end the relationship with WotC with whatever the most current version of the GSL is before a change. They would still be bound by that version and any restriction it contains and would no longer be able to print anything new, but they would be free of any other restrictions or changes a new version would bring. It gets rid of the particularly onerous change at will clause and lets publishers make descisions based on what the current version of the GSL says without having to worry about being bound by unknown future restrictions. It essenstiallly means the only unknown will be how long the licence lasts (either by cancelation or unaceptable changes). | Yeah, that would seem to be what it will be like. While that seems to be the clear intent, I hope the wording doesn't screw it up though. There were a couple of points in the GSL that had great intent, but which wording made it interpretable with more than one meaning.
__________________
My current view of the OGL: Though accomplishing exactly what it was meant to do, it is flawed for not providing WOTC more latitude.
My current view of the GSL: section 2 and subsections 6.1, 11.1, and 11.3 need to be completely rewritten to protect the licensee from abuse, but the rest of the GSL is commendable and provides loss leader dynamics superior to the OGL, as the point to being a loss leader is pointing the community toward the loss leader. |