New GSL Announcement

[Oldtimer]

You still miss my point Myx--IBM hurt themselves by doing this, and I was alive then too. The PC business doesn't help IBM. Whatever benefits it had for the industry and the consumer didn't help IBM, in fact, IBM's profit line went DOWN. And Oldtimer, you can't refute that simple fact. I'm not saying the Microcomputer revolution wasn't beneficial to the industry, but IBM didn't get much out of it. I suggest both of you read that book, it is very enlightening and against the current popular memes.

I wasn't only alive then, I was working in the personal computer business. (Yes, I really am that old.)

I don't refute the fact that IBM was entirely unprepared for the revolution (they expected to sell 30 000 units of IBM PC when they planned the product). That was their first mistake. Their second, and more serious mistake, was to panic and try to close it. That made them irrelevant.

I'm sure it's a good book. But I still rely more on my first-hand knowledge of what went down.

WoTC is in no obligation to make the same mistakes.

Since the actual mistake was to try to close down an open design, it would seem they are doing the same mistake.

 

[mxyzplk]

You still miss my point Myx--IBM hurt themselves by doing this, and I was alive then too. The PC business doesn't help IBM. Whatever benefits it had for the industry and the consumer didn't help IBM, in fact, IBM's profit line went DOWN.

That's the bad assumption. It went down initially. But I bet that today they're making more on PCs than they were then. Openness caused demand to spike. 100% of the market share of a closed product- say the Mac - is worse than a small share of a big market. IBM/Lenovo gets 20% of the overall worldwide PC market currently. Apple, which has gone with the historically closed model and was around back when IBM started with the PC, is at 6%.

In the same way, it's better not just for the consumer and the industry but for the individual company to get a smaller percentage of a bigger pie. The math is pretty simple really.

 

[Oldtimer]

I did. But I'm sure some people were surprised and disappointed. The FAQ says they can do it. But I'm sure people at WoTC thought people would be nicer and not exploitive. I would call republishing UA exploitive. It's not as egalitaran as some think. And I would say that behavior of people is one of the reasons why we are now getting a GSL. Maybe they expected better of people. I dunno.

"Exploitive"? "expected better"? Man, are you for real?

For the last time: USING A LICENSE IS NOT AN EXPLOIT!!!!!!!

 

[JohnRTroy]

I was in the industry too--yes, I am that old too .

The difference is, WoTC still has their 4e fans. That poll here says 65% don't care if the game is totally closed and less than 10% want something equivalent to the OGL. I suspect they are closing up something they now consider a bit too liberal.

In fairness, I am wondering if the restrictions have much to do with the practical difficulty in combining the OGL with the GSL. That is, in relation to individual products.

The OGL itself says it can't be mixed, and I think the best case scenario for Wizards is for them to get publishers to abandon the OGL for the GSL, otherwise the mixing of two could lead to some trying to reverse-engineer 4e under the OGL, as many people have threatened to do. But we'll have to see the specifics.

 

[GMSkarka]

*company by company, not product by product
*support 4E OR support 3E, but not both
*This was a specific and intentional business decision by Wizards, it is not some unforseen accidental consequence of the license.

No, it appears that the unforseen accidental consequence was in the misunderstanding that the OGL = 3E-derivatives. Any system released under the OGL is being blanketed by this. So it's:

"Support 4E OR support 3E, Traveller, Runequest, FATE, Fudge, Action!, etc. etc."

Which is the problem I'm having. I have to admit, the reek of Hasbro Corporate is all over this.

WOTC: Have us support 4th Edition exclusively because it's the coolest thing since sliced bread, and we'd be fools not to --- not because we're *forced* into exclusivity.

 

[Dark Mistress]

GM,

It is.

I dont know the full paramaters. But we will have to choose on a company by company basis, not a product by product basis, or so I have been specifically told by Wizards.

Here is what I know:

*company by company, not product by product
*support 4E OR support 3E, but not both
*This was a specific and intentional business decision by Wizards, it is not some unforseen accidental consequence of the license.

Clark

Yeah I know and I believe you, i just really really hope you misunderstood or they misunderstood you. I don't think that is the case but I am still hoping that is the case. kinda like in the morning hoping the sun don't come up so you don't have to go to work.

 

[Lizard]

"Exploitive"? "expected better"? Man, are you for real?

For the last time: USING A LICENSE IS NOT AN EXPLOIT!!!!!!!

Yeah, you might as well give it up. This argument has no future.

"Hey there, would you like a doughnut from this box? You can have any one you want!"
"Cool, I want the chocolate."
"Hey, no fair, I wanted that one!"
"But you said I could have any one I wanted!"
"Yeah, but I didn't think you'd pick THAT one!"

 

[JohnRTroy]

For the last time: USING A LICENSE IS NOT AN EXPLOIT!!!!!!!

Oh c'mon. I basically would treat the company like I would want to be treated. If you guys can't understand that taking somebody's hard work and releasing it for free isn't exploitive, regardless of the license used--at the most charitable its rude. You and I will have to agree to disagree, but don't expect me to never mention it again.

At the very minimum--I expect the abandonment of the OGL by Wizards was partly based on that behavior.

What I am hoping now is that the GSL will be a little like the creative commons, where the author decides if their additional rules can be used by others, or not, leaving the choice up to the creator. Maybe that will prevent the exploitive leeching that might occur.

 

[mxyzplk]

First scout I would like to say thanks for your work, any feels i have expressed has not been towards you or any other person. Just the company. I am really really hoping what has been said is not what it really means. I really hope you get the GSL and find the way it is written it will allow 3rd party publishers to still make OGL and get on board with the GSL. Especially if they are different products, I wouldn't be happy if companies couldn't make 3.5 free downloads for their books. But it wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

Anyways, here's to hoping I and many others are wrong. Have a nice weekend.

Hey DM, where's that Rouse post from; I can't find it?

Thanks...

 

[Oldtimer]

I was in the industry too--yes, I am that old too .

The difference is, WoTC still has their 4e fans. That poll here says 65% don't care if the game is totally closed and less than 10% want something equivalent to the OGL.

Oh, I do agree there are huge differences between WotC now and IBM then. For one thing WotC wasn't taken by surprise by the success of 3E.

So, it might not be such a serious mistake as what IBM made in their PS/2 panic, but I still think it's a mistake.

The OGL itself says it can't be mixed, and I think the best case scenario for Wizards is for them to get publishers to abandon the OGL for the GSL, otherwise the mixing of two could lead to some trying to reverse-engineer 4e under the OGL, as many people have threatened to do.

I don't really the scenario where the "mixing of the two" could lead to that. You can't have another license in a product covered by the OGL, so how would that scenario play out?

That said, I firmly belive that 4e reverse-engineering under OGL will be a reality soon. "The genie" and all that.