New GSL Announcement

[mxyzplk]

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.

Dude, you're not making a bit of sense.

Someone releases some software under the GPL. I reuse it in my software and release mine for free too. As is required by the GPL. That's releasing someone else's hard work for free. And it's what's supposed to happen. The point of an open license is to say "use my hard work for free! No, really! Please!" That's why open licenses exist.

Saying "regardless of license" is just about the most... nice word nice word... irrelevant thing to say about a discussion that is specifically about license.

 

[nothing to see here]

An yet to be noticed point

I'm not an IP lawyer. I'm not an open-source systems theorist. I am not a game designer.

What I do know however, is marketing.

And amid all of the doom-and-glooming I have read about WOTC from some on this Board, one comment from Scott Rouse remains telling and, strangely, uncommented on.

Perhaps the biggest benefit of the GSL is that you get to clearly (albeit with restrictions)indicate compatitibiltiy with Dungeons and Dragons...

...you actually get to use the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on your cover!

This was NOT a feature of the d20STL. It was not a feature of the OGL. You might rememer the controversy when the Valar Project tried abuse the wiggle room that was there when they put out the Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Dungeons and Dragons remains the ONLY Pen and Paper RPG brand that has wide market name recognition. WOTC are LETTING THEIR COMPETITORS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT BRAND!

This is outrageously generous.

Rules are important. Open communities are important. But allowing a non WOTC company to use the words Dungeons and Dragons on the cover of a product is staggering.

It might be genius. It might be madness. But it certainly is generous.

If I start a shoe business, I don't get to stick a Nike Swoosh on my product. Closed Brand.

If I am writing a sci-fi I don't get to set it in the Star Wars universe. Closed IP.

If am writing an RPG I get to use BOTH the brand AND the IP?

People should look beyond open gaming for a moment. In the context of overall trust and support for the community and customers -- WOTC is breaking awesome new ground.

 

[Oldtimer]

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.

And don't expect me not to yell at you every time.

There's nothing sacred about "somebody's hard work" that need special treatment when that somebody issued a license to use it. Your stand on this is, at he most charitable, ignorant. I have done exactly that, many times, and I don't consider myself rude because of it.

 

[Dark Mistress]

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

Thanks...

Like a page or two back from when I quoted it.

Ok went and looked it is post 279 in this thread on the 10th page.

 

[Jack99]

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

How is that possible? Isn't the OGL based on the d20 model from 3.x? Or am I completely at a loss with how this works? If so, fair enough, but do kindly explain. It seems more than ridiculous if it is possible.

Cheers

 

[breschau]

We have invested multiple 7 figures in the development of 4e so can you tell me why we would want publishers to support a system that we have moved away from?

This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy. Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x. Does that surprise you?

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 and take advantage of some pretty good perks including getting to use the most valuable trademark in PnP RPGs on their products and gain access to our IP/PI.

So wait, if M&M continues to publish their game as is, that prevents them from publishing 4E material?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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

John, when did that ever happen?

Seriously.

The OGL was used exactly as it was intended. Third-party publishers made d20 system games, they made OGL-only games. Some of them were highly innovative and that design found its way back into the core of WotC's own design.

 

[Jason Bulmahn]

Heck even companies like Green Ronin and Paizo, who built their entire business off WotC's game design don't reciprocate to open gaming or give to it the way WotC has. Is Pathfinder going to be open? Is it going to be so open that I can make my own Pathfinder SRD website so my players can play Pathfinder without having to buy the books? Or even republish a "pocket" Pathfinder? No?

Yeah, thats what I thought.

Hey there all,

Since I have nothing to add to the main topic but idle speculation, I think I am going to stay out of this one. I do, however, have one thing to add. With the exception of a few IP sections (such as deities) the Pathfinder RPG will be a completely open system.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

 

[Nyarlathotep]

If am writing an RPG I get to use BOTH the brand AND the IP?

People should look beyond open gaming for a moment. In the context of overall trust and support for the community and customers -- WOTC is breaking awesome new ground.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Have the logo is great for publishers but what if wizards says to a publisher "We've reviewed your product and have a competing product that will be out in two months, so you can't publish that". Without knowing how the process is going to work for approval of your product and what WotC has in the pipeline how can any small publisher hope to put out product?

I originally thought that this was going to only really hurt the 2nd-tier publishers, then revised my opinion that it will hurt 2nd and 3rd tier publishers. Now I think it hurts all publishers who wanted to support 4E.

Is it wizards right to do so? Absolutely. Can I fault them for it? No, they've got to protect their business. Do I like it? From what i've read so far, absolutely not.

 

[Orcus]

I'm not an IP lawyer. I'm not an open-source systems theorist. I am not a game designer.

What I do know however, is marketing.

And amid all of the doom-and-glooming I have read about WOTC from some on this Board, one comment from Scott Rouse remains telling and, strangely, uncommented on.

Perhaps the biggest benefit of the GSL is that you get to clearly (albeit with restrictions)indicate compatitibiltiy with Dungeons and Dragons...

...you actually get to use the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on your cover!

This was NOT a feature of the d20STL. It was not a feature of the OGL. You might rememer the controversy when the Valar Project tried abuse the wiggle room that was there when they put out the Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Dungeons and Dragons remains the ONLY Pen and Paper RPG brand that has wide market name recognition. WOTC are LETTING THEIR COMPETITORS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT BRAND!

This is outrageously generous.

Rules are important. Open communities are important. But allowing a non WOTC company to use the words Dungeons and Dragons on the cover of a product is staggering.

It might be genius. It might be madness. But it certainly is generous.

If I start a shoe business, I don't get to stick a Nike Swoosh on my product. Closed Brand.

If I am writing a sci-fi I don't get to set it in the Star Wars universe. Closed IP.

If am writing an RPG I get to use BOTH the brand AND the IP?

People should look beyond open gaming for a moment. In the context of overall trust and support for the community and customers -- WOTC is breaking awesome new ground.

Yes, we get it. I wish people would stop posting this. It is so self evident it doesnt need posting evey few pages.

Everyone knows: they dont have to do this, it is theirs, they are under no obligation, blah blah blah. Its very generous to share (actually, no it isnt, not when the sharing is only for your benefit, generousity is sharing for the benefit of others, which this clearly isnt).

That isnt the issue.

We are talking about the evolution and process of open gaming and third party support. Threadcraps like this are so not useful to the discussion.

Clark