GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault

[Admiral Caine]

There has been an ongoing discussion about the GSL in the 4E News area that sprang out of this this specific thread. Page 3 is perhaps one of the most relevant.

1. What is the status of the GSL? What is a realistic date that it might be available to 3rd party companies?
2. Will 3rd Party Companies be able to create aspects of the game that are not available at the new Edition's launch? For example, if a setting is ripe with bards, but WOTC plans on releasing their official bard in a future work in 2009, will those companies be able to create their own version? This goes to the question of an existing setting's continuity.
3. Will publishing under the GSL prohibit publication of older material under the OGL?
4. This is a fluff question (so it is the least priority of the three)- but does WOTC realize that the fans and the customers are very much in tune with the process, and have their own vested interests in the GSL. That is, do they understand that this is not something just between Wizard's and the Third Parties, but that the customers are involved too. We're the ones that make decisions on our purchasing habits, not the 3rd parties themselves.

I am going to stop this post here and let the questions stand by themselves. In my following post I'll cover some of the standard replies that I've received already from other forum posters.

Thank you in advance to Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault for their replies.

 

[Admiral Caine]

Follow up to the first post

I'd like to field some typical responses I have gotten so far, to expedite some of the discussion.

"This is another conspiracy theory": No, actually it's not. They are four straight questions. I'm not implying there is any emotional aspect involved with the timing of the GSL release.

"EN World Reporters have already answered this, here, let me give you a link": Yes, they have. In the form of a second hand conversation without a quote. Without anything said on a podcast. Without anything said on a webcast. I believe EN World (and other fan site) reporters to be genuine and sincere people, and do not mean to imply that they softballed their interviews. Nevertheless, I'd like a comment from WOTC directly. Especially in light of the tardiness of the GSL's release.

"Why do you care?"" Because 3rd Party companies are actually suffering in the form of lost sales, as they're not able to answer their customers whether they can adopt 4th Edition or not. For them to commit to 4th Edition without seeing the GSL would be careless and irresponsible.

"You should be grateful that there's going to be a GSL at all, in the old days...": (I want to avoid sarcasm, but I love this one) I am very grateful that there was an OGL. Prior to that, things were hard. TSR and other companies often issued Cease and Desist orders. Respectfully, that was the past and it has no great context or bearing on today. If 3rd Party Companies don't like the GSL, they have an alternative in the OGL. Prior to that there was nothing. The OGL changed everything. The reader may not feel that the OGL is a viable alternative, but that's an entirely different and unrelated conversation. As for me owing gratitude for the GSL? Not really. The GSL is a component to whether I purchase 4th Edition or not. I don't feel gratitude to an auto-manufacturer concerning anti-lock brakes and power steering. I don't feel gratitude to a PC manufacturer when I get a flat screen monitor when I purchase a new desktop. These are not gifts, they're selling points. If WOTC chooses not to provide a GSL, then I have a choice whether or not a I buy it or not. I only owe them the purchase price of the product, not my gratitude. That's why, we the customers, are the Second Party and not the Third Party.

"If Paizo thinks they can survive on 3.5 they're crazy!": Not relevant. A different conversation for another thread.

"This isn't WOTC or Scott Rouse's fault. He's a nice man who cares. This is all the doing of Rhode Island!": I'm willing to believe Scott Rouse is a real nice guy. I believe he cares. Unfortunately, sometimes it sucks to be the Boss, because you get left taking responsibility. And actually, I believe that Hasbro is the culprit. Nevertheless, I'm asking for some WOTC Staff person to step and respond directly. Not a second hand comment paraphrased by someone else. Plus, Question Two has nothing to do with a date. Nothing whatsoever. If they can't answer Question #1, Question #2's answer will be better than nothing at all.

"Can't you just be patient?": The first week of January WOTC placed a conference call with several major players, where upon they set up an expectation that the GSL would be out soon after that time. Business decisions were made upon that expectation, but now it's months later and nothing is being said. There are three factions in the GSL relationship: WOTC, 3rd Party Companies, and the Customers themselves. If they want me to buy the product, please answer the questions. It's the business of the Customers as much as it is the 3rd Parties.

