4e / GSL WotC to Revise D&D 4th Edition GSL and SRD

[delericho]

Originally Posted by Filcher

Interesting that:

Goodman Games and Mongoose are already in.

Paizo is committed to 3.75, so they're out no matter what.

Green Ronin is off doing non-D&D material.

Basically, IMO, we are left with the Wizards changing the GSL for Necro, and only for Necro.

Not necessarily. Goodman Games are using the copyright route at the moment, and will go GSL when they are allowed. Kenzer are going the copyright route. If the GSL changes, both of these may sign up (sooner). And it is definately in WotC's interest to avoid companies from going the copyright route if they can. (Though, with Goodman, I think they're too late - aren't those products now shipped?)

I don't think Green Ronin have said "never" to the GSL - so perhaps these changes might bring them on board. Or perhaps not. Heck, even Paizo haven't totally burnt that bridge - Pathfinder might yet flop.

Finally, it has been pointed out on many threads here that the current GSL has the opposite of any intended 'quality' effect - it discourages those who would invest in a quality product line, but encourages those who might throw a product together quickly, make their money and get out.

Revising the GSL may impact on some, all (or none) of these. Regardless, I'm hoping it leads to more quality support products for the game (especially, at the moment, low level monsters and adventures).

[Maggan]

Originally Posted by Alzrius

Let's just call them Wot¢.

That fits a lot better with the rpg economy, actually!

/M

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Branduil

Can we now put to bed the ridiculous idea that WotC wanted to get rid of 3pp support?

Only if you offer another, at least equally ridiculous idea that we can entertian now.

[ruemere]

Umm. Maybe it would be a good idea to wait with comments, both positive and negative, until we actually see the content of the new GSL?

A few reasons why:
- endless delays in delivery of original GSL (as per Linae post, this revised version is already delayed, too),
- needless speculations and arguments,
- revised is not synonymous with relaxed.

That said, several speculations:
- given previous delays, we are unlikely to see radically different license.
- there will be some FAQ.
- there will be clarifications to the most painfully vague clauses.
- two or three most painful clauses will be relaxed... slightly but not totally.
- No-escape-to-OGL clause will be still in.

regards,
Ruemere

[CountPopeula]

Originally Posted by Mouseferatu

"Opener" is a perfectly cromulent word.

Opener actually is a word. But it doesn't mean more open.

I think that means this is the first GSL played this season. Or the GSL is the comedian before the bad hair metal band.

[Klaus]

Originally Posted by Umbran

Yes, do avoid being too melodramatic, because there's a risk of losing perspective. Whatever may have been said here, the posters of EN World are a small percentage of the customer base. Whatever was said in the statement, I strongly suspect the opinions of colleagues (like Necromancer Games) had a whole lot more to do with this than those of us who only play and consume.

And while it's true that ENWorld is a small percentage of the consumer base, it's also true that ENWorld concentrates a large portion of the Third Party Publisher community, which are the ones affected by the GSL.

[amethal]

Originally Posted by Branduil

Can we now put to bed the ridiculous idea that WotC wanted to get rid of 3pp support?

It'll take more than an announcement that the GSL is going to be revised in some unspecified way at an unspecified future date to achieve that.

Especially if the "we can change the GSL whenever we like without informing you or giving you a period to rectify any breaches of the new terms" clauses are still in, since it could otherwise be the world's most generous licence and the conspiracy theorists could still argue it was just a means of sucking 3rd parties into the GSL in order to destroy them.

On a more realistic note, WotC might finally have realised that the licence in its current form is pretty pointless if some companies prefer to rely on copyright law instead for their 4th edition products.

[Talmek]

Yay?

Seriously, if it reduces some of the venom from the naysayers' mouths concerning 4e and WotC in general then I'll be happy.

And just for the record I do not plan to "upgrade" to 4e but I am glad it's bringing new blood into the hobby.

[Brown Jenkin]

Originally Posted by ruemere

- needless speculations and arguments,

Hello, Internets.

[Rechan]

Originally Posted by Talmek

if it reduces some of the venom from the naysayers' mouths concerning 4e and WotC in general

Never gunna happen.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by amethal

It'll take more than an announcement that the GSL is going to be revised in some unspecified way at an unspecified future date to achieve that.

Especially if the "we can change the GSL whenever we like without informing you or giving you a period to rectify any breaches of the new terms" clauses are still in, since it could otherwise be the world's most generous licence and the conspiracy theorists could still argue it was just a means of sucking 3rd parties into the GSL in order to destroy them.

Cautiously optimistic, but amethal has pinged the "big bad" of the GSL right there. "I am altering the licence. Pray I do not alter it further."

The GSL changes, to be a win, would have to strike this clause, and would have to strike the OGL/GSL restriction to some degree. I understand that the OGL/GSL restriction is probably intended to prevent 4e from getting hooked into the OGL, but there has to be some better way to go about it.

Personally, I think we should keep pushing until they decide to simply make 4e OGL.


RC

[Doug McCrae]

Originally Posted by Filcher

Goodman Games and Mongoose are already in.

