How about a deadline to WotC?

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

I'm not familiar with the terms of their license (the trademark portion, not the OGL portion, presumably there is one since 3PP products seem to have the RQ logo on them). But that makes two if it's royalty-free.

Of course, Mongoose would likely not exist without WotC's OGL.

Here you go... Open Game Systems - RPGnetWiki .. sometimes I feel like enworld has tunnel vision when it comes to certain things, outside the realm of the d20 system.

* And while Mongoose may not have come into existence without WotC's OGL... they certainly are staying within the spirit of the old OGL, with their license, free magazine, etc.

[xechnao]

Originally Posted by Morrus

I don't understamnd what you mean by distinguishing "interest" from "preference" or "taste", but no worries.

For clarity: it's also not a matter of preference or taste for me. It's about rational business decisions; period. Nothing else.

Yeah, that is part of what I meant. I thought it was clear from context but I see that when you say "it is personal" in english you want to distinguish it from rationality. Bad choice of wording from my part. Perhaps I should have said "matter of perspective" -it could have been more clear...?

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Imaro

Uhm Mongoose's Runequest system is OGL.

Yes, using WOTC's own OGL license.

Rephrase the question. How many companies have produced their own, unique OGL that is in no way related to d20?

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by Hussar

Yes, using WOTC's own OGL license.

Rephrase the question. How many companies have produced their own, unique OGL that is in no way related to d20?

I don't understand what you're saying/implying here. Runequest and d20 use totally different systems, but you're complaining that Mongoose used the old OGL as a basis to release their different system out. Ok, but how does this in anyway impact the fact they chose to release a non-d20 system out under the OGL... Please re-read the post I was responding to, I never asserted anything as far as the license used... only that their company had released their Runequest system under an OGL. For other please check out the link I provided.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Imaro

Here you go... Open Game Systems - RPGnetWiki ..

That doesn't address my question. I asked about the license for the trademark/logo, not just the rules. A simple google search told me that the system was OGL and had an SRD. But I notice Mr. Kim uses the term "Runic SRD", which implies there's a separate license for using the actual name "RuneQuest". Any linkage to help me out there?

Originally Posted by Imaro

sometimes I feel like enworld has tunnel vision when it comes to certain things, outside the realm of the d20 system.

Or, perhaps, since it's a D&D site we're mostly D&D players rather than RuneQuest players. And I personally haven't published anything since last fall and have no immediate plans to, and wouldn't do so for RQ anyway since I don't know it, so why would I keep up on RQ licensing?

[Imaro]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

That doesn't address my question. I asked about the license for the trademark/logo, not just the rules. A simple google search told me that the system was OGL and had an SRD. But I notice Mr. Kim uses the term "Runic SRD", which implies there's a separate license for using the actual name "RuneQuest". Any linkage to help me out there?

Yes, one can use the Runequest logo for free. There are more restrictions than in using the OGL without the logo, but it's still free. Here's an intervview on RPG.net with Matt Sprange where he confirms it. RPGnet : The RPGnet Interview #14: Matthew Sprange, RuneQuest check near the bottom of the page.

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

Or, perhaps, since it's a D&D site we're mostly D&D players rather than RuneQuest players. And I personally haven't published anything since last fall and have no immediate plans to, and wouldn't do so for RQ anyway since I don't know it, so why would I keep up on RQ licensing?

Yep, so you agree with me. I just found it a little odd for you to imply, and perhaps I took it the wrong way, that only WotC did this and a former d20 company (and a pretty big one at that) does allow it as well.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Imaro

Yes, one can use the Runequest logo for free. There are more restrictions than in using the OGL without the logo, but it's still free. Here's an intervview on RPG.net with Matt Sprange where he confirms it. RPGnet : The RPGnet Interview #14: Matthew Sprange, RuneQuest check near the bottom of the page.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Imaro

Yep, so you agree with me. I just found it a little odd for you to imply, and perhaps I took it the wrong way, that only WotC did this and a former d20 company (and a pretty big one at that) does allow it as well.

My point was merely that's it's a rare thing (note how I phrased it as a rhetorical question). That two companies do it is little different from a single company doing it, especially since in this case, the second company was built upon the first's doing of the thing.

