GSL FAQ up

[lurkinglidda]

I'm not blaming WotC, in its current form and outlook, for attempting anything against fan-sites and EN-World. But the sad TSR case has shown us that someone having the capability to do so might, in certain (and unlikely) circumstances, harass fans.

Past behaviour is a good indication of future behaviours as far as individuals are concerned, but not necessarily so with organizations, esp when there is a turnover of individuals within the organization. I wouldn't apply TSR's actions to possible WotC actions. We're different folks, with different motivations in a new environment. The most harassing you'll see from me is an occassional frowny face in a forum. And even those are few and far between

 

[Green Knight]

Hey, Linae. I was curious about something, and I hope it's alright if I ask.

Is the GSL still the same GSL from two or three weeks ago, or was it rewritten in the past two weeks? I'm just curious. Thanks.

 

[Lizard]

Past behaviour is a good indication of future behaviours as far as individuals are concerned, but not necessarily so with organizations, esp when there is a turnover of individuals within the organization.

I think that's my point, too.

It's obvious that if Ryan Dancey were still at WOTC, the GSL would be, well, the OGL.

The thing about the OGL, WRT fan sites, is that it protected fans from precisely the change of personnel/policy you're discussing. The GSL does not. And that's all I'm saying.

 

[drothgery]

I wouldn't expect the d20 GSL to allow for standalone games either. New product will need to be compatible with d20 Modern 2e or Urban Arcana: The RPG or whatever WotC winds up designating as their new core non-D&D RPG. Far as I can tell from published news and interviews, I don't think WotC themselves have yet come to a decision on this.

They've all but said straight out that standalone games will be allowed by the d20 GSL.

 

[lurkinglidda]

Hey, Linae. I was curious about something, and I hope it's alright if I ask.

Is the GSL still the same GSL from two or three weeks ago, or was it rewritten in the past two weeks? I'm just curious. Thanks.

It's still the same doc

 

[xechnao]

It's still the same doc

Heh

 

[Green Knight]

So people were in an uproar over something that was never there, huh? Eeenteresting.

 

[xechnao]

So people were in an uproar over something that was never there, huh? Eeenteresting.

Never say never

 

[MrGrenadine]

Before folks start pointing fingers and claiming that others were Chicken-Littling the topic of the GSL, its important to note that despite the fact that the *wording* of the GSL hasn't changed, (according to Linae), clearly stating that the GSL is *product-line* based and not *company* based is a significant change from the information provided earlier. And a fantastic one, IMO.

 

[Tao]

Before folks start pointing fingers and claiming that others were Chicken-Littling the topic of the GSL, its important to note that despite the fact that the *wording* of the GSL hasn't changed, (according to Linae), clearly stating that the GSL is *product-line* based and not *company* based is a significant change from the information provided earlier. And a fantastic one, IMO.

A lot of people are claiming a lot of things that aren't necessarily 100% true, and I'm glad Linae has confirmed that there weren't any changes to the GSL in those two weeks. The only thing that has changed, apparently, is our perception and how much we know and as a result the attitude has shifted dramatically. Honestly, I didn't know for sure either way on the poison pill issue, but I think it was fairly obvious where I stood on the issue (which is to say, staunchly incredulous that WotC would include a "poison pill" and strain its 3pp relationships more than necessary). I am all for a reasonable amount of openness, and it seems to me that the new GSL is exactly that: reasonable (for all involved parties). I also think that there are some (as of yet unseen) advantages inherent to the somewhat closed nature of the new GSL will work even better for everyone involved as well: for example, the ability to allow additional sourcebooks into the GSL without risk that someone else is going to rip off and republish their work sans-flavor. Overall, I think this could actually be a big step forward in the 3pp arena if the GSL continues to gain support from both sides of the fence and could be an even bigger success than the OGL for everyone involved.

Also, I figure this was worth cross-posting from the WotC boards, since its my (completely unofficial and completely unendorsed and will probably get me in trouble with someone) perspective on the whole situation.

To be completely honest (and giving my own opinion on this, rather than WotC's), unless you are developers and publishers a lot of this won't affect you one bit, and if it hadn't had such a stink around it most would never have even noticed any changes at all. A lot of people are looking for problems where there are none.

At no point did anyone from Wizards of the Coast confirm the rumor that the GSL would be on a company-by-company basis. At that time (and even now) the GSL was not technically complete. Scott and Linae and everyone else at WotC are all under NDA, which limits what they can say and when. Even the much (mis)quoted Scott Rouse Post doesn't confirm that they would limit a companies ability to post through the OGL, simply that they would be actively encouraging the use of the GSL amongst third party publishers and that 3pp would be free to choose between OGL and GSL, but that there would be a choice involved. At no point did any major 3PP complain about the actual GSL. Chris Pramas said that he was contacting for clarification, but if the allegations were true than Green Ronin would stick with the OGL so that it could continue to support M&M. Clark Peterson actively supported it even when he thought that it might be on a company basis (though he didn't claim to believe that particular fact).

As it is, this is about what everyone expected. I can't imagine that anyone was really planning on releasing the same exact product lines for both 4e and 3.5 anyways. Quite simply put, it wouldn't have made economic sense to split development time for a product with such a narrow audience. I can, however, see the desire for publishers to maintain at least one of their current lines in 3.5 while transitioning the others to 4e, and the GSL apparently allows this.