GSL FAQ up

[phloog]

I don't know that I am (and of course, neither do you):

The GSL is a legal document. I'm a fairly reasonable person, and if I was working for WOTC and was asked by someone if a clause was p-level or c-level, I would absolutely NOT say that it was company level unless there was the perception by one or more others that it was. It's big enough, and is a legal document, so I'm not going to answer unless I 'know' - meaning my answer is shared by people.

The fact that there wasn't an announcement the next HOUR, regardless of travel schedules and whatnot, means that there WAS a discussion....

I'm not suggesting that the statement (or what you are teeming as a simple misstatement) was nefarious - - I am CERTAIN (because of my faith in people) that the statement was made honestly based on what they believed.

I'm suggesting that the structure of a document that is easily revokable, and that has already apparently led to interpretation differences at WOTC, can easily lead to situations that are bad for 3pp.

 

[Green Knight]

I don't know that I am (and of course, neither do you):

The GSL is a legal document. I'm a fairly reasonable person, and if I was working for WOTC and was asked by someone if a clause was p-level or c-level, I would absolutely NOT say that it was company level unless there was the perception by one or more others that it was. It's big enough, and is a legal document, so I'm not going to answer unless I 'know' - meaning my answer is shared by people.

Except that Linae said the following: "We had a few pow-wows over the past two weeks to make sure we all had the same understanding of the clause. Turns out we didn't need to change a single word of the license."

They checked it over to make sure it didn't contain anything that can be misconstrued as to read that way, and seeing as how nothing was changed, apparently it can't. The person who reported that to Clark just got it flat out wrong.

The fact that there wasn't an announcement the next HOUR, regardless of travel schedules and whatnot, means that there WAS a discussion....

Because they were taking the time out to make sure the GSL said exactly what they meant it to say, and that it can't actually be misconstrued to read another way.

After all this, I feel really sorry for the poor guy who Clark talked to. The guy made a mistake, and now his employers are being villified for his miscommunication. Poor guy's probably being taken to the woodshed as we speak.

I'm suggesting that the structure of a document that is easily revokable, and that has already apparently led to interpretation differences at WOTC, can easily lead to situations that are bad for 3pp.

What's ridiculous is now you're accusing them of planning to drop in the poison pill in the future. Honestly, it's amazing. WotC apparently can't do anything right no matter what. The GSL is delayed, so WotC must be planning on killing open gaming! The GSL is released, but wait, there's a poison pill which WotC's trying to use to kill the OGL with! There's no poison pill and there never was, but hold on, that doesn't mean that WotC won't throw one in in the future! Doesn't matter what the situation is, as the argument can always be adjusted to support the "WotC is Evil" meme.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

It's meant to be a conversion clause, not a poison pill. In fact, I almost lost my breakfast when I saw the misinterpretation and how it mutated and spread.

We had a few pow-wows over the past two weeks to make sure we all had the same understanding of the clause. Turns out we didn't need to change a single word of the license.

Future misinterpretations would be much fewer if the GSL was just released to everyone at the same time. The logic that the publishers need to see it early has lost almost all of its credibility with the delays pushing things back to one month or less head start. Why not just release it to everyone at this point (or whenever you do release it to the publishers) so that everyone can discuss it from fact instead of rampant speculation and false rumors (that so far have just resulted in bad PR).

 

[phloog]

What's ridiculous is now you're accusing them of planning to drop in the poison pill in the future. Honestly, it's amazing. WotC apparently can't do anything right no matter what. The GSL is delayed, so WotC must be planning on killing open gaming! The GSL is released, but wait, there's a poison pill which WotC's trying to use to kill the OGL with! There's no poison pill and there never was, but hold on, that doesn't mean that WotC won't throw one in in the future! Doesn't matter what the situation is, as the argument can always be adjusted to support the "WotC is Evil" meme.

Actually, you're misinterpreting what I said. I won't call you 'ridiculous' for it, but what I used were phrases like 'CAN easily lead to' and 'CAN drop in' (caps new). I don't believe that I am 'accusing them of planning to drop in the poison pill' - - I believe I am correctly stating that it would be a trivially easy (from a legal standpoint) move to do this.

I understand that you feel the need to defend WOTC, but I'm simply not saying the things you are claiming about evil plots and schemes.

What is frightening to me is that a company that already harmed a business I liked (Paizo) is producing a license that can be easily revoked.

But if history is to be ignored to support your argument then I guess that's about it.

They didn't do that to Paizo because they are EEEvil - they did it because it was in line with what they wanted as a business - - I'm merely suggesting that if it turns out that adjusting the GSL ends up being something their business wants, they won't hesitate to do it, and in fact the change from open to this model just makes that easier...thus the need for 3pps to still have a bit of worry. With OGL, if they realize there's a need to change the business, they can't get rid of the Open license.