[JackSmithIV]

Originally Posted by Jack99

Sorry mate, you really sound like a nice chap, and I am sure you will produce some great 4e products

hugs?

Haha, no worries

[carmachu]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

How about the very existence of the OGL and GSL? They didn't have to do the OGL with 3E. They didn't have to have the GSL with 4E, they could have just closed it up.

What other major gaming company offers a royalty-free license to allow other publishers to use their trademark? Heck, when Green Ronin started licensing True20, they charged a fee.


If the original GSL is "absoulte" hostile, why is it being used by some companies?

Where does all this anger come from? Between justanobody and carmachu, you'd think WotC ran over their kittens or something.

They did in a way. Thats what the GSL is, so to speak. It interferes with my ability to buy good quality products.

OGL was created many many moons ago. In the term some always say "what have you done for me lately?" OGL is something their trying to reverse, so holding it up now isnt much good.

GSL shows caring by its existance? Really? Are you reading the same document as I did, with the yanking and the poison pill and other restrictions? If thats your example of caring, you prove my point. The lack of revision in timely manner, and the delays prior sows as well.

[carmachu]

Originally Posted by Morrus

I believe it would. I can think of, offhand, dozens of companies that would not exist without the OGL. Extanding that, form my own work, I can think of several freelancers who have careers in the industry because of my actions. I am not vain enough to think I'm unique in that, so I multiply that by all those companies out there - Mongoose, Goodman, Green Ronin, Necro and dozens more have all jumpstarted careers, some in major ways.

Where did Mike Mearls come from?

But we can disagree.

Yes where did Mike Mearls come from...but more importantly, where is he now?

Yes Wotc has benefited from OGL as well. Maybe not in sheer $$$$$ terms, but they have had benefits from it.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by carmachu

They did in a way. Thats what the GSL is, so to speak. It interferes with my ability to buy good quality products.

Does it? Are you talking about 4E products? Products that would not otherwise exist without a GSL? At least, for publishers not willing to go the 'copyright route'.

Or are you talking about the 3E products that may have to be discontinued, that you have had time to purchase already? This would be like saying 3E interferes with your ability to buy 2E products.

What do you mean exactly?

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by carmachu

Yes Wotc has benefited from OGL as well. Maybe not in sheer $$$$$ terms, but they have had benefits from it.

WotC is a business. Gross benefits aren't important. Net benefits are.

That's like saying 4E had $1 million in sales. So it's been a success. (Reality: not if it cost you $2 million to produce).

What did it cost them to get these benefits is the question. That's probably even harder to quantify than the benefits.

[jeffh]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

That doesn't address my question. I asked about the license for the trademark/logo, not just the rules. A simple google search told me that the system was OGL and had an SRD. But I notice Mr. Kim uses the term "Runic SRD", which implies there's a separate license for using the actual name "RuneQuest". Any linkage to help me out there?

While the question's been answered, the fact that you asked it suggests you may be confusing the SRD with the STL. The first is a reference document (that's what the RD stands for) which enumerates the rules that are explicitly open. The second is the legal agreement. While in the case of d20 the two were closely linked, there is no necessary connection between the two concepts; the mere existence of an SRD implies nothing about there being a separate license, since there's nothing stopping a non-d20 SRD from being released under the OGL or under something like Creative Commons.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by jeffh

While the question's been answered, the fact that you asked it suggests you may be confusing the SRD with the STL. The first is a reference document (that's what the RD stands for) which enumerates the rules that are explicitly open. The second is the legal agreement. While in the case of d20 the two were closely linked, there is no necessary connection between the two concepts; the mere existence of an SRD implies nothing about there being a separate license, since there's nothing stopping a non-d20 SRD from being released under the OGL or under something like Creative Commons.

I'm confused as to why you think I'm confused. (You may not realize I was a d20 publisher for some time.)

I was asking because of this: 3PP RQ products seem to carry the RQ logo. This is not something accomplished by the OGL. The d20 STL license, for instance, was required in order to use the d20 logo. The OGL only allowed you to use the SRD rules. I believe the OGL specifically excludes logos from being open content. So there needs to be a separate license involved.