Pazio is committed to 3.75, so they're out no matter what.

Green Ronin is off doing non-D&D material.

Basically, IMO, we are left with the Wizards changing the GSL for Necro, and only for Necro.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking, this is all about Necromancer Games. Green Ronin was moving away from D&D long before 4e. I don't see Paizo dropping their Pathfinder rpg though maybe they will publish 4e compatible modules if the GSL changes.

[Wulf Ratbane]

Originally Posted by Frostmarrow

WoTC cleverly chose an acronym with no 'S' in it just to avoid such defacement. There is a reason they are not Sorcerers of The Sound.

Because people would call them SOTS...



If indeed Clark is the primary driver of these changes (and I believe that he is the "primary" catalyst) then I am at best "cautiously optimistic."

If there is a scale of "GSL Acceptability," where a "1" is the current GSL and a "10" is the OGL, then I think it is fair to say that Clark is closer to the "1" than, for example, Chris Pramas.

This is not intended to be a knock on Clark. I think Clark has made it clear-- speaking as a lawyer at times-- that his bar of acceptable contractual restrictions is lower than others'.

So while WotC may be opening the GSL enough to let Clark slip through, that's no guarantee that the floodgates are going to be wide open.

[lmpjr007]

Originally Posted by Orcus

I agree. I think it is clear to anyone that, intentions aside, the GSL as it is now has completely failed to achieve its goals. People dont like failure. So we have revision.

I am sorry but being a 3rd party publisher, I am even MORE skeptic to the GSL. WOTC could have done this from the beginning, but they didn't because they thought they did not have to make the GSL 3PP friendly. But now since they have lost just about all the major 3rd party publishers support for 4th edition, now WOTC feels it is time to "do the right thing” and support 3PP with a “new” GSL. This is just another misstep in the whole release in 4th edition from WOTC. I have to wonder, how long 3PP are going to have to wait to see this new revised GSL? Maybe six months to a year. I don't know too many companies that can wait that long (who have already waited a year to release 4th Edition) just to see this new license.

[dmccoy1693]

Originally Posted by Darrin Drader

No company is going to admit that their own product is not selling well. To do so is suicide for the product line. Companies will tell people how well their product is doing right up until the week before the product is canceled. You cannot take the self professed success of a product or line at face value from any company.

Like it or not, this is true. Warhammer Dark Hersey preorder sales were doing great. 3 days after the regular edition was released, the company said they are no longer producing DH material. Same with Shadowrun.

[El Mahdi]

Originally Posted by Umbran

Yes, do avoid being too melodramatic, because there's a risk of losing perspective. Whatever may have been said here, the posters of EN World are a small percentage of the customer base. Whatever was said in the statement, I strongly suspect the opinions of colleagues (like Necromancer Games) had a whole lot more to do with this than those of us who only play and consume.

Yet Linea felt it important enough to stress "community" and the health of the "hobby gaming lifestyle". Sounds like it was straight from the Ladies' mouth.

However, Small Percentage: you are absolutely correct - Opinions That Matter: Undeniably Yes.

[Carnivorous_Bean]

While I agree that simply using the GSL to vilify WotC is pointless, on the other hand, it's objectively true that it would be unwise for a third party to sign a contract which can be changed or voided at any time, but which is still binding on all parties, and requires the destruction of all materials published under the original contract which do not meet the new specifications, and the inability to publish them in any other form (effectively putting your IP at their mercy, as well as your stock).

To assume malice on WotC's part is ludicrous. However, to assume unconditional benevolence their part would be even more ludicrous, because at least assuming malice puts you on your guard, while assuming unconditional benevolence is effectively kneeling and baring your financial neck to them, assuming that they'd never be mean enough to use the enormous axe in their hands on it.

It's a big mistake to put unconditional trust in people as a basis for business. It's also a mistake that honest people make frequently, because they assume that other people are honest too, until they get burned -- and I speak from experience here, as one of those scorched by excessive trust in other people's purity of motives where money is concerned.

So, I'd just like to remind the 3rd party publishers not to be too eager to rush in just because WotC has made a few noises about changing the GSL, and remind them of an apt quote ....

"Ha, ha! What a fool Honesty is! And Trust, his sworn brother, a very simple gentleman ..." --Shakespeare, A Winter's Tale

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by CountPopeula

Opener actually is a word. But it doesn't mean more open.

Yes, I believe the question is "is opener an adjective?"

Opener, as in can opener or season opener (sports), is a noun.

[El Mahdi]

Thanks, Delta and grickherder.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Carnivorous_Bean

it's objectively true that it would be unwise for a third party to sign a contract which can be changed or voided at any time, but which is still binding on all parties, and requires the destruction of all materials published under the original contract which do not meet the new specifications, and the inability to publish them in any other form (effectively putting your IP at their mercy, as well as your stock).

Really? What about those few publishers who were going to use the original GSL, then. Did they make objectively bad decisions?

(I'm assuming all the terms you specified above are in the GSL. I don't know it well enough to say.)