Thank you!

 

[Jack99]

I doubt that any WoTC representative posting here will be able to give a clear answer. If indeed the papers are with the lawyers, they won't know when it is done, until it actually is done, in which case I am sure they will be otw to the 3rd parties.

But good luck, it would be nice to know if Paizo, the rest are going to go with 4e.

 

[Admiral Caine]

I doubt that any WoTC representative posting here will be able to give a clear answer. If indeed the papers are with the lawyers, they won't know when it is done, until it actually is done, in which case I am sure they will be otw to the 3rd parties.

But good luck, it would be nice to know if Paizo, the rest are going to go with 4e.

Thank you for the good luck! I felt it was important enough to try.

I've been watching third party communities turn on themselves, and their companies be unable to offer any information or leadership in a vacuum. I've been a witness to people deciding against 4th Edition just from marketing fatigue.

There's no desire on my part to rake WOTC Reps over the coals.. Still, a direct comment would be better than nothing.

 

[Crashy75]

Thank you for the good luck! I felt it was important enough to try.

I've been watching third party communities turn on themselves, and their companies be unable to offer any information or leadership in a vacuum. I've been a witness to people deciding against 4th Edition just from marketing fatigue.

There's no desire on my part to rake WOTC Reps over the coals.. Still, a direct comment would be better than nothing.

I wish you good luck as well. It's something I'm interested in hearing about also.

 

[zoroaster100]

I really do hope that WOTC gives Paizo the GSL soon. I like what I've seen of the 4th edition rules, and I am very hopeful that WOTC has done a great job with the rules. But no one does adventures as well as Paizo, in my opinion. I would love, love, love to be able to run a 4th edition adventure path produced by Paizo. If WOTC sabotages that, inadvertently or not, they will be robbing so many customers and potential customers of the chance to enjoy what I think would have been the ultimate gaming experience - WOTC's 4th edition rules combined with Paizo's adventure paths.

 

[Orcus]

This is a great thread. And I hope you get some official answers.

As far as I know, things are near done and perhaps the push to get ready for, get to, run, and now recover from being at DDXP slowed things down a bit. I can see why that is a bit more important to WotC than we are right now

The one problem I see is this: once we get the GSL to review, we get it as part of the designer pack (the first step anyway). And the GSL itself is under our NDA. So WE wont be able to answer those questions. And if WotC is putting this stuff under an NDA then they may not want to talk about it publically (or why would we have to be under an NDA). So I guess I have a funny feeling we might not get answers.

That said, I can help with a few things:

"This is another conspiracy theory": This is not a conspiracy theory. Just some interested people asking questions the answers to which are important to us.

"EN World Reporters have already answered this, here, let me give you a link": I dont think the second hand answer actually is an answer either. To me, this is definately still and open question that has not been answered, meaning no disrespect to the enworld reporters.

"This isn't WOTC or Scott Rouse's fault. He's a nice man who cares. This is all the doing of Rhode Island!": Scott Rouse and Linae Foster are super-cool. It may not be their fault, and I dont think it is, but the buck stops somewhere. I also firmly believe that Scott and Linae and company want to help the Third Party publishers and that they will do the best that they can.

I am 100% convinced that WotC believes Third Party support is a good idea and that they are dedicated to making it happen for all of us--meaning the publishers and the gamers. It is clear that third party support gave more choice to the gamers and expanded options and that we really made some great stuff. I've talked to these people. I know they are dedicated to helping us support them. They read these boards. They see the people who say "I wasnt going to consider 4E but now that [trusted publisher] is in, I am going to try it!" They saw the impact we had on bringing people to 3E.

WotC are the good guys.

Dont blame them if they are just a little busy getting their flagship product to press by the various deadlines.

Like it or not, third party publishing is a secondary goal for them, not a primary one. And that makes sense. It is more important for them to use their man-(and woman-)hours to hitting the 4E release than it is to finalize the GSL. That is just a business reality. And I am OK with that. But that doesnt mean we cant keep asking questions. I just want to encourage everyone to be supportive of WotC and not overly-critical. I have dealt with Scott and Linae and they are great and they want us to have this stuff and they dont like that there has been a slowdown. So ask all the questions you want, but please dont throw grenades.

