Answers on the GSL!

[jmucchiello]

Poaching Spencer's Schtick?

No, I can't spare the feat in order to multiclass into English major to get his vocabulary.

 

[DaveMage]

Something's odd here...

A poster is missing.

 

[Dark Mistress]

Nothing to see Dave all posters are posting, you are just imagining someone is not posting.

 

[Jack99]

Something's odd here...

A poster is missing.

Yes, slightly odd...

 

[Yair]

And just because WotC doesn't want other companies to do that, doesn't mean other companies should avoid a move that could be more profitable for themselves. WotC has made it clear they don't want companies to publish the same product under both systems, despite how that'd be more profitable for other companies; other companies, however, are certainly not to be faulted for doing what's best for themselves.

Since WotC can arbitrarily amend the GSL, they can amend it to cease any such practices that emerge. It would be very unwise to publish products that WotC disapproves of; this runs the very big risk of instigating a license change that would make selling these products untenable, creating large losses. Unlike the d20STL, the publisher does not have the OGL to fall back to.

 

[Alzrius]

Since WotC can arbitrarily amend the GSL, they can amend it to cease any such practices that emerge. It would be very unwise to publish products that WotC disapproves of; this runs the very big risk of instigating a license change that would make selling these products untenable, creating large losses. Unlike the d20STL, the publisher does not have the OGL to fall back to.

That risk exists already though, particularly since only one publisher would need to do that for all publishers to be affected by it; hence, I wonder how much of a disincentive that really is.

And a publisher does have the OGL to fall back to, since that license can't be truly revoked.

 

[SavageRobby]

Well, this isn't as good as it could be, but its better than I'd hoped. My concern was that my favorite game companies would have to make a horrid choice (that would affect their long term viability as companies): support OGL products or GSL products, but not be able to support both. Based on the answers in the QA, it appears that isn't the case, and while the solutions offered ain't perfect, they're better than thought prior to the announcement, and certainly better than none. It will be interesting to see exactly how the GSL defines a product line, however.


And as much as it pains me to say something nice, it was definitely a good move to release that info ASAP, too, even if it was on a Friday.

 

[kenmarable]

That risk exists already though, particularly since only one publisher would need to do that for all publishers to be affected by it; hence, I wonder how much of a disincentive that really is.

Remember this is a small industry. When the Book of Erotic Fantasy came out and the "community standards" clause was added at a rather coincidental time, on industry mailing lists there was some serious dragging of Anthony Valterra (I think I spelled that close) over the coals with plenty of "peeing the pool" references from a very wide array of publishers big and small. I'm not sure how much made it into public circles, but on at least the industry lists I was on, it was some heated debate and a lot of annoyance at the BoEF. So if one publisher does try to exploit a loophole or cause license trouble and then the rest of the industry is affected by it, you can certainly bet that they will have a lot of very annoyed publishers thinking twice about ever working with them again. In such a small industry, ill-will from the other publishers can be painful.

So, given that example, I would think there's plenty of disincentive for a smart publisher flagrantly try to exploit a loophole. I'm sure there will be minor pushing the boundaries and testing the limits, but if we are talking about an outright exploit against the spirit of the license, then "well, if someone does it then we'll all suffer, and I'm sure someone will do it eventually, so I might as well" is not a wise move.

 

[Alzrius]

Remember this is a small industry. When the Book of Erotic Fantasy came out and the "community standards" clause was added at a rather coincidental time, on industry mailing lists there was some serious dragging of Anthony Valterra (I think I spelled that close) over the coals with plenty of "peeing the pool" references from a very wide array of publishers big and small. I'm not sure how much made it into public circles, but on at least the industry lists I was on, it was some heated debate and a lot of annoyance at the BoEF. So if one publisher does try to exploit a loophole or cause license trouble and then the rest of the industry is affected by it, you can certainly bet that they will have a lot of very annoyed publishers thinking twice about ever working with them again. In such a small industry, ill-will from the other publishers can be painful.

As an aside, WotC and (IIRC) Anthony Valterra have always held that the community standards clause being added to the d20STL at that time was largely a coincidence. I'm not sure how true that necessarily is, but that's the line that everyone seems to stick to.

That said, I'm not sure how much publishers "work with each other" as it stands now. Collaborations between companies seem somewhat rare. And besides, adding clarifying language regarding what constitutes a "product line" probably won't affect most publishers who aren't trying to dodge that restriction anyway, just like the community standards clause didn't affect anyone who wasn't producing BoEF-style material.

So, given that example, I would think there's plenty of disincentive for a smart publisher flagrantly try to exploit a loophole. I'm sure there will be minor pushing the boundaries and testing the limits, but if we are talking about an outright exploit against the spirit of the license, then "well, if someone does it then we'll all suffer, and I'm sure someone will do it eventually, so I might as well" is not a wise move.

The spirit of the GSL is "make books that sell WotC books." Given that, I don't see any particular reason not to try and use the text of the license while ignoring the spirit of it. Publishers should be able to produce whatever books will sell to the widest possible audience, and if that means publishing the same book in 3.5 and 4E stats, then I think they should go for it if they find a way to do so.

 

[TerraDave]

Something's odd here...

A poster is missing.

The similar thread in the 4E forum seems to have diverted a couple of the main "posters" on this. (ie Orcus posted over there).