12th September 2008, 04:43 AM
|
 #1 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 36
| Updated status on the revised GSL
On Thursday, September 11, 2008, at 2:22 pm PST, Scott Rouse (Senior Brand Manager - Dungeons and Dragons) posted the following in the "are the revisions dead" thread in the GSL section of the WotC Dungeons and Dragons forums. Quote: |
Originally Posted by WotC_ScottR It has not been shelved. It's sitting right here on my desk next to the bazillion other things I've got going on right now. I haven't been on the boards in a while (weeks?) so I have not been aware of what was going on.
The draft is done. The changes are approved and it just needs to get pushed to a final document. But there is still work to do. Since Lidda is gone I am taking on myself (as well as a bunch of other licensing duties) plus my day to day so as you can imagine I am slammed.
So what's left?
As an outcome of one of the changes we made we need to create a "statement of rejection" form that will be an official opt out of the license upon a revision. It will look a lot like the SOA.
We also need clear up some things on the SRD and in the FAQ. Lidda left me a draft of the FAQ but I have not looked at it yet and I have not met with R&D to discuss the changes/clarifications to the SRD.
Realistically, looking at my work load this is still weeks off being done. | | 
| | |
12th September 2008, 06:10 AM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Ask
Posts: 349
| Thanks for the news update.
I like the SOR idea. It looks like they've added a cushion period to allow the opt-out, suggesting they have given thorough consideration to the licensee's rights. All we can do is wait to see how it looks.
__________________
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. | |
| | |
12th September 2008, 09:58 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Kaunakakai, Molokai, Hawaii, USA
Posts: 13,390
| So if a 3PP opted out, can they bring their product line back to OGL after being published for or converted over to 4e? | |
| | |
12th September 2008, 01:43 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Familiar Extraordinaire
Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,554
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger REG  So if a 3PP opted out, can they bring their product line back to OGL after being published for or converted over to 4e? | 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).
__________________ Brain: Come Pinky! We must prepare for tomorrow night.
Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?
Brain: The same thing we do every night....TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD! | 
| | |
12th September 2008, 02:58 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | The Gamer Traveler
Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Miami Beach, FL
Posts: 1,551
| Not necessarily wonderful news, but at least it's good to know there has been progress made. | |
| | |
12th September 2008, 03:18 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 45
| My 2 cents? We won't be seeing any GSL before october 1st (a.k.a. old- GSL date for 3PP that didn't buy the "Early publisher kit" to start releasing products).
Edit: As you can see, by my post count, I just gave the answer to life, the universe and everything, if you know what I mean  | |
| | |
12th September 2008, 03:21 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Shoreline, WA, USA
Posts: 286
| Wait, did I miss something? Is Lidda gone gone, or just on vacation? | |
| | |
12th September 2008, 03:43 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario
Posts: 3,537
| Sadly, lidda got "restructured" out of a job. | |
| | |
12th September 2008, 03:43 PM
|
#9 (permalink)
| | The EN World kitten
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: eastern United States
Posts: 6,316
| Quote:
Originally Posted by occam Wait, did I miss something? Is Lidda gone gone, or just on vacation? | It wasn't announced very loudly, but yeah, Linae Foster (aka Lurking Lidda) is no longer with WotC. | |
| | |
12th September 2008, 04:56 PM
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Admiral o' th' High Seas
Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Southampton, England
Posts: 16,964
| Quote:
Originally Posted by fabneme My 2 cents? We won't be seeing any GSL before october 1st (a.k.a. old- GSL date for 3PP that didn't buy the "Early publisher kit" to start releasing products). | Nobody bought the early publisher kit. It never went on sale - an idea that never happened. | |
| | |
12th September 2008, 05:30 PM
|
#11 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 45
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrus Nobody bought the early publisher kit. It never went on sale - an idea that never happened. | That's why I called it old. | |
| | |
12th September 2008, 05:47 PM
|
#12 (permalink)
| | Familiar Extraordinaire
Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,554
| Quote:
Originally Posted by fabneme My 2 cents? We won't be seeing any GSL before october 1st | We won't see anything before then because that is the start date of the existing GSL. I really doubt as well that any publisher can get anything out in less than three months even if the new revision is acceptable (and that is 3 months from whenever The Rouse releases it).
__________________ Brain: Come Pinky! We must prepare for tomorrow night.
Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?
Brain: The same thing we do every night....TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD! | |
| | |
12th September 2008, 08:46 PM
|
#13 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Ask
Posts: 349
| 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. | |
| | |
12th September 2008, 10:51 PM
|
#14 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Kaunakakai, Molokai, Hawaii, USA
Posts: 13,390
| 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). | In that case, I hope Green Ronin won't bring Freeport to 4e. | |
| | |
12th September 2008, 11:09 PM
|
#15 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Ask
Posts: 349
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger REG In that case, I hope Green Ronin won't bring Freeport to 4e. | What's so bad about what Brown Jenkin suggested that you would say that?
__________________
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. | |
| | |
12th September 2008, 11:19 PM
|
#16 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario
Posts: 3,537
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Corjay What's so bad about what Brown Jenkin suggested that you would say that? | Well, if the "you can't publish this for another system" clause remains, then the scenario looks like this:
1. Green Ronin accepts the terms of the GSL (say, GSL 2.0).
2. Green Ronin ports Freeport to 4e
3. WotC revises the GSL in a way that's no longer acceptable to Green Ronin. (say, GSL 3.0)
4. Green Ronin rejects the terms of the revised GSL 3.0, and is bound by the GSL 2.0, including being unable to produce new products under it, and being unable to port material made for 4e over to other systems.
So basically, unless WotC said otherwise, 4e would be the last system that Freeport could be published for.
This is all contingent on their being at least some of the same 4e-only and lasts-forever clauses in the new GSL as the old. | |
| | |
13th September 2008, 12:05 AM
|
#17 (permalink)
| | Familiar Extraordinaire
Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,554
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Stoughton Well, if the "you can't publish this for another system" clause remains, then the scenario looks like this: |
The GSL right now only limits future publishing under the OGL. If Green Ronan wanted to do a future WEG d6 version it would be fine. But as you say, we have no idea what the GSL 2.0 will or wont restrict.
__________________ Brain: Come Pinky! We must prepare for tomorrow night.
Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?
Brain: The same thing we do every night....TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD! | |
| | |
13th September 2008, 12:14 AM
|
#18 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Ask
Posts: 349
| What he said ^
__________________
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. | |
| | |
13th September 2008, 07:21 AM
|
#19 (permalink)
| | The Rite Publisher
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 417
| Let me get this straight WotC has bungled the GSL since OCT of last year and then let go the person who was supposed to be fixing it?
Then they gave it to a guy who does not have time to work on it?
Sigh | |
| | |
13th September 2008, 07:41 AM
|
#20 (permalink)
| | Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Ask
Posts: 349
| Linae was not the only one working on it. Scott mentioned "changes we made", showing that he and others, not just Linae, were working on the GSL. As I undestood it, Scott was already head of the licensing department, or at least used to be and is again. He is also not the only one having to finish the job. Scott said "we" when he said the SOR still has to be finished. So someone is going to push him to get it done. The fact is that the GSL got done fairly quickly and now they only have to complete the peripheral documents, creating one and modifying another. If it takes two months, big deal. It's a heck of a lot better than taking 6 months or a year.
__________________
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.
Last edited by Corjay; 13th September 2008 at 07:49 AM..
| |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | | | 
|
