Forked Thread: What is WOTC's Goal with the GSL?

[dmccoy1693]

I was under the impression True20 was under copyright provision, not logo-stricken OGL. I'll have to review their OGL. But then, just the fact that it allows you to use the license without the logo is indeed one example of abuse, which the GSL remedies.

True20 is OGL and the SRD is listed in it. They have their own logo license to allow their 3PPs to have the true20 logo on their products. And its not an abuse if that is what WotC wanted 8 years ago when they created it. Calling it abuse is revisionist history.

WotC priorities have since changed. So, as I said above, it is logical to assume that their priorities will change in the future. So when signing the GSL you have to attempt to figure out all of WotC intentions in the future at this current point in time, because there are parts of it that do not end, even after the license terminates.

I'd consider the GSL to be at best a buyer-beware on the licensees part.

 

[jmucchiello]

I was under the impression True20 was under copyright provision, not logo-stricken OGL. I'll have to review their OGL. But then, just the fact that it allows you to use the license without the logo is indeed one example of abuse, which the GSL remedies.

What are you talking about?

You are allowed to use the OGL without the logo license by design. How can that be abuse?

logo-stricken OGL: Where did that come from? You are the first person to invent that language. The OGL and the d20STL are separate licenses with separate purposes. Inventing this logo-stricken concept rewrites a lot of the intention behind having two licenses. Why did you call it this? For the last 8 years the OGL was always seen as the primary license and d20STL seen as the added bonus. You are the first to turn that view on its head.

 

[Ranger REG]

I was under the impression True20 was under copyright provision, not logo-stricken OGL. I'll have to review their OGL. But then, just the fact that it allows you to use the license without the logo is indeed one example of abuse, which the GSL remedies.

Their True20 logo is copyrighted (I'm fairly certain it is also designated Product Identity under the OGL).

 

[dmccoy1693]

What are you talking about?

You are allowed to use the OGL without the logo license by design. How can that be abuse?

logo-stricken OGL: Where did that come from? You are the first person to invent that language. The OGL and the d20STL are separate licenses with separate purposes. Inventing this logo-stricken concept rewrites a lot of the intention behind having two licenses. Why did you call it this? For the last 8 years the OGL was always seen as the primary license and d20STL seen as the added bonus. You are the first to turn that view on its head.

I'd highly have to agree with this. The OGL/d20 relationship is that OGL was DOS and d20 was Windows 3.1. Windows sat on top of DOS, not the other way around. You had to use the OGL to use the d20 logo. You did not have to use the d20 logo license if you were using the OGL. That was the way it was designed to be. And it worked, successfully.

True20 and Pathfinder and Conan and RuneQuest and Traveller (Mongoose) and World of Warcraft and Blue Rose and Mutants and Masterminds and Monte Cook's World of Darkness and etc are all examples of OGL games that are not d20 games and all followed the exact relationship designed by Wizards to help promote D&D. (And these are just the examples from major RPG companies, I'm not even getting into smaller companies and heavens the indy game sector.) These are successes according to Wizards of 8 years ago. None of these are allowed under the (current) GSL (I'll conceed the possibilities that Wizards may allow these under the new GSL, whenever it hits the street). None of these are abuses.

 

[Corjay]

What are you talking about?

You are allowed to use the OGL without the logo license by design. How can that be abuse?

logo-stricken OGL: Where did that come from? You are the first person to invent that language. The OGL and the d20STL are separate licenses with separate purposes. Inventing this logo-stricken concept rewrites a lot of the intention behind having two licenses. Why did you call it this? For the last 8 years the OGL was always seen as the primary license and d20STL seen as the added bonus. You are the first to turn that view on its head.

Despite your attempt at baiting me, I'll respond in the manner established in this thread.

I've already described why I think it's abuse. I'm not a big fan of repeating myself.

I am making no attempt to "invent language". I simply compressed a phrase (or possibly a whole paragraph) into a term I felt people could understand. It certainly sums it up quickly. I don't care if it gets picked up, and as far as being the first use of the term, every term has to start somewhere. I didn't coin it to start a trend. I was simply saving my words regarding a practice (striking the logo) most people here seem familiar with. I fail to see how other people have the right to coin a term (in this case, simply making a noun from an active sentence), but I don't have the right. I'll bet you've coined a few terms in your life and probably will in the future. What makes you different from me regarding that right?

 

[Corjay]

I'd highly have to agree with this. The OGL/d20 relationship is that OGL was DOS and d20 was Windows 3.1. Windows sat on top of DOS, not the other way around. You had to use the OGL to use the d20 logo. You did not have to use the d20 logo license if you were using the OGL. That was the way it was designed to be. And it worked, successfully.

True20 and Pathfinder and Conan and RuneQuest and Traveller (Mongoose) and World of Warcraft and Blue Rose and Mutants and Masterminds and Monte Cook's World of Darkness and etc are all examples of OGL games that are not d20 games and all followed the exact relationship designed by Wizards to help promote D&D. (And these are just the examples from major RPG companies, I'm not even getting into smaller companies and heavens the indy game sector.) These are successes according to Wizards of 8 years ago. None of these are allowed under the (current) GSL (I'll conceed the possibilities that Wizards may allow these under the new GSL, whenever it hits the street). None of these are abuses.

You completely missed my point. Those are examples of other companies benefiting from WOTC, not WOTC benefiting from the licenses with those companies. My point is that WOTC gave up market share to those companies without seeing a return from those licenses. WOTC spends tons of money developing the game for others to benefit from their research. So those companies are getting virtually pure profit. Sure, they have to do a little playtesting with the few changes they make, but they don't have to develop the mechanics from the ground up. So WOTC is spending money for those companies to make money without WOTC ever seeing a return on the investment. You all still have yet to show an example of how WOTC has benefited in any way.

 

[Ranger REG]

You all still have yet to show an example of how WOTC has benefited in any way.

Do you mean in any way, or the most profitable way?

 

[Corjay]

The question is how WOTC has benefited financially from the OGL in practice. Answer it how you like. Just keep the speculation out and keep out talk of what it was supposed to do. We've already trampled all over that ground.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

The question is how WOTC has benefited financially from the OGL in practice. Answer it how you like.

In the same way WotC benefits financially by giving away membership to the RPGA for free.

 

[Corjay]

That's speculation.