What is it about the GSL that is really a deal breaker?

[Ranger REG]

For the record, I will be thrilled to state that I am wrong about things I have said earlier this thead, if indeed the revised GSL proves me wrong. I quality GSL is in everybody's best interests, even if you don't care for 4E.

Only if it can be proven to be a better license than the d20STL + OGL combo, especially when it comes to non-traditional-fantasy RPG publishing.

But we'll see. Next year.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Only if it can be proven to be a better license than the d20STL + OGL combo, especially when it comes to non-traditional-fantasy RPG publishing.

But we'll see. Next year.

Hopeful I may be, but I'm not that hopeful. Better then d20+ogl, no. That's not going to happen. Will it be good enough to get Clark to publish under it, almost certainly. Will it be good enough to get GR and Paizo to publish under it, ... that remains to be seen.

 

[Angellis_ater]

Thank you very much, Voadam.

You're more helpful than someone I recently know.

Hmm... I tried to post an answer to this earlier, but I guess it got eaten.

Anyhow, I was trying to be funny and apparently humour doesn't always transfer all that well on the intarwebs, or so I have heard. It was meant as a humorous reply.

In all honesty though, I feel that the OGL+D20 combo gave the following:

- Name recognition (in the form of the D20 symbol/logo)
- A friendlier framework to work within, as a publisher
- More material to work with
- Less restrictions on HOW to work with the material (like the GSL has a bunch of)
- A chance to respond to changes made in the license
- A "fallback option" (if we can't continue with D20, pure OGL is always an alternative)
- No restrictions on what other systems you produced for or which licenses you worked under.
- No "this clause survives termination".

 

[jmucchiello]

Only if it can be proven to be a better license than the d20STL + OGL combo, especially when it comes to non-traditional-fantasy RPG publishing.

It only needs to be as good as the d20STL + OGL combo in my opinion. The GSL can be as restrictive as they want if the game was OGC.

Okay, let's switch this around. What makes the d20STL + OGL combo more attractive than the GSL?

Voadam hit all the good points but IMO, the only important point is the fact that the d20STL + OGL combo is two separate licenses. One covers a trademark and the other covers content. Separate licenses allows one license to be perpetual (the content license) and allows the other to have the restrictions commonly found in trademark contracts. No trademark holder is going to have non-revokable license.

 

[Ranger REG]

It only needs to be as good as the d20STL + OGL combo in my opinion. The GSL can be as restrictive as they want if the game was OGC.

If it as good as, then why the new license?

Voadam hit all the good points but IMO, the only important point is the fact that the d20STL + OGL combo is two separate licenses. One covers a trademark and the other covers content. Separate licenses allows one license to be perpetual (the content license) and allows the other to have the restrictions commonly found in trademark contracts. No trademark holder is going to have non-revokable license.

What's so bad about two separate licenses?

The OGL is also revocable. Just breach the terms laid out in that license.

 

[Corjay]

If it as good as, then why the new license?


What's so bad about two separate licenses?

The OGL is also revocable. Just breach the terms laid out in that license.

Breeching the terms can lead to a lawsuit. The point is that WOTC can't revoke the OGL so long as the licensee, any licensee, chooses to use the OGL and does so without breech. WOTC can't choose who uses the licenses and can't revoke it at will.

 

[Ranger REG]

The point is that WOTC can't revoke the OGL so long as the licensee, any licensee, chooses to use the OGL and does so without breech. WOTC can't choose who uses the licenses and can't revoke it at will.

What's wrong with that? I understand though don't agree with WotC when they revised their d20STL to include the Quality Standard clause.

WotC should have the power to revoke for creative content reason when it comes to the OGL?

 

[Corjay]

What's wrong with that? I understand though don't agree with WotC when they revised their d20STL to include the Quality Standard clause.

WotC should have the power to revoke for creative content reason when it comes to the OGL?

A license should establish a relationship between the licenser and the licensee. The OGL removes all impact of any relationship between WOTC and its licensees. It allows no political ground on WOTC's part (I mean "political" in the "personal politics" way, such as relationship turmoil and healing, not in the government politics way)

 

[Corjay]

Back on topic, as a matter of keeping a proper record of the precise points that are "deal breakers":

1) Periodical publishers inability to support past issues. (Subsection 6.1)
2) Once changed to GSL, product line cannot be changed back to OGL, meaning the product rises or falls with 4e. (Subsection 6.1)
3) Licensee's inability to use their own IP after the termination of the GSL (Subsection 6.1, 6.1b)
4) No cushion period or protections for licensee for termination of GSL (Subsection 11.1)
5) Total destruction of product line upon termination of GSL (Subsection 11.3)

 

[Ranger REG]

A license should establish a relationship between the licenser and the licensee. The OGL removes all impact of any relationship between WOTC and its licensees. It allows no political ground on WOTC's part (I mean "political" in the "personal politics" way, such as relationship turmoil and healing, not in the government politics way)

You mean it should?

I thought the OGL is RPG equivalent of GPL, but with a few added acceptable restriction (i.e., the definition and use of Product Identity).

Did Ryan Dancey screwed WotC by introducing the content license? I hope not, unless YOU have objection to games such as Mutants & Masterminds or True20. I already know WotC suits (executive, legal, and accounting) objected.