Goodman Games Releasing 4e Adventures Prior to October 1st

[dmccoy1693]

Um, while we've been focusing on D&D, how does this NOT affect SJgames, Palladium and White Wolf.

Somehow, I don't think SJgames and WW are happy with Goodman games.

Same as it always has. There's nothing new here (except for the fact that there are a number of former 3.5 3pp that wanted to support 4E but don't like the GSL). If a company made an adventure that happened to work with gurps but followed the fair use laws, there's not much Steve Jackson can do. Mind you, the single biggest reason why no one, AFAIK, has done that so far with anyone but D&D is sheer market share. Why write material for a game that has substantially smaller market share when you're probably going to have to fight a court battle anyways. Might as well make it for D&D and sell more copies and still have to pay the lawyer for the court battle.

 

[Filcher]

Is this the answer per Scott Rouse - http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=216035

Sort of anticlimatic, if it is.

Naw, that post is ancient. I don't think Wizards ever got out the materials Scott posted about. (If they had, Clark wouldn't be pissed.)

 

[AllisterH]

I don't understand. Why would they care what happens in D&D land?

Because if it applies to WOTC and D&D, how the hell does it NOT apply to them?

Palladium, especially (and to a smuch maller extent, WW) have been even MORE stringent than WOTC with people publishing add-ons.

 

[Filcher]

Because if it applies to WOTC and D&D, how the hell does it NOT apply to them?

Palladium, especially (and to a smuch maller extent, WW) have been even MORE stringent than WOTC with people publishing add-ons.

Right, but the noted publishers also never said, "Here you go, free perpetual license to publish compatible material."

The old OGL is a document created by Wiz for D&D. SJ Games and WW never created one for their own systems.

 

[AllisterH]

Right, but the noted publishers also never said, "Here you go, free perpetual license to publish compatible material."

The old OGL is a document created by Wiz for D&D. SJ Games and WW never created one for their own systems.

So Steve Jackson was right to look at the original OGL as a "BAD THING".

Worse, fom his viewpoint, Goodman games et al would enourage people to wonder "Hey, if they can do it for D&D, why cant I do the same for SJgames".

 

[Filcher]

So Steve Jackson was right to look at the original OGL as a "BAD THING".

Worse, fom his viewpoint, Goodman games et al would enourage people to wonder "Hey, if they can do it for D&D, why cant I do the same for SJgames".

And the answer would be, "Because there is no OGL for Paranoia." (Or whatever, right?)

The door was opened when Wizards granted the OGL for their IP. Without that, none of this could have existed. But one company's IP license is not a threat to another company's IP.

It's like open source coding. Some programs have it. Microsoft doesn't. But just because some programs are open source it isn't a threat to Microsoft.

 

[Filcher]

Anyhow, I'm still holding out, hoping against hope, that Goodman has negotiated a separate arrangement with Wizards.

 

[AllisterH]

And the answer would be, "Because there is no OGL for Paranoia." (Or whatever, right?)

The door was opened when Wizards granted the OGL for their IP. Without that, none of this could have existed. But one company's IP license is not a threat to another company's IP.

It's like open source coding. Some programs have it. Microsoft doesn't. But just because some programs are open source it isn't a threat to Microsoft.

Um, read dmccoy's post in response to mine.

Technically, said companies never NEEDED the OGL but it worked as a gentlebeing's agreement.

With Goodman games publishing 4E adventures, how does this NOT prevent random Joe blow from pusblishing SJgames adventures?

 

[Filcher]

Um, read dmccoy's post in response to mine.

Hmm...I don't agree with McCoy's Fair Use analysis, but I don't have the background to dispute it with any finality. *shrugs* I'd love to hear a SJ or WW rep weigh in.

Technically, said companies never NEEDED the OGL but it worked as a gentlebeing's agreement.

Citation? So just that we're clear, the hypothesis on the table is that Goodman Games has ignited an intellectual free for all that has lain undisturbed for years because ... people were being nice to one another?

 

[Delta]

It's like open source coding. Some programs have it. Microsoft doesn't. But just because some programs are open source it isn't a threat to Microsoft.

Not sure the Microsoft CEO agrees. Steve Ballmer in 2007 ( http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/02/ballmer_i_worry.html ):

Ballmer pointed to open source as one potential source of worry. While the company has gained market share against Linux both on desktops and in the server market, he said that "having a competitor that is nominally close to free is always a challenge... There is a set of pricing pressure that nobody should ignore."