"Can't you just be patient?": I have been. I do really want those rules

Clark

 

[DaveMage]

The irony to me is that 4E probably wouldn't exist without 3E and the OGL.

Without it, Mike Mearls doesn't write or contribute to the 50+ (or so it seems) d20 products, probably doesn't get hired at Wizards, and doesn't help design 4E.

So, maybe if WotC wants 5E to be that much better than 4E, it's in their best interest to have 3rd party publishers. (Sort of the designer "minor leagues" if you will. )

 

[mach1.9pants]

Yeah I really hope some replies turn up here, because I am interested in 3rd party products, but I can't actually see it happening. The terms of the GSL are under NDA from what it seems to me.
However good luck with your fishin'

 

[Lizard]

This is in reply to Orcus' comments about releasing existing OGC under the GSL:

We do know, I think very certainly, that the GSL cannot place material released under the OGL under itself without the consent of the copyright holder. It's not a new version of the OGL and thus can't 'cover' older material. Now, it might be that it's trivial to place OGL material under GSL and that there will be a reason to do so, in which case, Necromancer (which owns the copyright on the OGL versions of the classic TSR monsters) can rerelease them under the GSL, no problem, provided, of course, that the 3x SRD, from which the TOH critters are derived (mechanically, at least, and in terms of references to spells, onster types, and so on) is also placed under the GSL. If the 3x SRD is not re-released in some form under the GSL, I cannot see how any OGC derived from the SRD can be re-used without explicit permission. Books which draw from any sources and make use of other people's OGC will have a tangled mess of derivations to sort through.

The other issue is that while it might be possible to release existing OGC under the GSL easily, a lot of companies won't bother. For example, I have done a great deal of work for many publishers which is open content. While I don't own the copyright to that work, I can use the open version of it as legally as anyone else and republish or edit it as I see fit. What I can't do is update it for 4e unless the copyright holder (the publisher) re-releases it under the GSL.

If you think there's a legal way to make the GSL automagically incorporate other people's OGL-based OGC without a formal rerelease from the current copyright holders, well, you are cleverer than me (which may be to damn with faint praise). Feel free to PM me with your speculation.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Necromancer (which owns the copyright on the OGL versions of the classic TSR monsters)

Um, I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. I think WotC owns those copyrights and (either through the OGL or through a special agreement with Necromancer) allowed Necromancer to use them in developing OGL products. And this is only to the degree that monster stat blocks are even copyrightable (since public domain, math, etc. can't be copyrighted), which is a point the OGL *intentionally* left open because it was a legal mess. (I think the explanation went something like, "Some of the stuff published under OGL may be copyrighted and some may not, but if it's under OGL you can definitely use it as a basis for further OGL products without fear of legal issues.")

 

[Orcus]

This is in reply to Orcus' comments about releasing existing OGC under the GSL:

We do know, I think very certainly, that the GSL cannot place material released under the OGL under itself without the consent of the copyright holder. It's not a new version of the OGL and thus can't 'cover' older material. Now, it might be that it's trivial to place OGL material under GSL and that there will be a reason to do so, in which case, Necromancer (which owns the copyright on the OGL versions of the classic TSR monsters) can rerelease them under the GSL, no problem, provided, of course, that the 3x SRD, from which the TOH critters are derived (mechanically, at least, and in terms of references to spells, onster types, and so on) is also placed under the GSL. If the 3x SRD is not re-released in some form under the GSL, I cannot see how any OGC derived from the SRD can be re-used without explicit permission. Books which draw from any sources and make use of other people's OGC will have a tangled mess of derivations to sort through.

The other issue is that while it might be possible to release existing OGC under the GSL easily, a lot of companies won't bother. For example, I have done a great deal of work for many publishers which is open content. While I don't own the copyright to that work, I can use the open version of it as legally as anyone else and republish or edit it as I see fit. What I can't do is update it for 4e unless the copyright holder (the publisher) re-releases it under the GSL.

If you think there's a legal way to make the GSL automagically incorporate other people's OGL-based OGC without a formal rerelease from the current copyright holders, well, you are cleverer than me (which may be to damn with faint praise). Feel free to PM me with your speculation.

