Answers on the GSL!

[kenmarable]

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.

I suppose I could have worded it clearer, but, yep I was aware of that and believe it as well. But at the time there was a very strong perception among publishers that the timing was far too coincidental. (My guess is that it wasn't coincidental, but it was a matter of Valterra trying to get a product like that out with a d20 logo on it BEFORE the changes came down so that the logo could still help sales before he had to remove it, but wasn't fast enough. But that's just my guess.)

That said, I'm not sure how much publishers "work with each other" as it stands now. Collaborations between companies seem somewhat rare.

There's not a lot of direct cooperation, but there is plenty of backroom communication. An offhand comment during a casual conversation with their freelancers (who may very well be your freelancers as well) or even with distributors or retailers at GTS can hurt. Plus many of these publishers carry a lot of weight on messageboards. If I were to say that someone was acting like a neenerhead and spoiling all of our fun, it wouldn't really matter. But if Clark Peterson or Erik Mona came around and said that someone was a neenerhead and spoiling all of our fun, you can bet that person would lose customers. It's a blend of "relying on them for inside/expert information" with a dash of "cult of personality" throw in.

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.

I fully expect/hope there to be clarifying language on what a "product line" is. I also don't expect to see it until June 7th (WotC servers will crash on the 6th, but by the 7th someone will re-post it here at EN World, that's my prediction).

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.

I think that's fair enough since these are businesses, but I also know that a lot of this relies on playing nice. That doesn't mean you have to bend over backwards to accept anything WotC wants, but I'm just saying flagrant, thumbing your nose at everyone, sort of loophole exploits are bad for everyone, especially the company doing it. Subtler and "that's so wide open, I'd call that a feature not a loophole" sort of things are fine by me (and I will be looking for them, too). I'm just saying "Do it at any cost" would probably wind up costing more than its worth.

I guess it sounds like I mostly disagree with where to draw the line, not disagreeing that we shouldn't push limits if feasible.

 

[The Sigil]

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

Multiclassing? Amusingly enough, my degree is in Astrophysics. I never took so much as a single English course at the college level. Of course, I am an absolutely voracious reader, so that helps my vocabulary substantially.

On topic: The "poison pill" clause doesn't sound as bad as first feared; on the other hand, the answers feel - to me, anyway - very "political" and can generally be boiled down to "calm down, the sky is not falling - on the other hand, we will not give you much in the way of details (possibly because even if we've decided on the concept, we haven't hammered out the verbiage yet?) until June 6th."

So... I will continue to play Wait-and-See.

 

[freyar]

I haven't gone through the 4e forum GSL thread (to see if anyone has posted this), but here's something interesting from Erik Mona's LiveJournal (5th bullet point down):

Witnessed about three different iterations of the 4th edition D&D Game System License from Wizards of the Coast (the current is my favorite, by a wide margin).

So maybe the WotC lawyers were re-writing based on the comments here, who knows?

 

[Nellisir]

I haven't gone through the 4e forum GSL thread (to see if anyone has posted this), but here's something interesting from Erik Mona's LiveJournal (5th bullet point down):

So maybe the WotC lawyers were re-writing based on the comments here, who knows?

While it's possible he's actually seen 3 versions, I think it's more likely he's taking about the interpretations that have been floating around the message boards.

 

[lurkinglidda]

While it's possible he's actually seen 3 versions, I think it's more likely he's taking about the interpretations that have been floating around the message boards.

No one outside of WotC has seen the license.

 

[smetzger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown Jenkin
Does this mean that any fan site also has to submit a registration card?

Before the Q&A, Scott had said "yes" to this.

I don't think it's a good idea to sign one and send one in however. And it begs a lot of additional questions - "So can I not have 3.5e stuff on my random Web site any more either?"

Scott also, strongly suggested that the "No Interractive program" clause from the d20 license would remain in the GSL. So, if your site contains any interactive code you could not blanket the site with the GSL.

So, you could release certain pages, but not ones that were 'interactive' and you would have to make sure that you don't have OGL 3.0/3.5 stuff that would be considered in the same product line as your GSL.

Since the OGC appears to have been removed from the GSL I wouldn't bother with the GSL for a fansite. Either add a clause saying people can re-use the content if they credit you or they must contact you first if they want to re-use/re-publish your content.

The lack of OGC is going to make it a lot more difficult to cross-polinate ideas.

The lack of being able to do interactive program is going to stifle any innovation on the electronic publishing side of the business.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I'm pretty sure we can get away with posting things without the GSL registration. While WotC could make a case in court, it would only bring up the very bad press from the TSR days when they sued fansites. I would prefer working under the safe haven of the OGL, but if the GSL is as restrictive as I think I would rather take my chances under fair use (and hope WotC doesn't want to sue fansites) than be caught up in contract law by registering. I ask because it would be good to know what WotC policy is going to be towards fansites.

 

[jmucchiello]

Multiclassing? Amusingly enough, my degree is in Astrophysics. I never took so much as a single English course at the college level. Of course, I am an absolutely voracious reader, so that helps my vocabulary substantially.

Ah, well Astrophysics is over my head and I don't actually eat books. Maybe that's how one improves one's vocabulary.

So... I will continue to play Wait-and-See.

Wait-and-See -- No dice to roll, no decisions. Just wait and you'll see who wins -- it's like Candyland but you don't even have to draw the cards for it to play itself. (Sorry, I was just reading boardgamegeek.)

On-Topic: If I had the time, I'd be designing a 4e character class from the preview material. I think there's almost enough there to do it and not be too far off the power scale.

 

[BSF]

I'm pretty sure we can get away with posting things without the GSL registration. While WotC could make a case in court, it would only bring up the very bad press from the TSR days when they sued fansites. I would prefer working under the safe haven of the OGL, but if the GSL is as restrictive as I think I would rather take my chances under fair use (and hope WotC doesn't want to sue fansites) than be caught up in contract law by registering. I ask because it would be good to know what WotC policy is going to be towards fansites.

This is one of the big steps backward that is really bothersome.

Sure, WotC would be "stupid" to go after fan sites. That is the conventional wisdom. It is probably even safe to assume that they won't.

But the fact of the matter is that they could. With the OGL, there was a way to safely publish your thoughts and ideas on the web for your game group, or whatever.

All it takes is a shift in policy to change and WotC could go after fan sites. Sure, it might foster bad relations. But there is nothing stopping them from trying that.

 

[InkwellIdeas]

The lack of OGC is going to make it a lot more difficult to cross-polinate ideas.

Borrowing ideas is almost never a problem. Happens all the time in many media, regardless of a license or not. Unless an idea is so novel it was patented (which admittedly that may happen in cases where it shouldn't) you're free to use an idea and build on it. Copyright might prevent you from copying the text of an idea word for word, but there are prior cases that have been mentioned here lately that support borrowing or using other's rules, assuming you don't copy text. Even copying is ok to a limited degree in certain circumstances. Ask a lawyer (I'm not) first, or course.