Doing the GSL. Who?

[Alzrius]

The thing is... what's to stop you guys from just doing what Kenzer is doing and making a 4E monster book?

I can't back this up with a quote, but I thought Clark said that, as a lawyer, he was wary of going that route for legal reasons.

 

[Jack99]

I can't back this up with a quote, but I thought Clark said that, as a lawyer, he was wary of going that route for legal reasons.

I can recall him saying that as well.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I dunno what a sop is, but I agree with you on how and why the GSL was designed as is.

sop: Standard Operating Proceedure

 

[Jack99]

sop: Standard Operating Proceedure

Ah. Thanks.

 

[Glyfair]

sop: Standard Operating Proceedure

Indeed, but that doesn't fit the context.


The intended definition seems to be

Sop: something given to pacify or quiet, or as a bribe: The political boss gave him some cash as a sop.

In other words, WotC knew there would be outcry without a public license, but they decided it was a bad idea. So, they decided to release this license that is so flawed that no one would use it.

I think that reasoning is very flawed. Indeed, given public comments I think part of the reason certain WotC parties that are know to comment on and defend WotC policies aren't commenting on the GSL is because they disagree with it and perhaps find it indefensible (admittedly, they might have just been told not to discuss it in a public forum).

To me it seems clear that factions have been fighting over the whole OGL/GSL thing for quite a while. It also seems that whenever a compromise was reached another party got wind of it and put in their two cents. It also seems that each party wanted a more and more restrictive policy. That's completely speculation on my part, though.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Indeed, but that doesn't fit the context.


The intended definition seems to be

Sop: something given to pacify or quiet, or as a bribe: The political boss gave him some cash as a sop.

In other words, WotC knew there would be outcry without a public license, but they decided it was a bad idea. So, they decided to release this license that is so flawed that no one would use it.

Yep, that's the definition.

I think that reasoning is very flawed. Indeed, given public comments I think part of the reason certain WotC parties that are know to comment on and defend WotC policies aren't commenting on the GSL is because they disagree with it and perhaps find it indefensible (admittedly, they might have just been told not to discuss it in a public forum).

I don't think the reasoning is flawed-- I think we're saying the same thing.

Just extend my "sop" remarks to include whatever folks inside WotC were pushing hard for the license. Their argument did not win the day, and the "craptastic" GSL is the result. In fact the GSL might have been designed more as a sop for internal proponents than anyone on the outside.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I can't back this up with a quote, but I thought Clark said that, as a lawyer, he was wary of going that route for legal reasons.

I remember Clark saying about Goodman going copyright, "more power to them." One thing to note is that Kenzer did the same thing back in the 2E days and he knows what he's doing.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I can't back this up with a quote, but I thought Clark said that, as a lawyer, he was wary of going that route for legal reasons.

I remember Clark saying about Goodman going copyright, "more power to them." I believe it was in the same quote as the one you're referencing.

 

[Angellis_ater]

The question is whether or not Wizards wanted the publishers to start using the copyright route instead, however, or even revert to a OGL-derived 4E-clone.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The question is whether or not Wizards wanted the publishers to start using the copyright route instead, however, or even revert to a OGL-derived 4E-clone.

I assume the answer to that is an emphatic NO.