GSL questions for Scott Rouse and Mike Lescault

[Orcus]

It could, but I'd be wary of such a product, because declaration of content would be very, very, critical. As it is, many publishers have vague/confusing declarations of OGC/PI; imagine if you added mixed-license content to that!

Yeah, but that is only because (1) people dont know what they are doing, which I cant fix, or (2) people are doing crappy designations on purpose, which I cant fix either. There are plenty of people who do it right and do a good job and make their content easy to use--like Necro for example.

 

[Orcus]

Well, here's the problem.
a)The copyright holder of the SRD is WOTC. Therefore, for the huge bulk of OGL material which is SRD-derived, the publishers don't hold the copyright. Say I want to release spells 'missing' from 4e, but which were in the SRD. Unless the SRD is placed under some kind of license, I can't, because I don't own the copyright to the SRD.

True, but WotC coould grant that permission as part of teh GSL so no worries.

b)There's also a problem of derived content. I used Atlas' "Tide of Years" when I worked on Seafarer's Handbook; Seafarer's Handbook shows up in the S15 of a lot of other works on underwater adventuring. The exact material used is not specified. A third party would need to be sure which material in a book came from which source, and that's not always easy -- it can be sut, chopped, edited, spread out, or even non-existent! (The SFH S15 referenced Tide of Years. A third publisher might use a feat from SFH which had nothing to do with TOY, but TOY will still be in their S15 due to the way the OGL works.)) This is, obviously, not a problem if there is no content except that derived from the SRD. (You address this further on; I just wanted to call it out in detail for other readers.)

Reuse has always been frought with peril Yes, that does make things more complicated, but not impossible.

Clark

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I wouldnt look at it that way at all. Its just what we lawyers do. ALL of my licenses and contracts--with WW, Paizo, JG, everyone--have all had confidentiality provisions. Its not that unusual. What IS unusual is to release draft agreements publically. So its the OGL that was unusual, not the GSL.

There is absolutely nothing wrong or unusual in normal business circles with proposed licenses not being public. Nothing. WotC should take no heat for this.

Clark

It looked like tro me that Belen was aslking why the final GSL licence would be under NDA until June, not why a draft license like the OGL situation would be under NDA. Since as far as we have been told the GSL priomised to the publishers would be a final license and the same as the one to be released to the general public in June.

To rephrase the question. If the publishers early copy and the public copy are the same why would WotC need to keep it under NDA.

 

[Admiral Caine]

To rephrase the question. If the publishers early copy and the public copy are the same why would WotC need to keep it under NDA.

It does seem like it's a secret with only a 90 days lifespan.

 

[Orcus]

It looked like tro me that Belen was aslking why the final GSL licence would be under NDA until June, not why a draft license like the OGL situation would be under NDA. Since as far as we have been told the GSL priomised to the publishers would be a final license and the same as the one to be released to the general public in June.

To rephrase the question. If the publishers early copy and the public copy are the same why would WotC need to keep it under NDA.

Everything is a process. I wouldnt be surprised to see a small term here or there tweaked after the publishers look at the GSL and in response to our suggestions.

But whether draft or not, it isnt public till June. So it isnt strange or uncommon for a licensor to keep the license private. That doesnt bother me in any way other than the -hey, i want to see it now!- way. So please lets stop suggesting that there is something inappropriate, improper or unusual about a licensor keeping a license private until finally released. The fact we want to see it, doesnt make it wierd that they arent showing it to us. People are all too ready to indict WotC over this. I'm not a fan of the delay, but the "secret license" isnt the problem.

 

[Ranger REG]

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).

Regarding the latter, I guess Mike could be grateful for the OGL for eventually giving him a job at WotC's R&D, even though he is already a competent game designer to begin with (probably in the same league as Monte Cook).

Regarding the former, I doubt it.

 

[Orcus]

Regarding the latter, I guess Mike could be grateful for the OGL for eventually giving him a job at WotC's R&D, even though he is already a competent game designer to begin with (probably in the same league as Monte Cook).

I like Mearls alot. And he is a heck of a designer. But I have to give the nod to Monte. I've never met anyone like him when it came to design. He is a Genius! Mearls is five shades of awesome, but Monte is Monte. He is the man. No disrespect to Mearls, of course.

 

[Orcus]

I sure do hope you get some answers to those questions of yours, to loop this back to where you started

 

[Admiral Caine]

I sure do hope you get some answers to those questions of yours, to loop this back to where you started

I hope so too, Clark. I hope so too. :\

There have been times I've felt like an angry man with a sandwich sign in a street corner, proclaiming that end times are coming.

However, this morning I woke up and saw something I wish now, I hadn't seen. And I'm embarrassed to show it to anybody, but I am going to anyway. I think it illustrates the point about the frustration and marketing fatigue that the GSL delay is causing in our RPG communities..

Not a proud day, no matter if everyone is responsible for their own actions or not.

Each person is responsible for what they say and what they do. And there are always going to be message board trolls no matter where you go. All that notwithstanding, this place had a good reputation, and this morning the community is in pain. Turned in on itself. Through no fault of the Company at all, who, like you Clark- have steadfastedly maintained a positive neutral stance (albeit cautious at times). The customers and the fans brought themselves to where they are now.

Yeah, a lot of places have a lot of bitter arguments, but this wasn't one of them, and it steadily ramped up since the end of January when the GSL never materialized.

I can't blame Scott Rouse for this, and I don't mean to try. But by golly, I can show him what this delay is costing the role-playing community. I will probably get slammed for airing dirty laundry, but there's a direct cause and effect relationship between the delay and community division like this.

If the people had closure in regards to 4th Edition, they could make whatever choices they need to make and then move on, leaving the other camp in peace.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

However, this morning I woke up and saw something I wish now, I hadn't seen. And I'm embarrassed to show it to anybody, but I am going to anyway.

Some geeks on the internet were arguing in an uncivil fashion?

Dear God, what has Scott Rouse wrought.