New GSL Announcement

[SSquirrel]

Here is what I dont know:

*if you go 4E, that clearly means you cant support more 3E products, and you have to sell off backstock of d20 products in 6 months (because they are revoking the license), but what does that mean for PDFs or backstock of old products? Can we continue to sell them? In other words--can I continue to sell old OGL products so long as I am not creating new ones? This to me is the biggie--this is the "backstock" question.

Clark

*emphasis mine*

Now the license that is being revoked is the d20 STL not the d20 OGL correct? That was my understanding anyway. Even if the d20 OGL was revoked existing versions of it could still be used. The d20 STL is the one that allows a d20 logo on products. How many companies are actually even utilizing that at this stage? Most companies seem to just use the d20 OGL.

Sorry for the multiple posts, I've been out all afternoon and several pages got added while I was out

 

[Shroomy]

You know, I wonder if the split of the GSL into two licenses, one for D&D-type fantasy and one for non-D&D fantasy, kind of covers the situation of a system like Mutants & Masterminds, which doesn't directly compete in-genre like IH, Conan, or Pathfinder would.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

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.

Let's be precise, because this has been repeated several times now, and it's incorrect and it's getting under my skin.

WotC DOES in fact own the OGL. They wrote it, they copyrighted it, it's theirs. The DO control it. They and only they can make changes to the OGL.

They don't own Open Content released under that license.

 

[Thulcondar]

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!"

If the term "grognard" ends up being applied to folks who prefer 3E over 4E, then the terrorists will have already won.

I would like to know if the new license restrictions would keep me from implementing an idea I had in the back of my head to do versions of the same products for both "generic 1E" and 4E.

Joe

 

[xechnao]

- Another company has a somewhat broader array of products, but has also developed a few niches, including niches that fit a particular non-d20 game well that just so happens to be an OGL product (not based on the D20 SRD). Though d20 fantasy sales have flagged, this company may well be enticed to dip into the refreshed 4e GSL market... but at the cost of no longer catering to the non-d20 game.

Please enlighten me on this one: can a company create a license similar to OGL -but without the D20 SRD- and publish their stuff with that other new license and still be able to support 4e?

 

[Scipio202]

Please enlighten me on this one: can a company create a license similar to OGL -but without the D20 SRD- and publish their stuff with that other new license and still be able to support 4e?

Unknown - we don't know if the "you must choose" clause is specific to the OGL, or is written to apply to any open license. However, since most people think WotC's concerns relate to 3.X and all the content that is related to it through the OGL, my guess is they probably wouldn't try to rule out other open licenses. But again, we won't know for sure until WotC tells us more.

 

[jmucchiello]

Let's be precise, because this has been repeated several times now, and it's incorrect and it's getting under my skin.

WotC DOES in fact own the OGL. They wrote it, they copyrighted it, it's theirs. The DO control it. They and only they can make changes to the OGL.

If you want to be precise, they don't control it, because if they did update it, you could reuse any OGC created with any version of the license using any version of the license you wish. If they truly controlled it, they wouldn't need to start over with a new license. Yes, they wrote it, copyrighted it, and technically own it. But while they can revise it, they do not control old versions of it and they cannot revoke old versions of it. To me, that is a serious sign they lack control.

If you want to correct BryonD, at best you could ask him to say "OGL 1.0 is forever. OGL 1.0 is not controlled by WotC." But the distinction is meaningless since WotC is not planning to release an OGL 2.0 in foreseeable future.

 

[jmucchiello]

Please enlighten me on this one: can a company create a license similar to OGL -but without the D20 SRD- and publish their stuff with that other new license and still be able to support 4e?

The OGL has nothing to do with the SRD. It's the other way around. The SRD is a document licensed using OGL. You can create another license, we'll call MyOGL. But you can't use the material in the SRD under MyOGL unless the owner (WotC) releases it using MyOGL. This is not likely to happen.

 

[Psion]

Please enlighten me on this one: can a company create a license similar to OGL -but without the D20 SRD- and publish their stuff with that other new license and still be able to support 4e?

Assuming they owned all the material, AND assuming the GSL doesn't also address this, they could.

But if you are licensing anyone else's material, you would have to arrange a new license with them.

In the case of Adamant printing SotC stuff:
- Adamant would have to arrange for Evil Hat to release SotC under this new license.
- SotC/FUDGE is based on FATE, so Evil Hat would in turn have to arrange a new license for the FUDGE material.

Administrative burden of arranging a new license or other concerns/motives at any step would keep this from happening.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If you want to be precise, they don't control it, because if they did update it, you could reuse any OGC created with any version of the license using any version of the license you wish.

No ? Gosh, I did not know that. I really ought to read this OGL thingamybob.

Where would I find that? Section 9 or thereabouts?

Yes, they wrote it, copyrighted it, and technically own it.

Glad we got that out of the way.

But while they can revise it, they do not control old versions of it and they cannot revoke old versions of it. To me, that is a serious sign they lack control.

So the only reasonable way to measure your control over something is your ability to kill it?

Interesting life lesson.

Nobody in this thread is served by intermixing colloquial uses of words like "own" and "control" with their legal definitions.

George Lucas has no meaningful way to "revoke" my VHS versions of Star Wars (wherein Han Shot First). And if I was just grousing with buddies, it might be accurate to say that George Lucas no longer controls the original Star Wars.

In the context of a thread like this? It would not be helpful to say that Lucas no longer owns or controls Star Wars.