You're probably right, but I think that's a big shame.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
What's new with the GSL?
- Thread starter Spinachcat
- Start date
You're probably right, but I think that's a big shame.
No way someone at Hasbro level corporation is going to go out on a limb and give early specifics on a LEGAL document. Sorry Mark.... your gonna have to wait... and wait... and wait...
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
Did, thanks.
No way someone at Hasbro level corporation is going to go out on a limb and give early specifics on a LEGAL document. Sorry Mark.... your gonna have to wait... and wait... and wait...
Last I read, Scott posted that he was, himself, the only hold up and that once he is done, it is done. No more lawyers (I don't believe that Scott is a lawyer nor that he needs Hasbro approval once he finishes, if his previous posts on the matter were as I read them). Since the last time he and I had direct discourse on the licensing issues was November 2007, I thought he might be able to be a bit more forthcoming than in the intervening year where I left him alone to do what he needed to do. If he cannot, he cannot, and he is completely capable of posting as such. Scott's a big boy. He can post for himself, my fellow fans and gamers.
Last edited:
Monkey Boy
First Post
So are lawyers no longer part of the picture? If they play no significant role in the revision of the GSL that would be news to me and most other enworlders I take it.
Am I getting this right? The GSL will be done when Scott finishes with it which looks to be before Christmas?
Am I getting this right? The GSL will be done when Scott finishes with it which looks to be before Christmas?
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
Digging around a little bit I see that lawyers will still be in the picture but that it is Scott Rouse who is just the current, self-admitted obstacle to a more satisfactory GSL -
11-26-2008 - http://www.enworld.org/forum/4564801-post33.html
I guess there really is no way to get a straight answer from him since, in the end, he does not know what will be approved nor how long it will take. All Scott Rouse actually has control over is what he will pass on to the lawyers, his recommendations, and his hope that it fits with their final vision of what the GSL will turn out to be. I suppose it is even possible that they will ultimately decide to either leave the GSL as is or add further restrictions to it based on whatever they have found they have not liked in the early, very thin crop of GSL products. In fact, given the trend over the last year of how the licensing in all areas has been gathered back in so tightly (mags brought in house, major licenses and d20 revoked, etc.) and the glacial pace at which what little that has gotten done has gotten done, I do not believe that there is much room left for an optimistic outlook on what will come about from the efforts of Scott Rouse and his recently laid off compatriot, Linae Foster.
evilgenius8000
First Post
I can't imagine that lawyers won't take at least one pass at the doc.
*rant alert*
I would be surprised if any publisher could produce a viable business plan based on revised GSL. You either use what's there now or continue with OGL or use another system/license.
Another thing which occurs to me, is that the whole process of GSL delivery is flawed. It's not that you have to get approval from lawyers, organize a lot of meetings with busy people and arrange significant amount information. I have seen such complicated projects going through numerous stages and yet still being delivered within months, not years, and with satisfactory level of result instead of unfair and vague terms of current GSL.
The following things continue to bother me:
- why the broken promise of GSL? The early adopters program (failure), no dialogue with publishers (distinct mismanagement of communication), no respect for established publishers (distinct lack of respect for contributors).
It would have been so easy to produce extended d20 STL with fixed revocation to provide support for third parties. It would have been so easy, via early adopters program, to produce statement on intentions and restrictions to be introduced with GSL. Bound by NDA, the early adopters could provide valuable insight and quite a lot of legal help.
The resources, culture, support and positive approach was out there - it was wasted.
- why the problematic nature of GSL?
If you want to cover future products, you do not try to cover them immediately - you set up approval process via which they enter or fail to enter GSL. For example, there numerous examples of closed beta licenses, licenses which specifically exclude immature project information and so on.
Scott and Linae did not have to produce an unwieldy behemoth - they could have created a process to produce data instead of attempting to cover all bases with a single run.
- the lawyers are not an excuse.
Yes, that's true there are other, more restrictive or less fair licenses out there. The OGL, GPL prove that licenses do not need to be unfair. All you need is a lawyer who can think in terms of respecting consumer rights.
