NEWS: OGL and SRD dates/info announced

[JohnRTroy]

Does the GSL bypass (by specific intent or otherwise) Section 9 of the OGL?

I'm pretty sure a brand new license means that any requirements of the OGL no longer applies. It's not a revision of the OGL, it's a completely new method of licensing the content.

 

[Delta]

My question to Linnae today would be this -- Can you confirm that OGL Section 9 was part of the discussion that led to switching to the Gaming System License?

 

[JohnRTroy]

Y'know, I wouldn't put pressure on Linnae to answer the "Section 9" question. It puts a lot of pressure on something that really isn't our business to know. Who really cares "why" they changed the license?

Plus, the fact is we may not see the license until 2009.

And Linnae, I would always suggest talking to legal first. The way some of these guys talk, I think that some people want to make a case for a lawsuit or to get legal protection for an attempt to use the OGL for 4e compatible products, so please don't help them.

 

[Alzrius]

The way some of these guys talk, I think that some people want to make a case for a lawsuit or to get legal protection for an attempt to use the OGL for 4e compatible products, so please don't help them.

Such a thing doesn't require a lawsuit, nor legal protection, and it certainly doesn't need help.

 

[Delta]

And Linnae, I would always suggest talking to legal first. The way some of these guys talk, I think that some people want to make a case for a lawsuit or to get legal protection for an attempt to use the OGL for 4e compatible products, so please don't help them.

To assert that the licensing manager doesn't know to talk to the lawyers may be the meanest thing I've heard anyone say about WOTC in months. I'd think about apologizing.

 

[RPGRealms]

And Linnae, I would always suggest talking to legal first. The way some of these guys talk, I think that some people want to make a case for a lawsuit or to get legal protection for an attempt to use the OGL for 4e compatible products, so please don't help them.

That's amusing...

 

[Nellisir]

Plus, the fact is we may not see the license until 2009.

Um, no, I think it was pretty clear we'll see the license around June.

The way some of these guys talk, I think that some people want to make a case for a lawsuit or to get legal protection for an attempt to use the OGL for 4e compatible products, so please don't help them.

What is it with you, dude? I swear, screwing the little guy seems to be some kind of personal crusade for you. I thought you might be a WotC shill for awhile, but the people at Wizards are a lot less hostile. Were you attacked by a pile of Creature Catalogs when you were a baby?

 

[JohnRTroy]

What is it with you, dude? I swear, screwing the little guy seems to be some kind of personal crusade for you. I thought you might be a WotC shill for awhile, but the people at Wizards are a lot less hostile. Were you attacked by a pile of Creature Catalogs when you were a baby?

My issue in arguing this points is that in recent years has become "politically incorrect" to support copyright, trademarks, patents, and other forms of IP, to condemn illegal trade of books and electronic content, to even support the rights of authors, to accept compromise over things like protecting content, etc. It's becoming a cliche' of the "big evil company" screwing over the "poor defenseless little individual". I'm starting to see an attitude of making the entertainment industry a kleptocracy by its consumers without thinking of the consequences.

Keep in mind I see abuses of copyright, trademark, patents, content restrictions, etc. It doesn't mean I don't think they are still good things, I'm not about to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The sole individual is served by such protections as well as the multinational conglomerate.

People seem to think the change in the license is the end of the world. It's not. Maybe it will actually encourage people to create. It might actually have some benefits. Maybe there will be provisions to allow full use of Wizards Product Identity. Maybe they'll allow better definition of the publishers PI so that you can create complementary products, but still control it so you don't get what I like to call "ripping"--that is wholesale cut and paste. The OGL was an experiment, now I guess we'll see if they've worked out the negatives of that particular license.

And it surprises me that instead of asking questions like this--what benefits will the license give to small publishers, what controls will we have--the biggest concern is that "Section 9".

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Maybe it will actually encourage people to create.

What do you think of M&M, True20, Midnight, Arcana Unearthed?

You are more concerned about the ability to shut down some pissant websites who are "ripping" content wholesale than in 3rd party publishers' ability to actually create.