3pps should fear not because WOTC is out to get them or because they are in league with the devil - which seems to be what you think I'm saying.

3pps should fear because the instant a key person at WOTC believes it is worth a $ 1.38 more to kill the GSL than to leave it alone, they will kill it - it's just good business for them - - I just would worry if I was thinking of tying MY business to it.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that there were internal discussion at WOTC - - I do think it's interesting that everyone who believes that there was an internal disagreement is 'ridiculous' and acting with no data, but people can make assumptions of great altruism and nobility on the part of a corporation with just as little actual data.

They had to have pow wows to align on interpretation, and someone told an outside party that it was company-level.

If there truly was NOTHING that could cause it to be misconstrued that way, nothing at all, then maybe they need to fire the guy who is so incredibly moronic as to take a document that was absolutely crystal clear and botch it so badly, creating this PR nightmare - - either it was open to interpretation and not as clear as you say, or this person is unfit to handle information at a large company.

 

[Piratecat]

Phloog, thanks for being reasonable and polite even when disagreeing with someone. Very cool.

 

[Lalato]

The "PR nightmare" is largely in the heads of those that want to be offended about open gaming going away... which is a small, tiny, infinitesimal minority of the general D&D playing public.

For the vast majority of D&D players, there is no "PR Nightmare". I'm not saying that you're not allowed to feel that way. Just saying that most folks probably don't agree with you.

Based on your comments, it sounds like you think WotC would sell souls to the devil if it meant a profit of $1.38. Oh wait... you didn't actually say that. Am I extrapolating something from your statements that has no basis in reality? Oops.

--sam

 

[phloog]

Thanks for the winkie at the end.

It's actually a big concern of mine, but probably journeying too far off the main thread....my big concern is based on a definition of business ethics given to me by a business professor that explained those ethics as rules for behavior that are 'ethical' within the norms of an industry.

I'm a bit of an absolutist, and it's always bothered me that this definition (which I've seen in various forms since as I've worked in business) makes it clear that as long as enough of the competition is doing it, it's ethical.

I see corporations as neither good nor evil, but blinded - - or perhaps victims of tunnel vision - the tunnel being shareholder value. As long as the shareholder is rewarded, the activity is valid.

So when I say $1.38, I'm serious - - of course most companies will include in that calculation lost customers, bad PR, etc...but when all is said and done, not only will they do something that I might find horrible to net an extra $1.38, but they are 'ethically' BOUND to do so - it is their promise to the shareholder.

In terms of 'PR Nightmare', you might well be right...but it seemed like that small number of people was significant - not necessarily in terms of count, but in terms of share of voice/mind. If only ten people are concerned or annoyed, but they include the heads of major third party publishers, that could be a 'nightmare'....but I get the difference between a real widespread perception and a 'tempest in a browser'.

 

[Fifth Element]

The fact that there wasn't an announcement the next HOUR, regardless of travel schedules and whatnot, means that there WAS a discussion....

Yes, Linae told us there were discussions. What you don't know is what those discussions were about, exactly. You seem to be assuming the worst ('the fact they did this means that') when they could have simply been discussing: "okay, we thought the GSL was clear on this, but let's go over it again to see if it could legitimately be misinterpreted the way they are doing it on the internets".

I understand that you are not arguing WotC are evil, or anything of the sort. But you seem to be assuming the worst.

 

[GVDammerung]

3pps should fear because the instant a key person at WOTC believes it is worth a $ 1.38 more to kill the GSL than to leave it alone, they will kill it - it's just good business for them - - I just would worry if I was thinking of tying MY business to it.

As long as the shareholder is rewarded, the activity is valid.

While the calculus can vary, this is exactly correct, IMO. The GSL could be used as a sort of "bait and switch" to get companies away from 3x, then close out the 4e GSL and offer nothing to replace it. 3pps would then have to activate the "way back machine," retool for 3x and try to convince their customers that this is a good thing, not likely and not a pleasant prospect. Alternatively, 3pps could try to launch their own systems, based on the OGL or otherwise; again, this would be an uphill move more likely than not.

If one does not care much about open gaming, never found 3pp support for 3x D&D that valuable or defines D&D as the logo, etc., the GSL should be of little concern. For everyone else, the GSL should be by degrees problematic as it has the potential to put the opening gaming genie substantially back in the bottle from a practical stand point to the detriment of any 3pp reliant upon the GSL for their business.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm a bit of an absolutist

LOL. One would think you're either an absolutist, or you're not. If you're only a bit of an absolutist, you're not an absolutist.