New GSL Announcement

[Wulf Ratbane]

Hmmm... am I missing something? I'm trying to put together a news item compiling all the posts made by WoTC here, and I've found the "can't have the same product in two different licenses" stuff, but can't seem to find where people are getting the "a company may only use one license, period" implication from. I've scoured this thread, and I must have missed that post; could someone point me towards it so that I can include it in the news item?

Clark here:
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172942&postcount=51

And here:
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172946&postcount=52

And while there have been multiple requests for clarification and multiple posts downthread from both Scott and Linae since Clark broke the news, no direct confirmation, but also no attempt to disabuse anyone of the new news. We have this (fairly good confirmation) from The Rouse:
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4173113&postcount=99

 

[Oldtimer]

Hmmm... am I missing something? I'm trying to put together a news item compiling all the posts made by WoTC here, and I've found the "can't have the same product in two different licenses" stuff, but can't seem to find where people are getting the "a company may only use one license, period" implication from. I've scoured this thread, and I must have missed that post; could someone point me towards it so that I can include it in the news item?

The debate was based on this post by Clark which Clark said was based on info from WotC.

Both Linae and Scott have posted after that, but not contradicted it nor confirmed it, I think.

I wish they soon will - one way or the other.

EDIT: Arrg, ninjaed by Wulf.

 

[Morrus]

Gotcha - thanks, guys. I was just searching the thread for WotC's posts, so didn't see Clark's.

 

[Lizard]

Based on some of the other comments, I am going to take the unusually hopeful stance of saying this means:

a)A company can publish both OGL and GSL products.
b)A company cannot have OGL and GSL versions of *the same product*.

So I can publish "Monsters Beginning With A" for 3.5. I can publish another book called "Monsters Beginning With B" for 4.0. What I *cannot* do is publish "Monsters Beginning With A" for 4.0 *unless* I cease selling the 3.5 version. If I don't make a 4e version of "Monsters Beginning With 'A'", though, I can sell both books for as long as I wish.

At least, that's my current interpretation.

It meets WOTCs goals by using quality product to drive 4e sales -- if someone really wants the content of "Monsters Beginning With A" and is system-neutral, it serves WOTC's interests to force me to release it 4e only, instead of allowing people to stick with 3.5 longer by having the same product available for both systems. It also means I can't "downgrade" a high-selling 4e product to 3x to pick up on "retro" or "grognard" sales. ("Wanted 'Monsters Beginning With B' but hate 4e? You can now get it for 3x! Don't switch!")

A company-wide ban ("If you publish one 4e product, you must BURN your warehouse!") would be stunningly stupid, keep the most successful OGL firms *out* of 4e, and build tremendous customer badwill. I am going to give them some benefit of the doubt and say this is NOT what is intended and that there was miscommunication.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

Linnae said this:

No. That is not what I was trying to say. I'll try to reword it so it is a little clearer:

Publishers can put out a product under the OGL - OR - they can put out a product under a 4E GSL.

3.x or 4E

Not both.

One or t'other.

By "mutual exclusivity" I mean, different versions of the same product cannot occur at the same time.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Nellisir]

Based on some of the other comments, I am going to take the unusually hopeful stance of saying this means:

a)A company can publish both OGL and GSL products.
b)A company cannot have OGL and GSL versions of *the same product*.

So I can publish "Monsters Beginning With A" for 3.5. I can publish another book called "Monsters Beginning With B" for 4.0. What I *cannot* do is publish "Monsters Beginning With A" for 4.0 *unless* I cease selling the 3.5 version. If I don't make a 4e version of "Monsters Beginning With 'A'", though, I can sell both books for as long as I wish.

At least, that's my current interpretation.

It meets WOTCs goals by using quality product to drive 4e sales -- if someone really wants the content of "Monsters Beginning With A" and is system-neutral, it serves WOTC's interests to force me to release it 4e only, instead of allowing people to stick with 3.5 longer by having the same product available for both systems. It also means I can't "downgrade" a high-selling 4e product to 3x to pick up on "retro" or "grognard" sales. ("Wanted 'Monsters Beginning With B' but hate 4e? You can now get it for 3x! Don't switch!")

A company-wide ban ("If you publish one 4e product, you must BURN your warehouse!") would be stunningly stupid, keep the most successful OGL firms *out* of 4e, and build tremendous customer badwill. I am going to give them some benefit of the doubt and say this is NOT what is intended and that there was miscommunication.

I'm hoping that's what they mean - I can understand wanting products upgraded to 4e. It might even allow people to translate OGC content (not their own) to the GSL. The nuclear option that Clark mentioned would indeed be stunningly stupid.

 

[Lizard]

Linnae said this:


(emphasis mine)

Assuming the correction is not corrected, this seems as fair and reasonable as one could hope, given the circumstances.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

A company-wide ban ("If you publish one 4e product, you must BURN your warehouse!") would be stunningly stupid, keep the most successful OGL firms *out* of 4e, and build tremendous customer badwill. I am going to give them some benefit of the doubt and say this is NOT what is intended and that there was miscommunication.

I know, Lizard, I have to agree with you here.

But based on Scott's foray into the thread, I don't think that interpretation is correct. I think getting the major players to abandon the OGL voluntarily is as close as they are going to get to revoking it.

There was never any language in the OGL itself to "drive the sales of the core books" (that job fell to the d20STL) but there was always an understanding, a larger philosophy if you will, that having everyone playing the same basic d20 system was a net gain for WotC.

If Scott's opinion is indicative of WotC at large, and they believe that 4e is divergent enough from 3e that it's no longer even "the same system," then the OGL doesn't even meet that criteria-- and that's even in a best case scenario that assumes there was even any adherents of the OGL Philosophy (as distinct from the STL philosophy) left in the building.

I understand WotC's position on this. The OGL doesn't serve their 4e interests. That's not necessarily malicious, but neither is the lion particularly malicious when he eats the gazelle.

When I watch nature shows, I usually root for the predator.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

Assuming the correction is not corrected, this seems as fair and reasonable as one could hope, given the circumstances.

Scott's been about as clear as mud (sorry dude). Linnae's statement, on the other hand, is as clear and unequivocal as you can possibly hope to get.

 

[Nellisir]

Scott's been about as clear as mud (sorry dude). Linnae's statement, on the other hand, is as clear and unequivocal as you can possibly hope to get.

I dunno, I think this is, if not transparent, clearly not a "product-by-product" stance either:

It won't surprise me if the GSL is not for everyone. If M&M, C&C, Conan, or other OGL stand-alones are successful enough for those publishers to sustain their business more power to them. You'll get to buy their books in the future. If not, then they can jump on our license

linky