I dont agree that we "know" that at all.

No one has seen the GSL.

We dont know what its terms will or wont be.

Frankly, my speculation is that some of what you say is correct. My guess is that the GSL will have restricitons on how it works with prior OGC. What those will be, I dont know. No one does, right now. You may wind up being right. But please stop saying it is known because it isnt at all. Not a single person outside WotC/Hasbro has seen the GSL.

 

[Piratecat]

We have a specific forum for GSL discussion. I'll slide this over.

 

[Orcus]

Um, I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. I think WotC owns those copyrights and (either through the OGL or through a special agreement with Necromancer) allowed Necromancer to use them in developing OGL products. And this is only to the degree that monster stat blocks are even copyrightable (since public domain, math, etc. can't be copyrighted), which is a point the OGL *intentionally* left open because it was a legal mess. (I think the explanation went something like, "Some of the stuff published under OGL may be copyrighted and some may not, but if it's under OGL you can definitely use it as a basis for further OGL products without fear of legal issues.")

That wasnt the problem with the OGL at all. Your analysis is all wrong, respectfully. Of course stat blocks are copyrightable. And no the OGL didnt intentionally leave that issue open cause it was a legal mess. That is just a total misunderstanding of the license, its creation, its history and its use, I am sorry to say. I know that may be public sentiment, but I happen to know because I was there and I was part of it. I understand taht is a commonly held belief. This isnt the first time I've had to debunk this myth, so please know I am not criticizing you. I am just trying to debunk that notion.

As for what the new GSL will do with stuff like Tome, I dont know yet. Yes, that material is copyright Necro. We do hold the copyright to Tome1. But that doesnt answer the question. That content was also made into OGC, with WoptC's permssion, so long as the original authors were credited (whcih was our idea). And that content was used by us with permission. So depending on the terms of the GSL, its hard to say what we can do with that content. We'll have to wait and see.

Clark

 

[Lizard]

I dont agree that we "know" that at all.

No one has seen the GSL.

We dont know what its terms will or wont be.

Frankly, my speculation is that some of what you say is correct. My guess is that the GSL will have restricitons on how it works with prior OGC. What those will be, I dont know. No one does, right now. You may wind up being right. But please stop saying it is known because it isnt at all. Not a single person outside WotC/Hasbro has seen the GSL.

I think I am being unclear.

The GSL *cannot* (unless I am very, very, wrong) cover content released under the OGL, anymore than, say, the OGL could apply to content released under the GPL or the Creative Commons license. A copyright holder consented to place material under the OGL; this doesn't grant another party (WOTC) the right to create an unrelated license which still covers that content. The GSL is not a version of the OGL; if it were, it would be irrelevant, since all versions of the OGL are interchangeable and its more severe restrictions could be ignored. (This is why it's the GSL and not the OGL, and why it's almost three months from the announcement and no actual license yet...)

Again, this doesn't prevent a copyright holder from releasing material under the GSL, but this can't apply to material to which they don't own the original copyright OR material derived from such -- such as anything derived from the SRd, *unless* the SRD is also released under the GSL -- something I very much doubt will happen. Most likely, there will be a 'gentleman's agreement' (much like in the early days of the OGL, before the SRd was finalized) which would allow companies to 'upgrade' material derived from the SRD but not to create new, 3x compatible material *under the GSL*. (They could, obviously, keep using the OGL)

This really has nothing to do with the content of the GSL or what it says; it has to do with the nature of licenses. As I said before, if WOTC could write a license which somehow covered content released under a *different* license, it would mean I could do so, too.

To be more clear:

I write a game supplement. I release it under the OGL. The copyright is mine and mine alone; other people can use the material according to the terms of the license *I* chose to release it under.

WOTC releases the GSL. I don't like the terms of the GSL; I choose not to release my material under it.

There is nothing anyone can do to "re open" my OGL content under the GSL. It is a different license and does not bind me in any way. If anyone attempted to use my content under the GSL, I could sue them and win handily. I cannot imagine *any* structuring of the license which would let it re-license *other people's copyrighted material* under itself[1], and the GSL *cannot* be a "version" of the OGL or the entire exercise becomes moot.

