NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Corjay" data-source="post: 4440180" data-attributes="member: 52839">Thanks for the SRD info. That's what I thought and what I spoke from, but couldn't confirm it. I'll consider your knowledge a verification.I don't think the logo is the only attractive thing. For the same reason that the logo is attractive, so too is its focus on WOTC's other IP. It's encouraging the system's uniformity from publisher to publisher. While some would view this as restrictive, it would actually be helpful to everyone if the customers can move well from product to product without having to learn huge amounts of new rules from one to the next. Using references to D&D rules instead of reprinting them will actually leave lots of room for the 3pp's IP. In the end, I think the 3pp's that sign on are going to be the ones who benefit better than the OGL publishers ever did.Another attractive thing about the GSL is the licensee's clearly spelled out latitude. Not all garage publishers are familiar with copyright laws. Spelling out those limitations in the GSL protects them and makes it clear where exactly they can act. The OGL, as clear as it seems, is no help to those not familiar with copyright laws. Yeah, the GSL could use less legal language and more direct language with a definitions section. If people could understand the GSL as clearly as they understand the OGL, and WOTC rewrites the four trouble parts to protect the rights of the licensee, then the parts spelling out the limitations would be attractive in themselves.I think that depends solely upon how the revised GSL works out. If it works as well as the intention, they should be able to shift the GSL from edition to edition without generating one for each edition. I think the termination and change without notice stuff may very well have been intended for that purpose. The problem could be that it wasn't fully expressed to their lawyer(s). Perhaps their words to the lawyer(s) was "make it so that we can change it at will" without specifying that they meant to change the edition at will or something like that.</blockquote>

Verification