New GSL Announcement

[Goobermunch]

'it's not dead yet.

--G

 

[Urizen]

'it's not dead yet.

--G

I wanted my T-shirt, dangit..

 

[Nellisir]

I wanted my T-shirt, dangit..

Once you wear a thread-killer tee-shirt you can never wear a different t-shirt again....

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

OK, yeah, now I'm getting the sarcasm

Well, ok, then.

It's ok to lock down the thread now.

 

[Alzrius]

This post has no merit to it. I just wanted to get in on the thread post-1000 posts. That is all.



EDIT: Actually, it turns out there is some merit to this post after all. I noticed this mentioned in another thread, but Daniel Perez of Highmoon Media Productions posted some news he got at GAMA:

Just got back from GTS this morning. I sent this info to some friends who were asking about the GSL and related stuff, and I think it would apply to post it here as well.

I attended a seminar on Thursday morning with Aldo Ghiozzi and Joe Goodman where they, with permission, talked about some of the things they had learned from WotC in regards to the GSL and its interaction with the OGL. In short, from Joe Goodman, WotC is not interested in destroying the non-3.5 OGL games in the market; they want M&M, True20, C&C, etc. to continue, and they especially do not want to hamper other systems released under the OGL that are completely unrelated to D&D/d20 (Fudge, Action!, SotC, etc.). What they DO want from the GSL is a clear distinction of support for the new edition over the older one, which is just sound business sense, regardless of how one may feel about it. The GSL has not been released yet, few have seen the language of the license at the moment, and the rumors are based on things said in unofficial channels (I have my personal speculations about what may have happened since the Rouse posted his comments here last week, but I'll keep those to myself for now). There is still work to be done in that license in order to properly define what constitutes a product that is supported by the GSL, what constitutes a product not supported (and possibly rejected) by the GSL, the interaction of the GSL and the OGL, and what constitutes a product not affected at all by the GSL even though it may use the OGL. This seminar was recorded by Pulp Gamer and will be available in the near future. I also recorded some thoughts right after the seminar which I'll be releasing to my podcast soon.

In short, not everything is as it seems to be, and I expect more news in regards to the actual language of the GSL to come quite soon.

Frankly, to me the really cool part of the GSL announcement from last week is the one that seems to be the least talked about so far, the fact that they will be releasing a separate license for the creation of non-fantasy 4e-based games, starting with a (possible) new edition of d20 Modern from WotC.

So what does this mean? Well, it sounds like WotC might be interested in having the "poison pill" limited to things that use the d20 (or d20 Modern) SRD, rather than the OGL as a whole. Of course, even that'll present a few hurdles, as some of the systems they mentioned (such as M&M) still rely on the 3.5 SRD. Still, this is encouraging.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Biggest thing I noticed from that is ... The GSL is still not done.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I suspect the GSL won't be done until the evening on June 5th. They'll release the license on June 6th, not one day sooner. Based on their internal chaos, I think it's going to be vetted internally until the very last minute. And that's assuming it won't get delayed until after the D&D launch.

The not requiring a publisher to give up all OGL products, just applying it to D&D/d20 Modern products is good news, it's not an "attack on the principle of OGL". I do suspect people won't be allowed to have "two labels" for publishing both sets of rules, based on that comment.

I'm wondering how the GSL will appear in products and for the publishers. My suspicion now is that the license will not only be something you include in every product, but a physical contract you must sign (along with accurate personal information) and return to WoTC. I think they mentioned something about a card.

While I believe publishers are the highest priority, I would like to know how it affects people who just want to write their stuff for free on a Wiki.

 

[Jack99]

IBTL

But yes, the interview that Alzrius quoted does have a more positive feel than the last few things we have heard.

Here is to optimism!

 

[Goobermunch]

Biggest thing I noticed from that is ... The GSL is still not done.

Actually, the thing I took from that is that after the response here (and elsewhere) the "final" version of the GSL has been determined to be "not done."

I think it was final, and due to the questions that have arisen, it's in a process of revision. Not that we'll ever know for sure.

--G

 

[Fifth Element]

Honest question - in business, is it not the case that one sometimes views a thing that doesn't help as much as it could/should have to have been a harm?

Yes. It's the concept of the opportunity cost - the profit you could have made by investing your resources elsewhere. It is a real, economic cost and must be considered in business decision-making.