GSL FAQ up

[sinecure]

Can 3rd party publishers declare some of their GSL content as "limited open content" meaning it is open exclusively to other products also published under the GSL?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's not charity. It's business. Just like OGL was.
There is no reason to panic or to celebrate. It's just an attempt to improve control over the market by WotC.

No, it is a reason to celebrate. The fact that there is no so-called poison pill forcing every publisher to decide now to abandon his OGL products and focus on the GSL line, or stay OGL increases the number of publishers that can easily jump on the 4E bandwagon, while still selling their old (or possibly new) products. That's especially important for those companies that have created their OGL stand-alone games and make reasonable amounts of money with them.

For me as a customer this means that there will be more publishers that will support 4E then in the other case, which means I have a larger set of products to chose from. (And in the case of my group, this might especially mean that there will be more adventures, from which we will never have to little).

Just because something means "business as usual" doesn't mean it's not a reason to celebrate, not if the alternative was "worse business as usual".

 

[Yair]

Do we have any direct, official confirmation that fan sites will be required to register with WotC? And if so, a link please.

The FAQ says registration would be needed to use the GSL,

Q. Can anyone participate?
A. Yes. Interested third party publishers will be required to submit a registration card, agreeing to the terms of use. This registration card will be part of the materials available to publishers on our website beginning June 6, 2008.

For fan sites, at least for fans not registered as publishers with WotC, this means the GSL will be totally irrelevant. You can't simply publish a fan site under the GSL, you need to register with WotC as a publisher to publish anything under the GSL - that's what the FAQ says.

Which doesn't address WotC's fan-site policy, but does make it clear that the GSL is directed at publishers, not fans.

 

[Nikosandros]

If the license is the same as two weeks ago, why did they need all this time to answer the questions?

Also, someone told Clark Peterson that the restriction was on a per company basis... personally I think that things changed in the last two weeks. Since, IMO, things changed for the better, I'm glad for it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If the license is the same as two weeks ago, why did they need all this time to answer the questions?

The Rouse was traveling, and he wanted to read the GSL again to make sure he didn't tell anything wrong. That, plus the usual overhead for putting out something official.

Also, someone told Clark Peterson that the restriction was on a per company basis... personally I think that things changed in the last two weeks. Since, IMO, things changed for the better, I'm glad for it.

Clark wasn't told this directly. IIRC, there was something he heard that sounded like this could be the case, and the reasoning for it was plausible enough to ask about it.

---

For clarification: Is anyone outside of WotC know in posession of the GSL? I seem to remember something that print publishers would receive it a little earlier to be ready for October, but my information is probably out of date, and honestly, it is getting a little confusing.

 

[Jack99]

This is an example of people applying a subtext to her words based on their own personal interpretation. She was direct and meant what she wrote at face value. The fact that people read some kind of deception into those statements speaks volumes more about their character than Linae's. As Mistwell so eloquently stated, this is simply a case of people accusing her of dishonesty (whether by omission or intentionally misleading statements) with absolutely no evidence to support such a claim... and that's just rude.

I am sorry that you see me as rude, that was certainly not the intention of my posts. And I sincerely hope that Linae (assuming she has read them) hasn't taken them as such.

My point was merely that it is possible to interpret her answer in more than one way. You assume from the way you understand her answer, that the GSL has not changed over the last 2 weeks, I assume that it has changed, at least a little bit.

This has IMO nothing to do with half-truths nor misleading answers, and certainly not of dishonesty.

Maybe I have just spent too much time around politicians

Cheers,

 

[Jack99]

Clark wasn't told this directly. IIRC, there was something he heard that sounded like this could be the case, and the reasoning for it was plausible enough to ask about it.

Well...

Hmmm... am I missing something? I'm trying to put together a news item compiling all the posts made by WoTC here, and I've found the "can't have the same product in two different licenses" stuff, but can't seem to find where people are getting the "a company may only use one license, period" implication from. I've scoured this thread, and I must have missed that post; could someone point me towards it so that I can include it in the news item?

I was told that specifically by Wizards of the Coast. In direct response to that direct question. The answer was, "we dont want fence sitters. Companies have to choose.

Post 334 if you wish to see for yourself.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well...





Post 334 if you wish to see for yourself.

Ah, I stand corrected. (But luckily, so does Orcus "informant")

 

[Nikosandros]

Ah, I stand corrected. (But luckily, so does Orcus "informant")

I still think that the restriction was lessened in those two weeks.

 

[Piratecat]

Ah, I stand corrected. (But luckily, so does Orcus "informant")

Yeah, if I've taken anything from this incident it's that different departments in WotC don't have completely synchronized communication. I'm glad that for whatever reason Orcus's understanding didn't make it into the final GSL. I suspect that these last few weeks were used by the lawyers to tweak the license a little. We'll probably never know how much, but I'd like to say thank you to everyone at Wizards who worked to get a less restrictive clause in.