You reap what you sow - GSL.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Jun 18, 2008

Psion said:
Yep, I remember that.

Some have called Mearls a mensch for other things. For me, that was Mearls' mensch moment.

"mensch" is used as an "English" word? I can guess from the context, but I'd ask anyway: How can I understand it? (In German, "Mensch" is just "human".)
[/off-topic]

MerricB · Jun 18, 2008

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
"mensch" is used as an "English" word? I can guess from the context, but I'd ask anyway: How can I understand it? (In German, "Mensch" is just "human".)
[/off-topic]

He's a Real Man. That's how I interpret it, anyway.

My Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines it as a person of integrity or rectitude; a just, honest, or honourable person. It comes from the Yiddish.

Cheers!

Mr Jack · Jun 18, 2008

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
"mensch" is used as an "English" word? I can guess from the context, but I'd ask anyway: How can I understand it? (In German, "Mensch" is just "human".)
[/off-topic]

Yeah it got distorted from 'ubermensch'.

Bayonet_Chris · Jun 18, 2008

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
"mensch" is used as an "English" word? I can guess from the context, but I'd ask anyway: How can I understand it? (In German, "Mensch" is just "human".)
[/off-topic]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mensch

Basically, a stand-up, good guy - decent and honorable. Mearls basically was standing up for "the little guys", in a manner of speaking.

MongooseMatt · Jun 18, 2008

Psion said:
In some cases, I think it's failure to fully understand what they were getting into. In other cases which I have less sympathy for, those concerned have implied some sort of ethical breach. In these cases, that strikes me as saying one thing and meaning another.

Being candidly honest (!) for a moment, when we first heard this idea, we weren't wild about it - but you have to understand the position of the publishers at the time.

The D20 market was very competitive back then, and there were companies literally fighting for their lives. By way of example, when Mongoose first started, we listed over 100 companies with product or who had announced product - looking at the state of play today, there are only a handful of those companies left, and I am struggling to think of more than two (us and Green Ronin) who emply full-time staff - apologies if I missed anyone, it is not a slight

So, you have to remember that it wasn't a game to many people - this was how they made their living, paid their mortgage, and so on.

Now, very few publishers had any problem with material being reprinted (they existed, sure, but were few in number), and most seemed to be very liberal with their material, allowing the republication of far more than just the designated OGC. They knew what they were getting into with the OGL, and respected this sharing.

But for a non-profit group to come along and just hoover absolutely everything up, then put it on a web site for free? That made a lot of publishers. . . uncomfortable. Remember, this was their living.

With hindsight, it was the wrong position to take. The effect on sales would likely have been minimal (yes, you could argue that it might have increased sales through greater visability - but no one wanted to take that risk by being the first), and there is some question as to whether a great deal would have been achieved without direct co-operation from the publishers concerned. After all, we alone were generating huge quantities of OGC, and there were plenty of others out there creating a huge mass of information. Of course, that just made it worse, as we could all see a situation where one publisher had all their material posted, while another (direct competitor maybe) had none.

So, wrong position but, really, understandable.

It is therefore without hypocracy (!) that we have made the offer to provide exactly this information to anyone who fancies resurrecting this project - see the Publisher's forum for details

Wulf Ratbane · Jun 18, 2008

Lizard said:
Please tell me, carefully and explicitly, how a company doing what Wizards Of The Coast said they are "welcome to try" is insulting, crass, and disrespectful.

I eagerly -- and that's an understatement -- await your reply.

It is a stupid assertion, a canard whose death is long, looooooong overdue.

I also like watching the same folks claim that 4e is a juggernaut before which all 3rd party publishers and the Internet are insignificant worms, in the next breath bemoan the irreparable damage they're doing to WotCs bottom line.

That sad thing is, some of the folks who believe this are no doubt sitting behind desks at WotC.

If the GSL is any indication, WotC considers systemreferencedocuments.org to be an existential threat.

Good. Lord.

Cadfan · Jun 18, 2008

I find it disconcerting that we can have thread after thread about spooky things that WOTC might do in the future, but we can't name names on which 3rd party publishers turned out not to favor open source when the chips were down. I can't quite figure out the psychology behind why this should be.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Jun 18, 2008

Cadfan said:
I find it disconcerting that we can have thread after thread about spooky things that WOTC might do in the future, but we can't name names on which 3rd party publishers turned out not to favor open source when the chips were down. I can't quite figure out the psychology behind why this should be.

Who knows, maybe they are all "dead" by now?

Which might be telling. Or totally meaningless.

redcard · Jun 18, 2008

I can't either. It seems like a ton of publishers loved the OGL for their own means, but were unwilling to really sign on for what it means. WOTC gave away their core product, basically, to help other companies. It would have been nice if the other companies acted in kind, but now it seems kinda silly that people are blaming WOTC for changing their minds on the OGL. It's pretty obvious to me that the OGL works in small, non profit situations, but isn't really much of a "good business move" for market leaders to participate in.

Ruin Explorer · Jun 18, 2008

Cadfan said:
I find it disconcerting that we can have thread after thread about spooky things that WOTC might do in the future, but we can't name names on which 3rd party publishers turned out not to favor open source when the chips were down. I can't quite figure out the psychology behind why this should be.

I dunno about you, I was too lazy/didn't care enough to find out. You seem to be joining in the "psychology" of not telling us, though. Why are you trying to disconcert me, Cadfan? WHY?!?!?