Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenmarable" data-source="post: 4386833" data-attributes="member: 40359">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.)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.</blockquote>

Verification