Corporate lawyers tend to produce overly problematic stuff, but that's why you get consultation from experts - Ryan Dancey could do this, couldn't he?
- delay from meetings and different priorities are signs of mismanagement.
This is very public type of a project. To get it going, you produce a base, set up development process rules and assign deadlines.
Does anyone remember how the original SRD was updated with new material instead of being delivered with ready to run goods immediately?
It's not easy, but again, there were people in WotC who pulled it off previously.
Also, if anyone states that there are higher priorities than these, and the person happens to be in charge of liaising with online community, it is simply informing in no uncertain terms, that the project in question is regarded as less important, and consequently, people who are looking to project results, are less important.
*sigh*
Rant over. GSL failed. Let's sweep it under carpet.
Regards,
Ruemere
I would be surprised if any publisher could produce a viable business plan based on revised GSL. You either use what's there now or continue with OGL or use another system/license.
Another thing which occurs to me, is that the whole process of GSL delivery is flawed. It's not that you have to get approval from lawyers, organize a lot of meetings with busy people and arrange significant amount information. I have seen such complicated projects going through numerous stages and yet still being delivered within months, not years, and with satisfactory level of result instead of unfair and vague terms of current GSL.
The following things continue to bother me:
- why the broken promise of GSL? The early adopters program (failure), no dialogue with publishers (distinct mismanagement of communication), no respect for established publishers (distinct lack of respect for contributors).
It would have been so easy to produce extended d20 STL with fixed revocation to provide support for third parties. It would have been so easy, via early adopters program, to produce statement on intentions and restrictions to be introduced with GSL. Bound by NDA, the early adopters could provide valuable insight and quite a lot of legal help.
The resources, culture, support and positive approach was out there - it was wasted.
- why the problematic nature of GSL?
If you want to cover future products, you do not try to cover them immediately - you set up approval process via which they enter or fail to enter GSL. For example, there numerous examples of closed beta licenses, licenses which specifically exclude immature project information and so on.
Scott and Linae did not have to produce an unwieldy behemoth - they could have created a process to produce data instead of attempting to cover all bases with a single run.
- the lawyers are not an excuse.
Yes, that's true there are other, more restrictive or less fair licenses out there. The OGL, GPL prove that licenses do not need to be unfair. All you need is a lawyer who can think in terms of respecting consumer rights.
Corporate lawyers tend to produce overly problematic stuff, but that's why you get consultation from experts - Ryan Dancey could do this, couldn't he?
- delay from meetings and different priorities are signs of mismanagement.
This is very public type of a project. To get it going, you produce a base, set up development process rules and assign deadlines.
Does anyone remember how the original SRD was updated with new material instead of being delivered with ready to run goods immediately?
It's not easy, but again, there were people in WotC who pulled it off previously.
Also, if anyone states that there are higher priorities than these, and the person happens to be in charge of liaising with online community, it is simply informing in no uncertain terms, that the project in question is regarded as less important, and consequently, people who are looking to project results, are less important.
*sigh*
Rant over. GSL failed. Let's sweep it under carpet.
Regards,
Ruemere
CapnZapp
Legend
Wizards is perfectly happy with the current, utterly broken, state of the GSL.
Not assigning adequate manpower to resolving the issues speaks clearly of the company's priorities.
Anytime anyone official from Wizards says "we believe in the GSL" or "we're working on it" they're lying.
Through their teeth.
Not assigning adequate manpower to resolving the issues speaks clearly of the company's priorities.
Anytime anyone official from Wizards says "we believe in the GSL" or "we're working on it" they're lying.
Through their teeth.
I'm not a fan of the current GSL or the game system to which it applies, but you're far too harsh and accusatory, it seems to me. Firstly, you're calling Scott Rouse a liar and secondly I don't see how the idea that he's got too much to do is so obviously ludicrous that you declare it a lie.
Given that I like Pathfinder RPG, I guess I should hope that the GSL continues to be a turd sandwich for 3PPs, anyhow...
Similar Threads
