GSL FAQ up

[Fifth Element]

I just want to verify, WotC does not plan to discontinue selling pdfs of old edition D&D products does it? I buy a couple most every month.

Notice she said they would only be "producing" 4e products from now on. Those old products have already been produced.

 

[Jack99]

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.

Thanks for the confirmation. Once again, I really hope you didn't take my comment as an attack on your integrity and truthfulness, but merely as an observation on how your .doc comment could be interpreted.

Cheers

 

[Orcus]

Very nicely done, WotC. The issue I was most concerned about--that a company would have to choose one system only--has been addressed. I have to say that I'm very pleased. I bet Clark's happy, too.

I'm thrilled.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

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.

I agree, and that is correct. I was told that. Word for word. So, yes, perhaps the document is the same, but I dont think everyone at Wizards was on the same page on what the document meant. It appears that has now all been straightened out, and straightened out in a way that is what I was hoping for. Luckily our very public discussion motivated Wizards to clear things up, which is good. Things did change these last two weeks, even if the document didnt.

So lets please stop pointing fingers. The clarification has been given and it is wonderful. Dont try to suggest Linae is dodging your questions, she isnt. She is about as straight up and nice as you could possible meet. She is awesome. There is no treachery here.

Scott and Linae deserve our thanks for getting this handled. They did an amazing job.

Thanks Scott, thanks Linae and thanks Wizards!

Clark

 

[Orcus]

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.

Dont speak for me, please.

Yes, I was told this directly. I asked directly if it was a product by product or company by company choice and I was told directly that it was company by company.

That is what started my concern and that is what led to this discussion. And I am glad we had that discussion. And I am glad we had it publicly.

What appears to be the case is that there were differing internal understandings of what that meant. And I think the answer we have gotten is reasonable and acceptable and is likely what the person who told me that meant in the first place. But I asked directly and I was told directly.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

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.

I agree.

Thanks to everyone at Wizards. I'm glad we were able to discuss all of this. I really, really think that Scott and Linae listened to all of us. They understand the issues that face the third party publishers and they understand our value to D&D. And it really, really feels good to be a part of this process and to be valued and to have input. You have to give a ton of credit to Wizards (Scott and Linae in particular) for that. Without those two, this process would have been alot different, of that I am convinced.

Clark

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Dont speak for me, please.

Well, the IIRC should have put earlier, and I clearly did not remember correctly.

So, do we now have to demand the head of the person that mis-informed you, or would it be unfair to do so, since legalese is a difficult language?

Spoiler

Who knows, it might hit someone I'd prefer to continue working for WotC? What if it was Mearls? Or The Rouse himself?

.
.
.

Nah, we're fans, not some reasonable guys! I demand his head. On a silver plate. And Orcus should animate his corpse!

 

[Piratecat]

I agree, and that is correct. I was told that. Word for word. So, yes, perhaps the document is the same, but I dont think everyone at Wizards was on the same page on what the document meant. It appears that has now all been straightened out, and straightened out in a way that is what I was hoping for. Luckily our very public discussion motivated Wizards to clear things up, which is good. Things did change these last two weeks, even if the document didnt.

So lets please stop pointing fingers. The clarification has been given and it is wonderful. Dont try to suggest Linae is dodging your questions, she isnt. She is about as straight up and nice as you could possible meet. She is awesome. There is no treachery here.

Scott and Linae deserve our thanks for getting this handled. They did an amazing job.

Well said, Clark. I have a warm fuzzy feeling about the next six years of D&D that wasn't there before. This makes me very, very happy.

 

[phloog]

Well said, Clark. I have a warm fuzzy feeling about the next six years of D&D that wasn't there before. This makes me very, very happy.

I wish I could share your feelings.

For me the concern stems from the facts that:

1) there WERE interpretation issues within WOTC, and
2) the document apparently did NOT change a bit in the recent weeks, and
3) the document is revocable, and
4) WOTC is clearly trying to move away from Open (insert your definition here) gaming

My concern is that with so many fingers in the pie, there is technically NOTHING preventing WOTC from issuing a GSL1.1 that provides further 'clarity', and immediately revokes the current GSL. The 1.1 version would be so close as to allow them to pitch it as no big deal, but further restricting companies in any way they chose.

Someone at WOTC, likely MANY someones, wanted it to be company-by-company...others read it differently. Clark talked to one of the company-level contingent.

The uproar on the web caused the 'product line' interpretation to win out, but apparently the document can be read to be either company-level or product level.

That's frightening.

Luckily, since their FAQ says one thing, they will likely never be able to successfully argue for company-level in court under the CURRENT GSL, but it's apparently the most trivial move in the world to add a line 'clarifying' the restrictions as company-level.

As soon as some threshold number of gamers start using 4E, they can drop in the poison pill.

I'm not saying they're evil or anything, but if I was a publisher I'd be extremely worried about jumping in on this. "Here's the new GSL, the old one is dead...but of course you can continue to publish your popular GSL products, if only you would just drop all support for OGL stuff"

They appear to be trying a lot of new business models based on established successed (micro-transactions for miniatures, Insider as a stream of consumer 'touchpoints', a monthly revenue stream through DDI)...this is great in some ways, but I think it implies that your six-years-out optimism may be unfounded - - if they continue to adapt new models from existing businesses, a six-year update cadence is a bit 'old school'

 

[Green Knight]

Someone at WOTC, likely MANY someones, wanted it to be company-by-company...others read it differently. Clark talked to one of the company-level contingent.

The uproar on the web caused the 'product line' interpretation to win out, but apparently the document can be read to be either company-level or product level.

That's frightening.

No it's not. You're just blowing it up to be larger then it actually is.

One person made a mistake in saying it was company by company. That's it. Is it so incomprehensible that someone got it wrong? Just look at how many people disagree over rules in game books. It isn't altogether inconceivable that someone misread or misheard something about the GSL and reported it incorrectly to Clark. There's nothing "frightening" about that. It's just simple human error. And for people to take what was just an honest mistake and blow it up into something nefarious is absolutely ridiculous.