Green Ronin not signing GSL (Forked Thread: Doing the GSL. Who?)

[Voadam]

That only narrows the pool of serious creators with strong IP. It opens the doors very, very wide for fly-by-night operators.

RC

I do not think it opens the door any wider than it was under the OGL during the 3e days.

The OGL provided significant incentives to publish 3e stuff. The GSL has a lot more built in drawbacks to publish 4e stuff than the OGL had to publish 3e stuff and does not provide as many incentives to do so.

The GSL does provide authorization to say compatible with D&D though which even the d20 stl did not, though I don't believe this is that big of an incentive to use the GSL.

 

[Voadam]

I don't think they ever said it would be as open as the OGL, but yeah, I had little doubt that it would be restrictive. For a time I figured there wouldn't even BE an OGL for this release. I think they'd probably have been better served by a simple, cheap licensing system than the GSL.

Originally they said it would be issued under the OGL, then they were revetting their policy on open gaming, then we got hints about the GSL, then the surprise final GSL.

 

[Scribble]

The GSL has far more serious restrictions if you are an established company with strong IP. If you are a fly-by-nighter who doesn't care about your IP, the GSL has no real restrictions to you whatsoever.

Only in regard to using that IP in the OGL.

 

[kenmarable]

As said, I'll examine the links kenmarable has provided, but I have a tendency to accept that Clark was correct in his understanding of what WotC was saying to him. Even kenmarable suggests that WotC might have offered to accept the money first and provide the OGL/GSL later, but at no point did WotC actually grant the ability to look at the OGL/GSL prior to paying money to anyone, until the GSL saw wide release.

Just make sure you are keeping the issues separate. There is issue #1: "Publishers had to pay to see the GSL", which I was trying to point out was never the case. And issue #2: "Original poison pill understanding made public by Clark was company by company, not product line by product line".

Important to keep those separate since they happened months apart if I recall. The whole poison pill thing didn't come up until after they had already cancelled the failed Phase 1/Phase 2 publisher plan.

Please realize that I actually don't disagree with most of what you are saying. I originally was just trying to address the historical facts of the "NDA > GSL > $5000 > Rules" plan, as opposed to the "NDA > $5000 > GSL & Rules" plan since I see the misconception repeated a lot. That's all.

And personally, concerning issue #2, from what people said during and after the situation, and my opinions of those people, I personally believe that it was a misunderstanding among WotC internal staff over the not 100% final GSL. Even Linae in a single thread gave replies that were, to me, contradictory and confusing that both denied what Clark said and supported it as if people were talking right past each other and just getting more confused.

That's just my opinion, and without access to the internal document and discussions, everything else is speculation. With many of these cases, silence isn't necessarily affirming considering how hot the issue was and how much every little word was being ripped into. Rouse even said he was simply not going to comment until he had the final approved by everyone document in black & white in front of him to avoid any miscommunication and misunderstanding. (I'm too busy at work to dig up that particular post, but it's right in the same time frame on one of the main EN World threads about it, if I recall.)

I agree with you that very likely "they were refining stuff to the very end", but I again point you to kenmarable's perhaps-wrong, fuzzy NDA memory that

Try not to read too much into that, however. It was second hand information (although directly second hand, and not third or fourth or "someone posted second hand info on EN World" information). And it does support the "nothing dirty going on, they just couldn't get the license done fast enough" theory in my mind.

Either way, the GSL we have, is the GSL we have. Whatever the history, whatever variations it went through, it is out there for publishers to review and decide to use or not.

 

[jeffh]

Back in post #167, you asked for any evidence to a specific claim. Then you asked for a specific link. I've provided both of those and I'm not going to argue further. In short, my independent conclusion, having again read the posts at the the time, is the same as what dmmccoy originally stated.

I'm not arguing, I'm trying to be as clear on the facts as it's possible to be, given the paucity of publicly available information about what was going on with the OGL/GSL between January and April.

(A process not made easier by the fact that the link you gave led to something very different from what you initially described; no "WotC spokesman" ever seems to have given a response anything like what you at first talked about.)

By the same token, one could ask: What evidence do you have that Peterson was mistaken in what he said? Provide links, please.

The fact that what was released a few days later was so different from what he described.

I'm confident that no one at WOTC ever said he was mistaken at the time, even though his comments were publicly plastered on the front page of ENWorld for days.

