Revised GSL TODAY!

Mark · Mar 5, 2009

joethelawyer said:
I'd bet a dollar Clark doesn't want to be perceived a giving legal advice on these boards in any way, shape, or form.

And I advise whoever wins that dollar to . . .

Scribble · Mar 5, 2009

I obviously can't speak for the man, but I'ma give my opinion.

What I took away from what he said about the GSL wasn't that you should like it, or use it. What it seemed to me he was saying was it was no longer a flawed contract from the standpoint of a legal professional. He seemed to be saying it was now pretty much along the same lines as most other IP contracts. (And even more open because it's free.)

Whether or not you choose to operate with a license of that type is your own business.

I could be way off, but that's what I took from it.

joethelawyer · Mar 5, 2009

Mark said:
And I advise whoever wins that dollar to . . .

Shameless.

And thx for telling me what BoEF stands for. Sometimes you just have a brain fart at the end of a long day.

Scribble · Mar 5, 2009

joethelawyer said:
Shameless.

And thx for telling me what BoEF stands for. Sometimes you just have a brain fart at the end of a long day.

BFaTEoaLD?

mxyzplk · Mar 5, 2009

Orcus said:
Agreed 100%. That first post was rubbish.

Frankly, the BOEF was garbage and is EXACTLY the kind of product that content owners make license restrictions for--they dont want their brand affiliated with total crap. So the fact that there is a license that interfers with BOEF means the license is working correctly.

As for the d20 STL ending, all content/branding licenses have the chance to end. You always have to deal with that. In this case, they let you scrub off the logo and keep selling the stuff. That is MORE than reasonable. And the current license has a 6 month sell-off period. Again, more than reasonable.

Anyone who wants to hate on Wizards for the terms of the license simply doesnt use licenses. This stuff isnt particularly objectionable and any objection to it for those reasons is unreasonable.

Clark, I think you're overstepping here. There are plenty of licenses which don't have these restrictions, and it's not unreasonable to make a business decision that you don't want to incur the risk of either one of these.

And one man's "garbage" is another man's treasure. Not everyone's a prude and recoils at the concept of adult content in D&D. When I was active with the RPGA I remember a scenario getting revamped due to its "objectionable content" of some kid being the victim of a cult. When you sign on to a morals clause, you can never be sure what the person administering that is going to target - and according to this license, if Wizards terminates YOU, there is NO six month sell off.

You're certainly entitled to sign on, but I have to say your rant here is totally misplaced.

Mouseferatu · Mar 5, 2009

Not everyone's a prude and recoils at the concept of adult content in D&D.

Have you read Necromancer material?

Maybe Clark's problem is just that he doesn't like the quality of BoEF, rather than the topic?

(Note: I've never read BoEF all the way through, just skimmed it. I'm not saying it is or isn't good. I'm saying that just because he thinks Book X is garbage, it doesn't necessarily follow that he objects to the topic of Book X.)

Mark · Mar 5, 2009

mxyzplk said:
When I was active with the RPGA I remember a scenario getting revamped due to its "objectionable content" of some kid being the victim of a cult.

Are you posting about River of Blood by Erik Mona? I remember running that. Great fun but the subject needed to be treated in a certain delicate fashion if younger players were involved.

mxyzplk · Mar 5, 2009

Mouseferatu said:
Have you read Necromancer material?

Maybe Clark's problem is just that he doesn't like the quality of BoEF, rather than the topic?

(Note: I've never read BoEF all the way through, just skimmed it. I'm not saying it is or isn't good. I'm saying that just because he thinks Book X is garbage, it doesn't necessarily follow that he objects to the topic of Book X.)

But that would be disingenuous and irrelevant, as the GSL clause is a morals clause and not a "quality" clause.

mxyzplk · Mar 5, 2009

Mark said:
Are you posting about River of Blood by Erik Mona? I remember running that. Great fun but the subject needed to be treated in a certain delicate fashion if younger players were involved.

Yep. I was one of the original LG Triads; ran that one and untold others... Not really sure how delicate you need to be. If they're old enough to play, they are killing and being killed - "oh no some kids got killed" is probably nothing not adequately depicted in art on their school notebooks.

[Edit: I bet this experience influenced how much trust Paizo's willing to put into the GSL morals clause today, sine Erik's one of the big boys over there. You reap what you sow...]

Mark · Mar 5, 2009

mxyzplk said:
Yep. I was one of the original LG Triads; ran that one and untold others... Not really sure how delicate you need to be. If they're old enough to play, they are killing and being killed - "oh no some kids got killed" is probably nothing not adequately depicted in art on their school notebooks.

Well, let's not forget that April of the year before saw Columbine school as the sight of a tragedy that may have had most people particularly on edge regarding the killing of children.