Revised GSL TODAY!

[catsclaw227]

Some of the books Paizo does are almost stat free now and others might take some work but things like Rise of the Runelords which are OOP might be good books to experiement with for 4e.

If they did a RotR 4e conversion, I would be insanely happy and Paizo would get my business back in a nanosecond.

 

[Aristotle]

I'm so glad to see some publishers excited about this, and the idea that more product will hit the shelves. I relly feel that 3PP are a big part of what made 3e a success (interesting new directions for the game, some really solid products, and an introduction to some really talented designers). I love 4e, and really want to see more of that for this edition too.

To those publishers who are throwing your hat into the ring: Thanks!

And Mr. Mona. Please consider any pathfinder products that you might produce for 4e in the future preordered.

 

[Alzrius]

Unless I'm mistaken, the GSL changes are threefold:

1) The SRD is updated with MM2 and PHB2 materials.

2) There's no longer language preventing publishers from using the OGL in any fashion if they use the GSL.

3) Publishers can now opt out of the GSL at will, with a six-month period to sell off remaining materials.

Points 2 and 3 being the big ones.

I guess those are pretty good. Certainly they're the biggest problems that everyone seemed to have, but there's still a lot in there that seems to be rather bad. They can still make changes at will? You still can't reprint stat blocks or redefine terms? A large number of sections of the GSL still survive termination?

This is a step in the right direction, to be sure, but I certainly wouldn't call this worth whooping and hollering over. YMMV, I suppose.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Count me among those who thought that this would never come out.

I wonder how long it'll take for stuff to start coming out of the woodworks. It won't be long IMO.

 

[mxyzplk]

As one of the harshest critics of the previous GSL (I'm the guy whose "Wizards Declares War On Open Gaming" article got Slashdotted), I want to say credit where credit is due; this new version of the GSL is way better. It isn't without its flaws/areas of concern for potential licensees, but it is a huge improvement. Good job Scott.

My quick summary is that adding a termination clause with some rights for the licensee and removing the last of the anti-GSL poison pill clause greatly change the implications of the license. There are still reasons for someone to pass on the license, but they now have more to do with legitimate business tradeoffs than having to be concerned about a totally one-sided license agreement.

To a potential licensee:
Old GSL: 2/10
New GSL: 6/10
OGL: 8/10

The super crazy long analysis is at "Wizards Releases Revised GSL - Is It Better?" if anyone's interested.

 

[gribble]

Hmmm... no-ones pointed this out yet, but if I was a 3pp I wouldn't be too happy with a logo that states it requires (not even may require) about half a dozen books to use. Anyone reading that would certainly be discouraged from picking up my product unless they owned all those books.

I'd be even less impressed if the statement wasn't true (and in fact it may fall afoul of many advertising/consumer codes of practice - particulrly in this part of the world...). I don't imagine many GSL products will actually require AV, PHB2 or MM2 (I assume it's a typo where the MM is listed twice, and the second time is supposed to be MM2 - probably why the PDF versions of the files are missing from the website).

Other than that, it's good to see a slightly friendlier GSL released. Good work Scott!

 

[gribble]

I also notice this:

Q: What happens to original material a third party publisher creates? A 3PP might create an original aspect (Race, Class, Monster, Item, etc) for the game which WotC could later put into a D&D book but not into the SRD. Will that 3PP then be in violation of the GSL?
A: Wizards of the Coast does not wish to cause undue damage to third party publishers that have accepted the GSL and are supporting the 4th Edition of D&D. The GSL allows and assumes that development of original aspects (Race, Class, Monster, Item, etc) may happen separately, but in parallel, with neither party having knowledge of the other’s actions. In the unlikely event that this situation occurs, a publisher can petition for their original work to be entered into the SRD although WotC reserves the right under the license to incorporate its original aspect into the GSL SRD.

Now, while WotC is trying to sound nice and friendly, they haven't really answered the question posed. Seems to me that the last sentence is basically saying: "Yes, if you create the "Dinosaur Wrangler" class in one of your GSL products, and we later release (and add to the GSL) our "Dinosaur Wrangler" race/class/power/feat/paragon path/epic destiny, you will have (effectively) redefined a GSL term and therefore be in violation of the GSL... along with all the attendant penalties. Is my interpretation of this correct?

 

[catsclaw]

"Yes, if you create the "Dinosaur Wrangler" class in one of your GSL products, and we later release (and add to the GSL) our "Dinosaur Wrangler" race/class/power/feat/paragon path/epic destiny, you will have (effectively) redefined a GSL term and therefore be in violation of the GSL... along with all the attendant penalties. Is my interpretation of this correct?

First, WotC can already just yank your license because they feel like it. They don't need to play these sort of games to do it.

Second, I read that section as saying "We realize this could be an issue, and our lawyers can't see any way to avoid it without causing massive problems for our IP. So the best we can do is promise we're not trying to screw you, and try and solve the problem if it occurs."

If you feel point #2 is unacceptable, you didn't read point #1.

 

[gribble]

First, WotC can already just yank your license because they feel like it. They don't need to play these sort of games to do it.

Right, but I'm not one of the tinfoil hat brigade who think WotC will use the "terminate at will" clause willy-nilly. They are sensible enough to understand the implications of exercising that clause without good reason.

This problem of content added to the SRD by WotC "retroactively" causing a licensee to be in violation of the GSL on the other hand I can definietly see occurring. Unless 3pp are very creative with the names of content they produce I could see a very real risk of coming into conflict with WotC. Given that 3pp will generally want to publish content with D&D-like names, I think this risk increases.

Second, I read that section as saying "We realize this could be an issue, and our lawyers can't see any way to avoid it without causing massive problems for our IP. So the best we can do is promise we're not trying to screw you, and try and solve the problem if it occurs."

Read it as you like but that isn't what they're saying and if that was really what they meant then why didn't they just come out and say that more explicitly?

 

[Henrix]

I have only one thing to say:


Yes!

But that said, I now view the GSL as an acceptable license and I will be accepting it and using it and supporting 4E. That doesnt mean I have to like everything about it. I dont. But it is now acceptable to me for use.

That's good enough for me!
Excellent - I look forward to more good things from you! (And other 3pp, of course!)