Necromancer Games NOT going with current GSL.

[Raven Crowking]

Something like this: http://4esque.pbwiki.com ?

Well, I suppose the answer to that depends very much on how WotC responds. As it seems that the GSL is designed specifically to counteract the OGL, I am imagining that WotC will take a dim view on trying to create non-GSL 4e (or 4esque ) products.

But we'll see.

 

[Alzrius]

Well, I suppose the answer to that depends very much on how WotC responds. As it seems that the GSL is designed specifically to counteract the OGL, I am imagining that WotC will take a dim view on trying to create non-GSL 4e (or 4esque ) products.

But we'll see.

It'll be interesting to see how Goodman Games's next few DCC's fare, since they're going to be OGL products that are 4E-compatible. That makes them very 4Esque.

 

[SavageRobby]

For that matter, where's the outrage and arguments aimed at every company in the industry that doesn't have an open license for their systems? Which also includes companies that use the OGL and have developed products which have their own restrictive licenses (some of which more limited than the GSL).

I'm curious as to the companies you allude to. What companies have done this?

 

[thundershot]

So... for me, this is how it looks right now:

Keep in mind that I have ZERO interest in 3.x or Pathfinder or any other non-4E system.


COMPANIES THAT WILL GET MY MONEY IN THE NEAR FUTURE

Wizards of the Coast
Paizo
Necromancer Games
Green Ronin
Goodman Games
Adamant Entertainment

The three scratched out ones? They'll be added to my list as soon as they produce 4E material. I'm sure a lot of people are in the same boat as me....

 

[evilref]

I'm curious as to the companies you allude to. What companies have done this?

Green Ronin's True 20 and M&M superlink licenses, for example. They both use the OGL but put further restrictions on what products can be created to use their license.

Just as the GSL they allow branding to indicate compatibility, but the True 20 license has an arbitrary product standards clause, and restrictions on naming and the type of products that can be produced. On reflection and rereading the licenses, however, I think the Superlink license is only more restrictive in requiring a copy of the product to be sent for approval, and the true 20 license lies somewhere between the OGL and the GSL for restrictions.

Note, i'm in no way saying that Green Ronin can't have limitations on what products they allow to use their branding, but I find it amusing that WotC gets criticism for changing a license that is still allowing use of its materials (albeit with in my opinion overly harsh clauses) but the dozens of companies and games without such a license get a free pass. And a company such as Green Ronin which also had a harsher license than the OGL likewise skates free of this upswelling of criticism for how they choose to protect their PI and image.

 

[EATherrian]

I'll trade you. You give me back the two novels of mine that were yanked off the schedule, and I'll take the loss of three RPG books.

Life as a writer my friend. At least you can get to the point of being yanked, I can't get that far. And I almost lost 18 years of writing in a hard drive crash this weekend. I wish you the best in getting your stuff published.

 

[EATherrian]

...nothing except EXPERIENCE POINTS AND LOOT! Roll Initiative, you Cur!

I agree with the Drader.

When you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way.

 

[Lizard]

Green Ronin's True 20 and M&M superlink licenses, for example. They both use the OGL but put further restrictions on what products can be created to use their license.

Just as the GSL they allow branding to indicate compatibility, but the True 20 license has an arbitrary product standards clause, and restrictions on naming and the type of products that can be produced.

Note those are TRADEMARK licenses and should be compared to the STL, not the OGL.

The think about the OGL is that you *can't* screw over people who want to use your stuff -- the viral nature of it means that anything you derive from open content is open. You can create branding/product identity licenses which are restrictive, of course, but that's a different thing.

I think that if 4e were released under the OGL, with the GSL replacing the STL, we'd see a lot more acceptance of it. The GSL is fine as a trademark license; it is lousy as a content license.

 

[evilref]

Note those are TRADEMARK licenses and should be compared to the STL, not the OGL.

Note, if you read the thread, I was making a point about companies without licenses, Green Ronin's more stringent license and the GSL. It was a comparison of reaction to the GSL and the others, not the OGL.

I think that if 4e were released under the OGL, with the GSL replacing the STL, we'd see a lot more acceptance of it. The GSL is fine as a trademark license; it is lousy as a content license.

Completely agreed and for a long while it looked as if there was going to be one strong license which allowed use of the D&D brand, and a less restrictive one that allowed the system but not the brand. I'd like to see that come out, but doubt we'd see any change to licensing until next year.

 

[Banshee16]

I'm flattered, guys, and I share your frustration--not just for my own work, but others' work that I'd like to see.

But don't throw in the towel just yet. As Clark said in his initial post, he's still hoping to work stuff out. I'm not going to pretend that I'm not worried or frustration, but I'm going to cling to hope as long as I have it.

Ari, are you planning on writing any books for the Pathfinder system, once it comes out?

Banshee