Perhaps not, but it's worth pointing out, and I may as well do it here, that any time there's lawyers and contracts involved, it is, sadly, unrealistic to expect comments - even simple corrections - to arrive as quickly or in as clear a form as we'd all ideally prefer. We got spoiled by the WotC of eight years ago being a rare exception to that; we'd all like to see that level of openness continue but for reasons known only to itself, today's WotC only rarely chooses to communicate that way anymore. That's why determining what actually happened with the GSL is even an open question in the first place. As much as I may dislike the change in WotC's way of communicating (or failing to), though, I'd like to only blame them for things they've actually done.

 

[kenmarable]

I don't think they ever said it would be as open as the OGL, but yeah, I had little doubt that it would be restrictive. For a time I figured there wouldn't even BE an OGL for this release. I think they'd probably have been better served by a simple, cheap licensing system than the GSL.

Actually, going back to the original announcement and for quite a while after that, they did say they were going to use the OGL. Consequently, many assumed it might be as open as 3.x was (especially since you can use any version of the OGL with an OGL product, so "updates" are largely irrelevant unless you add more benefit than restriction to entice publishers to use a later OGL).

However, that was probably more like Princess Bride - "You keep saying that, but I don't think that means what you think it means." So, to be fair, WotC never said it would be as open as 3.x, but their misunderstanding of the OGL and improper use of the term "open gaming" did lead many to that less restricted conclusion until all of the delays and associated nonsense made the picture more dim.

 

[kenmarable]

Monster books.

Hardcover monster books off the top of my head:
{snip}
So 34 hardcover monster books over the last 8 or so years.

I bet there could be a similar list for campaign settings

*slaps head* Oh, well, yeah, there's the monster book niche.

I'd say campaign settings are a toss up for me, since on one hand they all fill the "campaign setting" niche, but on the other hand, tastes in campaign settings vary so much, that the niches might be more granular into "high fantasy campaigns", "grim and gritty campaigns", "horror campaigns". I dunno. Either way, you are right.

My brain was mainly in the "dwarf splatbook", "wizard splatbook", "artic environment splatbook" mode. I couldn't think of many print books that had too much overlap in each of those areas, at least without being years apart.

But yeah, there was a crapload of monster books. Nice work compiling that list, I might need to save it for my shopping list (if I can weed out the junk from the good). Oh, and don't forget the Bestiary of Loerem. I gotta plug it since I had a couple critters in there.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I do not think it opens the door any wider than it was under the OGL during the 3e days.

Depends on when you mean.

The OGL initially allowed a lot of startups to, erm, start up. Then consumers (through the magic of capitalism) seperated the wheat from the chaff. Now, if the GSL was worded in such a way as to retain the wheat, there would be less incentive for the chaff. OTOH, if you lose the wheat because of your (dungeons &) draconian policies, you create a vaccuum that new companies can fill. Because of those policies, the table is more open to those who don't care about the long-term success of any particular product line.

So, yes, what I expect is something rather like the early days of 3e, but with far less wheat overall because those who are capable of developing something that provides longer-term security are likely to be doing that instead.

Also, a lot more pdf-only products. I'm sure some folks at least have learned from the last time around this particular track.




RC


P.S.: Speaking of things that I was told before, repeatedly: One of them was that I was nuts to claim that 3e's prep time was substantially longer than that of previous editions. Funny how times change, eh?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Only in regard to using that IP in the OGL.

You seem to be making the assumption that a company might not want to go back if 5e is even farther from the root assumptions of D&D. Or if, say, 6e has a fee you must pay WotC for every product you produce. Or if, say, 7e is an OGL game. Or if you want to produce a version for C&C or True20.

I, for one, view the limitation that you can never again use that IP in an OGL game as an extremely limiting. It links your ship very closely to WotC. And, since WotC can change the terms without warning, you might discover one day that use of your IP is far more limited than you bargained for.

RC

 

[RedShirtNo5]

Please note again, following the link you provided, you must meet the requirements of "a legitimate business license, a signed NDA, and a one-time $5000 fee" in order to gain "copies of the OGL".

Since the original statement says the OGL is part of the kit, and doesn't say there are other ways to get the OGL, it follows that there are no other ways to get the OGL. Furthermore, the Q&A is advice, not errata. Therefore under the primary source rule, the original statement is controlling. Good solid RAW literalist approach.

and later, admit that the answer to Question #2 was wrong

Where's this? Yes, they later admitted that it is a GSL rather than an OGL, and yes they later scrapped the entire phase 1 concept because of the delays in the GSL, but I've seen no admission on the issue of whether publishers had to pay to see the license.