Further, if my material derives from any other OGL sources which are not, themselves, released under the GSL -- say I used Jubilex from the TOH -- even if I wished to re-license my material under the GSL, I could not, because it is 'contaminated' with material whose copyrights I do not own, and only THAT copyright holder can release it under the GSL.

By deciding to abandon the OGL in favor of a new license, WOTC has created a complicated legal nightmare for anyone seeking to edit or upgrade existing works. If we assume there's some way to still derive from the 3x SRD, that still means products which use OGC from multiple sources are screwed without a lot of explicit permission.

[1]Again, I must note that releasing material under the OGL doesn't in any way remove your copyright to it or place it into the public domain; the OGL is a license allowing re-use of copyrighted material under specific terms, it is not a waiver of copyright. I know you know this, but I think other people might be confused.

 

[Lizard]

As for what the new GSL will do with stuff like Tome, I dont know yet. Yes, that material is copyright Necro. We do hold the copyright to Tome1. But that doesnt answer the question. That content was also made into OGC, with WoptC's permssion, so long as the original authors were credited (whcih was our idea). And that content was used by us with permission. So depending on the terms of the GSL, its hard to say what we can do with that content. We'll have to wait and see.

Clark

Since you own the copyright to TOH, I suspect you'll be able to re-release it under the GSL, *provided* there's some way to include those portions of the TOH which derive from the SRD, which is, uhm, a whole lot of it. I'm certain WOTC will make some attempt to make this possible, but how convoluted and dependent on trust and goodwill it will be, I don't know.

 

[Orcus]

I think I am being unclear.

The GSL *cannot* (unless I am very, very, wrong) cover content released under the OGL, anymore than, say, the OGL could apply to content released under the GPL or the Creative Commons license. A copyright holder consented to place material under the OGL; this doesn't grant another party (WOTC) the right to create an unrelated license which still covers that content. The GSL is not a version of the OGL; if it were, it would be irrelevant, since all versions of the OGL are interchangeable and its more severe restrictions could be ignored. (This is why it's the GSL and not the OGL, and why it's almost three months from the announcement and no actual license yet...)

Again, this doesn't prevent a copyright holder from releasing material under the GSL, but this can't apply to material to which they don't own the original copyright OR material derived from such -- such as anything derived from the SRd, *unless* the SRD is also released under the GSL -- something I very much doubt will happen. Most likely, there will be a 'gentleman's agreement' (much like in the early days of the OGL, before the SRd was finalized) which would allow companies to 'upgrade' material derived from the SRD but not to create new, 3x compatible material *under the GSL*. (They could, obviously, keep using the OGL)

This really has nothing to do with the content of the GSL or what it says; it has to do with the nature of licenses. As I said before, if WOTC could write a license which somehow covered content released under a *different* license, it would mean I could do so, too.

To be more clear:

I write a game supplement. I release it under the OGL. The copyright is mine and mine alone; other people can use the material according to the terms of the license *I* chose to release it under.

WOTC releases the GSL. I don't like the terms of the GSL; I choose not to release my material under it.

There is nothing anyone can do to "re open" my OGL content under the GSL. It is a different license and does not bind me in any way. If anyone attempted to use my content under the GSL, I could sue them and win handily. I cannot imagine *any* structuring of the license which would let it re-license *other people's copyrighted material* under itself[1], and the GSL *cannot* be a "version" of the OGL or the entire exercise becomes moot.

Further, if my material derives from any other OGL sources which are not, themselves, released under the GSL -- say I used Jubilex from the TOH -- even if I wished to re-license my material under the GSL, I could not, because it is 'contaminated' with material whose copyrights I do not own, and only THAT copyright holder can release it under the GSL.

By deciding to abandon the OGL in favor of a new license, WOTC has created a complicated legal nightmare for anyone seeking to edit or upgrade existing works. If we assume there's some way to still derive from the 3x SRD, that still means products which use OGC from multiple sources are screwed without a lot of explicit permission.

