You reap what you sow - GSL.

[I'm A Banana]

Does that help to explain my somewhat conflicting feelings on the matter?

Here's what I'm getting out of it.

Mercule: WotC is just using this to stop jerk moves by 3rd parties who want to play with their toys and give nothing back.
A Lot Of Posters: That specific example wasn't a jerk move!
Mercule: Sorry, I'm irked because a lot of folks are supporting some of the real jerk moves out there.

I slightly disagree that this is to stop "jerk moves" by 3rd parties. I don't think anything any 3rd party did throughout the history of 3e really put much of a dent in WotC's core sales, in the slightest, and I think they culled a lot of great work from it (*cough*mearls*cough*). I don't think they're particularly concerned with stopping up loopholes.

What I do think is a concern is actually kind of a bigger issue. I think the suits, the lawyers, and the investors are much more concerned about the idea of IP this time around than they were last time. I think this is because the publishing industry is going through a little of what the music industry has gone through for the past 10 years: The Internet is for Free Stuff is coming to haunt them, and they're freaked out about it. The last thing they want to do is give anything away for free online. They are also very concerned, in 4e, with cementing a brand image. That's part of the reason for the breaks with old editions, why D&D is kind of evolving as a genre into its own form of fantasy (more so than it was before), and also why they don't want to give stuff away for free online. In this kind of hyper-paranoid atmosphere, they need to be concerned with two primary things with the GSL: #1: Making sure the D&D brand stays "D&D." #2: Making sure to protect that brand identity with IP that only they can use. Thus, people who make new "D&D" things can't change what "D&D" is, and they can't mess with certain IP, and they're disbarred from a host of options.

I don't think, in otherwords, that is has the slightest thing to do with some jerk moves by a limited number of 3rd party publishers. I don't think the juggernaut really cares when a few mosquitos sting it. It slaps them with its tail and moves on with life.

 

[Orcus]

Has much use been made of 3rd party produced OGC by other 3rd party publishers? For example, are there modules (either in print or pdf form) or websites making use of the Tome of Horrors monsters? And if not, of what value is 3rd party produced OGC?

There are tons of products that use monsters from the Tome of Horrors. Heck, we put instructions in the back of the book to help people reuse the content to encourage its reuse. Paizo used them. Goodman used them. Lots of people used them.

I dont know of any product that had more open content reused then Tome of Horrors. And we are proud of that.

 

[Orcus]

Going with Pathfinder are you? Otherwise good luck with that if WotC does not revise the license or make special arrangements with them.

Hey, not so fast. We are still doing 4E products.

I just likely wont port over our Tome of Horrors to 4E because of the provisions of the license. We WILL do a 4E monster book, though.

Clark

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

EN World doesn't link to the OGL? I thought that it did. Certainly, WotC could demand that it did under the OGL.

Maybe I am too long on this board, but I never saw an OGL Logo "slapped" onto this site.

 

[Zaukrie]

Hey, not so fast. We are still doing 4E products.

I just likely wont port over our Tome of Horrors to 4E because of the provisions of the license. We WILL do a 4E monster book, though.

Clark

Best news I've read today. Good to hear. I'm buying. Please put in more fluff than WotC put in the MM, thanks.

Any news on the APG?
Any timelines?

 

[Darkwolf71]

Hey, not so fast. We are still doing 4E products.

I just likely wont port over our Tome of Horrors to 4E because of the provisions of the license. We WILL do a 4E monster book, though.

Clark

So, there will be a 4e monster book but it won't be called Tome of Horrors?

That's acceptable. Sucks to lose the name recognition though.

 

[pawsplay]

Mongoose's "Pocket Player's Handbook" is the cardinal example of the sowing, IMO. The simple existence of that book is pretty much a slap in WotC's face. It's insulting and shows a company that is crass and disrespectful.

Really? Because they posted a FAQ on their website stating it was okay.

 

[DaveMage]

Hey, not so fast. We are still doing 4E products.

I just likely wont port over our Tome of Horrors to 4E because of the provisions of the license. We WILL do a 4E monster book, though.

Clark

Well, be careful - you haven't been approved by WotC yet to use the GSL, right?

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Hey, not so fast. We are still doing 4E products.

I just likely wont port over our Tome of Horrors to 4E because of the provisions of the license. We WILL do a 4E monster book, though.

Clark

Woohoo.

I hope the "player's guide" is still in the works.

 

[Lizard]

RC, I think you're being a little too keen to beat on WotC, here.

There's no frickin' way WotC will do anything to shut down ENWorld at this point.

Regardless of what the legalese says or what they're capable of doing, WotC knows the value of ENWorld,

OK, let me ask a serious question.

What IS the value of ENWorld to WOTC when Gleemax/DDI is intended to be a commercial cash cow? ENWorld is direct competition. Why go to Wizard's buggy, slow, and over-moderated chat boards when there's a thriving community here? ENworld is making money -- not much money, I'm sure, barely enough to stay afloat, but money nonetheless -- by providing community support for D&D.

I am very interested in seeing what the terms of the "fan site policy" are, and if things like the "homebrew" forums in ENWorld technically violate them. The fact they even feel a new "fan site policy" is necessary is, I think, rather worrisome.