JVisgaitis
Explorer
Sounds good. I am assuming this is on company by company basis. Example, if Green Ronin makes True20 4e, that doesn't mean we can't support True20 then, right?
Answers on the GSL!
Vigilance
Explorer
Alzrius said:
You speak like there was a chance for another OGL/ an extension of the OGL, which in fact was never on the table.
So yes, the GSL is the best option we were going to get in this actual real world, as opposed to the fantasy world you're discussing.
Since the options were no license, or one with some more restrictions, then the GSL is the best option we actually had a chance to get in reality.
Hence, it's a great thing, a huge win, and another show of Wizards' generosity with their content.
Chuck
Aus_Snow
First Post
I thought something like that (should it ever come to be) would have to be published under the d20 GSL, not the D&D ('4e') GSL. So you couldn't really have True20 4e in the first place, and also there would really be no point simply re-releasing True20 under a new - possibly retractable - license, while not changing anything else.JVisgaitis said:
Unless I'm misreading things, which is of course entirely possible.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
Vigilance said:
No, Chuck, you've simply decided that I was discussing a "fantasy world." Look back at my original post in this thread, and you'll see that I'm very much talking about the real world - specifically, exactly what the term "product line" constitutes (and, by extension, how to dance around that particular restriction).
And just because the GSL (as it's been explained to us now) is the best option WotC is willing to give us now, doesn't mean that anyone who finds fault with it is necessarily wrong, or dreaming of some "fantasy world" like you're accusing.
No, the options were whatever WotC wanted them to be. They simply didn't want them to be anything as Open as they were before. This is the best of what they were willing to give us.
That's your opinion. Don't lash out at me with childish "you're dreaming of a fantasy world" statements because I don't share it.
Is Wizards being generous? Sure. Just not as generous as they were before.
Yair
Community Supporter
I'm disappointed they haven't answered question 8 - their fan site policy.
I think the poison pill is not particularly poisonous. I do wonder how it would apply in practice to succesful lines, though. Let's say Green Ronin decides to make a 3e "Guide to Freeport" and support products, published under its "The Freeport Setting" line. Supposedly, they couldn't publish a "Guide to Freeport" using 4e rules; but what about a "Freeport Guide" with the same content, under the "Pirates & Mayham" line? What if it contained 50% of the content? 10%? What if it was published by a subsidiary? What if another company wanted to license the IP and publish a 4e line of Freeport products? Forbidding the use of the same IP in 4e seems impossible to me, at least without the very supervision Wizards wishes to avoid.
I hope the new license will lead to better reference and use of Wizard's IP. I think that it's likely companies would be able to reference, say, Mind Flayers - as that won't jepordize Wizard's version of them, and it would be easy to add the reference to the new SRD.
For myself, since the license is revocable it won't answer my desires, so I expect to move away from 4e in about a year or so. But I'm not a publisher, and am certainly the least of Wizard's concerns.
I think the poison pill is not particularly poisonous. I do wonder how it would apply in practice to succesful lines, though. Let's say Green Ronin decides to make a 3e "Guide to Freeport" and support products, published under its "The Freeport Setting" line. Supposedly, they couldn't publish a "Guide to Freeport" using 4e rules; but what about a "Freeport Guide" with the same content, under the "Pirates & Mayham" line? What if it contained 50% of the content? 10%? What if it was published by a subsidiary? What if another company wanted to license the IP and publish a 4e line of Freeport products? Forbidding the use of the same IP in 4e seems impossible to me, at least without the very supervision Wizards wishes to avoid.
I hope the new license will lead to better reference and use of Wizard's IP. I think that it's likely companies would be able to reference, say, Mind Flayers - as that won't jepordize Wizard's version of them, and it would be easy to add the reference to the new SRD.
For myself, since the license is revocable it won't answer my desires, so I expect to move away from 4e in about a year or so. But I'm not a publisher, and am certainly the least of Wizard's concerns.
I also wish that the GSL was as open as the OGL.
However, I do not think my belief in openness, or anyone else's belief, justifies any one of us imposing that belief on others. We definitely should not force our beliefs on openness on a license-holder granting others access to their property (in any degree). Its their product and they are entitled to have their beliefs on how open it should be, and none of us have any right to force their product to be more open than they wish it to be.
This is especially important when we are talking about "openness". Openness is a fancy way of saying that some folks have access to someone else's product. When you take someone's product without their permission, that is stealing. It is still stealing if they let you take it for one purpose and duration, but you intentionally misuse it. For example, if I lend you my car to go to the store and you instead drive to Paraguay, you have stolen my car. It doesn't matter whether I have let you drive my car to Paraguay before, so you think I should let you do it again. If I don't give you permission to take my car like that, you have stolen my car.
Now, when I say "stealing", I am talking about stealing in a moral sense, not a legal one. It may be that clever abuses of the new GSL will be able to force greater openness on publisher's products without being busted legally for any violations of contract or law. Since we haven't seen the license, we don't know yet. However, just because a person can get away with something legally doesn't mean that the act is not morally wrong. If you force other people to "share" their product in a way they do not intend, you are taking and distributing their products without their permission- in other words, stealing. Illegal or not, it is wrong for any of us to consider forcing greater "openness" upon WotC or anyone else just because we believe it is a better idea. None of us has any right to make that decision for anyone else.
However, I do not think my belief in openness, or anyone else's belief, justifies any one of us imposing that belief on others. We definitely should not force our beliefs on openness on a license-holder granting others access to their property (in any degree). Its their product and they are entitled to have their beliefs on how open it should be, and none of us have any right to force their product to be more open than they wish it to be.
This is especially important when we are talking about "openness". Openness is a fancy way of saying that some folks have access to someone else's product. When you take someone's product without their permission, that is stealing. It is still stealing if they let you take it for one purpose and duration, but you intentionally misuse it. For example, if I lend you my car to go to the store and you instead drive to Paraguay, you have stolen my car. It doesn't matter whether I have let you drive my car to Paraguay before, so you think I should let you do it again. If I don't give you permission to take my car like that, you have stolen my car.
Now, when I say "stealing", I am talking about stealing in a moral sense, not a legal one. It may be that clever abuses of the new GSL will be able to force greater openness on publisher's products without being busted legally for any violations of contract or law. Since we haven't seen the license, we don't know yet. However, just because a person can get away with something legally doesn't mean that the act is not morally wrong. If you force other people to "share" their product in a way they do not intend, you are taking and distributing their products without their permission- in other words, stealing. Illegal or not, it is wrong for any of us to consider forcing greater "openness" upon WotC or anyone else just because we believe it is a better idea. None of us has any right to make that decision for anyone else.
I wonder if this had been planned all along.
Plan A: If the total of 5000 submissions surpasses possible loss due to competition from launch till GenCon then announce GSL right away.
Plan B: If the submissions are too low drag the GSL announcement to "reasonably" exclude competition.
To me, it sounds far more believable from a seven figure business perspective than last week "fights" that people have been suggesting around here. If they were able to do it this week they could have been able to do it months ago too.
Plan A: If the total of 5000 submissions surpasses possible loss due to competition from launch till GenCon then announce GSL right away.
Plan B: If the submissions are too low drag the GSL announcement to "reasonably" exclude competition.
To me, it sounds far more believable from a seven figure business perspective than last week "fights" that people have been suggesting around here. If they were able to do it this week they could have been able to do it months ago too.