Further, I did not say the existence of an SRD implied there was a trademark license. I said the fact that Mr. Kim called it the "Runic SRD" rather than the "RuneQuest SRD" indicated the existence of a separate agreement, of which he was not taking part. Otherwise why wouldn't he just call it the "RuneQuest SRD"? He did the same thing with the True20 SRD, which he calls the "Romantic Fantasy SRD" or something like that.

[Piratecat]

Originally Posted by carmachu

Yes where did Mike Mearls come from...but more importantly, where is he now?

Mike co-ran a Call of Cthulhu adventure with me at ConnCon waaay back in 1995 or so, back while he was still at Dartmouth. He was great.

Watching his career has made me really happy, and it wouldn't have happened without the OGL.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

I believe the OGL specifically excludes logos from being open content.

Based on . . ?

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Piratecat

Mike (. . .)

Watching his career has made me really happy, and it wouldn't have happened without the OGL.

I wonder if Mike and many other people at WotC feel the same way?

[El Mahdi]

Originally Posted by carmachu

They did in a way. Thats what the GSL is, so to speak. It interferes with my ability to buy good quality products.

OGL was created many many moons ago. In the term some always say "what have you done for me lately?" OGL is something their trying to reverse, so holding it up now isnt much good.

Not allowing something that they have no obligation to allow, is not interference. Your statement implies that you, and 3pp publishers, have an entitlement to this. You (and they) do not. If they want to grant the entitlement to do this, they can (and have). They also have the right to dictate the conditions upon which this entitlement is granted. That is their right and THEY ARE ENTITLED TO IT.

They are not trying to reverse the OGL, since this is categorically not possible to do. It would be an exercise in futility. They have absolutely no legal grounds or leverage by with to do this. They have simply moved on to a new product line, one for which they have no obligation to make open content. Whether you or others want it to be open, or just less closed, is irrelevent. No longer printing material under the OGL is their, and every other publishers, choice. It is not an attack on, nor a reversing of, the OGL.

[Fifth Element]

Originally Posted by Mark

Based on . . ?

The definition of "Product Identity" in paragraph 1?

[catsclaw227]

Originally Posted by carmachu

Are you kidding? H1 was pretty bad. I'd easily stack any of Paizo's adventures vs any WOTC 4e ones. And WOTC is coming up on the short end of the stick.

So the adventure is not up to your personal liking, so therefore the quality sucks? The first Rise of the Runelords AP adventure had print that was too small and the art wasn't to my liking. So does it suck? No, but it wasn't the quality that H1 was, for sure. The adventure was a PRE-RELEASE adventure designed for beginners and those new to 4e. Of course it wasn't going to have the story depth of P1 (which, BTW, is awesome). Comparing H1 to a Paizo AP is like comparing apples to oranges, they're both fruit, but if you cook with them, they accomplish different goals.

Originally Posted by carmachu

They really care? Show me. SHow me their caring. Not Scott's words here. Show me their actions.

WOTC's actions show a VERY different picture. THeir constant delay in the GSL orginially, the constant push back, the absoulte hostile license that the GSL was prior to revision and now the delay delay delay of the revision.

That shows alot of caring, right?

Ahhhhhh.... so in business, if I need to put something off for a customer because I have other PRESSING priorities, then I don't care about my customer? That's highly simplistic and could be considered a downright strawman. Just because they haven't executed on the GSL yet, doesn't mean that they don't care about the 3PP. I am not a 3PP, I cannot speak for them, but the ones that have spoken out on the boards say that, while the current GSL doesn't meet their business goals for publishing 4e content (due to some restrictions, current OGL product lines, etc..), many have said, on this board no less, that the gang at WOTC does care and that when Scott get's it done, they'll look at it. Maybe not said in the same post, but said nonetheless.

Originally Posted by carmachu

One could say otherwise, for WOTC. And their action shows it.

I put my money where my mouth is. WOTC wishes it this way, they get no money. But I'll gladly give it paizo and others through subscription and otherwise.

You can buy what you want. That is the nature of capitalism (unless you live in a country that tells you from whom to buy things). You can speak with your wallet. Excellent.

But that has nothing to do with whether Scott's priorities are such that the GSL revision takes second fiddle right now. It doesn't mean that he doesn't care about the 3PPs.