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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="phloog" data-source="post: 4204119" data-attributes="member: 59219">I wish I could share your feelings.  For me the concern stems from the facts that:1) there WERE interpretation issues within WOTC, and2) the document apparently did NOT change a bit in the recent weeks, and3) the document is revocable, and4) WOTC is clearly trying to move away from Open (insert your definition here) gamingMy 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'</blockquote>

Verification