New GSL Announcement

[jmucchiello]

No, you're mixing up two different things here. The STL required the words Dungeons & Dragons on the cover. The GSL allows the use of the full-blown D&D logo, which is going to be much more recognizable on the shelf.

I did not catch that difference. Link?

Edit: Okay, it says "a version of the logo". Somehow I don't think it will be the same logo they use.

 

[Nellisir]

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.

Urm, no. The OGL is just a license that governs distribution. It doesn't have anything to do with game systems. Now, the d20 system is based on the 3.x ruleset, but that set has been hacked and tweaked and modified so many times, at least 75% of 4e's "innovations" are already out there in OGC. 3.x is where d20 started, but it doesn't have to stay there. Mutants & Masterminds is "based" on the d20 system, and it's far less similar to 3.x than 4e will be.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Personally, I'm hoping the GSL gives the content creator the control over whether or not their content is "viral". In other words, let the creator decide if he wants his work used by other third parties or not--leave it up to the writer or publisher. Don't make the "share alike" clause a mandatory requirement for using the GSL.

I think that will be satisfying to a lot more publishers--not having "share alike" doesn't affect the ability of gamers to use it privately, it just more or less affects publishers, so it's not really serving a role akin to the ideas of free software for instance.

I don't think most developers care about the viral part, they more or less care about the ability to use the D&D game.

Liddia, Scott, if you're listening can you clarify this part yet?

 

[Nellisir]

I have a question for publishing company owners. Suppose the "one open license per company" clause of the GSL were such that if you created a wholly owned subsidiary company to technically be the licensee for the GSL you and your staff could still produce and sell (different) OGL and GSL products at the same time. Do any of you know how much of a business/legal difficulty such a procedure would be?

It might depend on how WotC defines "business" or "company" in their license, but I know it's no big deal in New Hampshire to run down to the state house and get a new business license. I could do PC support under one business name and Mac support under another, so long as I hand out the right cards at the right time. So far as I know.

 

[Nellisir]

I did not catch that difference. Link?

i can't give a link, but I recall seeing something that the GSL would allow use of -some kind- of D&D logo. My impression was that is was a) rather vague; b) probably not a "d20" logo; and c) probably not the "official" D&D logo.

 

[jmucchiello]

i can't give a link, but I recall seeing something that the GSL would allow use of -some kind- of D&D logo. My impression was that is was a) rather vague; b) probably not a "d20" logo; and c) probably not the "official" D&D logo.

Yeah, I found the link. And I agree with all of your points.

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080417a

 

[SSquirrel]

That may be the most_basic_ interpretation of what creating a pdf (or book, for that matter, as a final print ready version is just taking a pdf one step further) is, but more is involved; editing, proofing, marketing, spending money (sometimes thousands of dollars depending on the writers and artists you use), etc.

I don't know any of your work specifically, but there are indeed some pdfs available that do fit the model of "slap something together, make it a pdf, put on rpgnow". Hopefully those have abyssmal sales. I fully understand there is more involved with the job, but for some people out there, the absolute bare bones is an accurate description. I don't think those people are making a very serious go at things either. It didn't seem to me that he was trying to say that was all any pdfs sold are, but that is the basic mechanic involved I definitely agree more work is involved to make a better product. But that is the basics. Kind of like saying baseball is trying to hit the ball, run around the 4 bases and keep the other team from doing the same. There are lots of positions, strategies, etc that don't get described in that short bullet of info, but the basic concept gets across.

 

[SSquirrel]

SS, if you think they arent watching and reading THIS thread as much as we are, think again.

Oh I don't doubt in the least they're reading along Clark, but they have lives outside of work. Maybe they were going to a baseball game or out of town for the weekend and leaving the insanity of near-launch behind on the laptop. They are by no means required to read and post for us over the weekend, heck probly not even during the week. I am, however, grateful for their posts and hope to see some in the near future with lots of quality information for us. That has already been said that it would be in about 2 weeks, so I don't hope for much between now and then

 

[BryonD]

The OGL is "just another license" as well. What arbitrary line makes a license "open" versus "not open" here?

Others have said this, but there is nothing remotely arbitrary about the difference. The OGL is not owned by WotC. WotC doesn't control it. The OGL is forever.

The GSL is WotC owned and WotC revokable. It ends the day WotC says so.

 

[Psion]

The OGL is "just another license" as well. What arbitrary line makes a license "open" versus "not open" here?

See the wiki article on open content:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_content

Open content, a neologism coined by analogy with "open source", describes any kind of creative work published in a format that explicitly allows copying and modifying of its information by anyone, not exclusively by a closed organization, firm or individual.

The GSL is a free license, but WotC still retains exclusive control. It's not an open content license.