Maybe they'll ... control it so you don't get what I like to call "ripping"--that is wholesale cut and paste.

Wholesale ripping comes in two forms:

1) Reissuing text from the SRD verbatim, by a 3rd party publisher, in a derivative work. This is a GOOD thing. That is the entire ing purpose of the SRD-- to standardize the language and the ruleset, and to propagate the d20 system. Good lord.

2) Pissant websites "ripping" OGC and posting it up. This is a risk that every publisher of OGC accepts, and short of occasionally whining, "Gee, I wish folks wouldn't do that..." it is irrelevant.

There was no epidemic of publishers having their content "ripped off" by another publisher.

You are concerned about a problem that simply doesn't exist.

The same goes for your constant belly-aching about a "glut." The so-called glut was caused by what you like to refer to as the "professional" publishers. You know, the ones who actually had inroads to print distribution. Mongoose, Sword and Sorcery, Fantasy Flight, Green Ronin, AEG, Atlas, Bastion, Paradigm, Privateer, Necromancer Games, Goodman Games, and please forgive whoever else I am forgetting.

ALL professional publishers. ALL producing quality product. ALL competing for shelf space with Wizards of the Coast.

THERE is your glut.

And if you think for a moment that any one of those companies isn't able to pony up 5k and cause the exact same glut, you're kidding yourself.

The "glut" was not caused by hordes of "unprofessional" publishers. This is a complete canard, and if you'd like to refute it, by all means provide examples instead of repeating the same myth ad nauseam.

And don't say Fast Forward Entertainment.

And it surprises me that instead of asking questions like this--what benefits will the license give to small publishers, what controls will we have--the biggest concern is that "Section 9".

Come back when you understand the license and are willing to put your money and your hard work on the line, and we'll see what you find relevant or not.

Otherwise, you've achieved troll-dom.

 

[JohnRTroy]

What do you think of M&M, True20, Midnight, Arcana Unearthed?

You are more concerned about the ability to shut down some pissant websites who are "ripping" content wholesale than in 3rd party publishers' ability to actually create.

No, because I have a feeling those creators will still be able to create games, under the new GSL. And we might get variations on the game system. The OGL as written is not necessary for this type of relationship to occur.

I respect WoTC right to change the license they use for a new game. The people I've been targeting are not the people who right for the 3e OGL, or people willing to accept the OGL, but the few individual who want to reverse engineer the 4e rules under the 3e OGL. I support a publishers and individual's right to control their content and choose whatever license/franchise/agreement they see fit, just like I support the individual user's right to either choose to agree and go with an agreement or to not and do without.

And as far as creating goes...I'm sorry, but there are "levels" of creation. Creating an entirely new game system from scratch is a lot harder than adapting an existing one, just like sampling is not as creative as creating the music from scratch, or "riffing/snarking" on a movie is not as creative as making an existing movie, or writing a program in ASP.NET or Ruby on Rails is as creative as creating a new computer language. By that analogy, I think Arcana Evolved is less creative than a new game Monte Cook would create, and I think he'd agree with that. (AE is more valuable for setting differences IMO). That was my point.

2) Pissant websites "ripping" OGC and posting it up. This is a risk that every publisher of OGC accepts, and short of occasionally whining, "Gee, I wish folks wouldn't do that..." it is irrelevant.

Well, maybe a new license will remove that risk. I hope it does.

Come back when you understand the license and are willing to put your money and your hard work on the line, and we'll see what you find relevant or not.

Otherwise, you've achieved troll-dom.

I understand the license just fine. I done some work for OGL and non-OGL games. I, however, am of the opinion that WoTC gave a little too much away with this license, which is probably one of the reasons why the license is being changed now. You're also passing judgment on the GSL sight unseen.

And the glut was caused by too much competition, regardless of quality, just like TSR dug their own grave with too much competition in the D&D campaign setting market. If I was WoTC, I would have only allowed a select few publishers to use the game system, and another license allowing gamers to publish their own content in a non-profit manner without fear of violating copyright, simply because I could see the tragedy of the commons that happened. I don't think I ever said the glut was solely caused by "bad" publishers.