[1]Again, I must note that releasing material under the OGL doesn't in any way remove your copyright to it or place it into the public domain; the OGL is a license allowing re-use of copyrighted material under specific terms, it is not a waiver of copyright. I know you know this, but I think other people might be confused.

I agree with you in theory, but I see a possibility that you are not accounting for--that a product could be covered by BOTH the GSL and the OGL. I see that as a possibility. For instance, perhaps the GSL -ONLY- covers use of content from the 4E SRD. If that is the case, you could create a product that uses the GSL for the 4E parts and then also uses the OGL to pull from 3E/OGC sources. That would work nicely.

However, I happen to think that you are likely right. I think the GSL will likely preclude you from also using any other license in a product that also uses the GSL. Or, in the alternative, allows you to use OGC only so long as you have permission of the copyright holder. But I am not sure.

I think your stance comes from a belief that the GSL cannot work with the OGL and OGC in any way. I am not sure that is a certainty. Had I been consulted by WotC (which I wasnt, though I offered) this was exactly the problem I wanted to help with--how to intertwine 3E OGC with new 4E content under the GSL.

I also dont see it as a legal nightmare at all to upgrade existing works. If you were the creator of the intial work, even if under the OGL, you own the concepts and can easily do them in a new incarnation of the license.

Let me give you an example. I dont know if the GSL will work with the OGL in any way. But permission from the content owner is always a good way to go. For Tome 4E I wanted to include a few monsters from the old Creature Collection that I produced. I dont technically own that content. If the GSL works with the OGL then I can use it under that license. But I dont think it will. So I called Steve and Stew and got permission, in writing, to use the couple of monsters that I wanted to use. So I know, without almost any doubt, that I will be able to create those creatures for Tome 4E because I have the right to do so (unless the GSL has some wierd provision I havent envisioned, which I find hard to believe, but who knows).

I also do agree that one thing that is in question is downstream use of OGC. That issue you raise above I believe is very valid--for instance you create a work that includes someone elses OGC, you then release your work as OGC under the OGL. All good and appropriate. Now, however, if the new GSL doesnt work with the old OGL then if you want to redo that work you likely wont be able to use the content that you used that was prior OGC. But the rest of the work you could. So, depending on how much reuse you did, you may have an extra step.

This leads me back to something I was a HUGE advocate of under the OGL--asking permission even if you didnt have to. I always advocated that if you were going to reuse someone else's OGC that you give them the courtesy of asking permission. You didnt have to, of course. But this is a small industry. Professionalism is always the best way to go. Now, here we are. If you used someone's OGC previously for a product and want to use it again in updating that work under the GSL, guess what--if you asked permission the first time and got it, dont you think they would likely give it again when you ask for permission to use it under the GSL? It always pays to be nice...

I do agree with your important comment about copyright and how the OGL is not a waiver of copyright. I think that is an important comment to remind people about.

It is going to be intersting to see how this all plays out.

Clark

 

[Ranger REG]

The irony to me is that 4E probably wouldn't exist without 3E and the OGL.

Heh. Trust me when I say, 4e would exist with or without the OGL. And since the license have been given an entirely different name, I'm guessing it's the latter.

 

[GentleGiant]

Heh. Trust me when I say, 4e would exist with or without the OGL. And since the license have been given an entirely different name, I'm guessing it's the latter.

I think DaveMage meant that it wouldn't exist in its current form (rules-wise) or designed by the people who did it (e.g. Mike Mearls).

 

[GentleGiant]

A couple of other things that some people are curious about (at least some customers, not too much info on this from the various publishers) are these:

• Will the GSL prevent a company from publishing OGL content alongside 4e products* (e.g. dual-statted books, a 3.x gameline/gameworld etc.)?
• Will there be any clauses to prevent backward engineering from 4e to 3.x (even if it's kept within the other confines of the GSL)?
• Will it be possible to release 3.x content under the GSL (similar to the above) or will it only cover the 4e SRD (thus making 3.x material that incorporates rules from the 4e SRD)?

* this could be by including a clause that basically says something to the affect of "if your company decides to release 4e products you will cease to produce 3.x products." Although you might still be able to upgrade existing 3.x products to 4e (as Clark has talked about further up the thread.