WotC to Revise D&D 4th Edition GSL and SRD

[Delta]

Scroll down a bit. It is in the news section.

For me, all of those lower panels are blank. I've tried several times throughout the day.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

I am confident that we will think of something.

That reminds me: Has anyone started spelling WotC with "$" signs inside the name yet? That's vital for "sticking it to the Man", you know.

$E has been around for a while. I don't think I've seen much of Ha$bro, but I might just be forgetting.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I can only see this as being a good change. I really doubt lack 4e is hurting right now, but it's easy to see that the GSL was causing an already bad rift to get worse, and hopefully this can help patch it up, as well as allowing 4e fans to play the games they want with the 3rd person parties that want to join in.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I am confident that we will think of something.

That reminds me: Has anyone started spelling WotC with "$" signs inside the name yet? That's vital for "sticking it to the Man", you know.

WoTC cleverly chose an acronym with no 'S' in it just to avoid such defacement. There is a reason they are not Sorcerers of The Sound.

 

[grickherder]

OGL: WoTC could update the license at any time, however, if you had a product already in print, that was in compliance with the license at the time of it's development, then you could continue to print and sell that product even if it didn't comply with the current license.

Not just that. I can use any version of the license I wish to use as long as I include the license for the portions used from open gaming content if it is released under a different license. I can use the very first OGL today if I want. I can use the material released under it as well. I can use material from every version of the OGL and then release my work under the first OGL. I just need to satisfy the requirement about including the license for the open gaming content used. The OGL explicitly protected its users from possible future license changes. It's perpetual as well, Wizards can never do a "takesy-backsies" on OGL stuff.

This is not the case with the current GSL (which is better compared to the d20 license than the OGL).

 

[Alzrius]

WoTC cleverly chose an acronym with no 'S' in it just to avoid such defacement. There is a reason they are not Sorcerers of The Sound.

Let's just call them Wot¢.

 

[delericho]

That they are making changes is good news. Whether these changes are the right changes, and whether they go far enough are different questions.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

 

[Delta]

Right? Yes? No? Kind-Of?

Kind-of. I'll agree with your assessment of the weakness of the GSL (termination/change at any time). But you've missed the real strength of the OGL, and overlooked the d20 STL entirely. I'll try a fix:

OGL/d20 STL: Two licenses that build on each other. The OGL is irrevocable and permanent and allows you to publish D&D compatible stuff, forever. The d20 STL adds the ability to use a D&D-authorized logo/trademark -- but it can be changed/revoked at any time by WOTC.

Note that it's the d20 STL that is really the equivalent of 4E's GSL. Both were revocable by WOTC. However, if that happened with the d20 STL you could basically just strip off the logo and fall back to publishing your product via the permanent OGL.

The GSL has no such "safety net" backup license. And that's the inherent, unfixable problem.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am confident that we will think of something.

That reminds me: Has anyone started spelling WotC with "$" signs inside the name yet? That's vital for "sticking it to the Man", you know.

Did already happen... If I just knew where, I could link to it...



-----

And let's not forget the real topic:
This sounds like good news. I just hope that this time, when WotC says very soon, they mean it.

 

[Branduil]

Can we now put to bed the ridiculous idea that WotC wanted to get rid of 3pp support?