New GSL Announcement

[kenmarable]

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

Interesting life lesson.

For a license, sure. I'd say that if I have an irrevocable license with someone that they have little control over it. Interpreting that as being a life lesson by swapping out "license" with a generic word like "something", well, let's leave the poor straw men out of this, k? They suffer enough on messageboard debates.

Although it does get bandied around that "WotC doesn't own the OGL", you are right that they do own it and only they can update it. But the real point is that the OGL isn't a revocable license (which you obviously know, but I'm just laying out the argument). If you follow the terms, you can follow it forever. Plus you can even follow the terms of any version of the OGL, so even their ability to alter it is pretty moot unless they can somehow make it even less restrictive. So, for all intents and purposes, the OGL (in it's current state) is out of WotC's hands, there's not much they can do to influence it.

Now people could say that since it's an irrevocable license that you can use any version of, so updates with more restrictions are pointless - therefore, there is little in the practical sense that WotC can do to influence OGL usage even through their ownership of the license.

Or people could just gloss over the details and say "WotC doesn't own the OGL." It's certainly no accurate in the legal nitty gritty, but it's accurate enough in actual practical application that it's just using less words and probably not worth getting worked up over. At least in my opinion.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Or people could just gloss over the details and say "WotC doesn't own the OGL." It's certainly no accurate in the legal nitty gritty, but it's accurate enough in actual practical application that it's just using less words and probably not worth getting worked up over. At least in my opinion.

Or they could say, "WotC can't revoke the OGL," which gets across the point they really want to get across much faster, without being inaccurate, and without making light of WotC's legitimate rights.

Copyright means something. Yes, it's worth getting worked up over.

 

[2WS-Steve]

Inadvertently (um, I think) this is WotC's best possible attempt at putting the djinni back in the bottle, of a sort -- and, in the process, killing old OGL 1.0a.

The two biggest publishers of non-pure-SRD open content are Mongoose and Green Ronin. Currently both of them are releasing SRDs or designating parts of their books as open content using the OGL 1.0a.

Mongoose, however, has no requirement at all to do so for their Runequest and Traveller lines. In fact, using the OGL 1.0a for those lines is now a liability to them since it limits their ability to publish material under the 4e GSL.

So, it'd be in Mongoose's interests to simply kill their support of OGL 1.0a Runequest* (nerds, see note at end) and not release Traveler under OGL 1.0a -- and instead re-release the Runequest SRD and the impending Traveler SRD under some new open license, maybe a simple Creative Commons license.

Green Ronin's in a slightly more complicated situation, but with similar incentives. It'd be in their long-term interest to do major overhauls of M&M and True20 that no longer rely on the SRD and also release under a non-OGL license (if using an open license at all). Since they're no longer likely to draw compatibility converts from D&D, there's probably not much downside to doing a big re-vamp of their games.

This would then give them the same ability that companies like White Wolf and Steve Jackson have to test the 4e GSL waters without threatening their more stable lines of income.

Fudge, FATE 3.0, Shadows of the Century, would also benefit from switching to a different OGL since, even if they haven't done d20 stuff in the past, it's always wise to leave options open, and since they've got no open content from WotC, other open licenses would work fine.

The result then being that some alternate open license becomes the standard used by third party publishers and little indie guys -- and since the 3.5 SRD wasn't released under this alternate it'd effectively be islanded off.

Even RPGObjects would have to be weighing the benefits now of switching to a house system.



* Note for OGL nerds:
Yes, there will always be some version of the Mongoose Runequest SRD available as open content under OGL 1.0a.

But, under this scenario, I figure they'd just delete their copy from their website and not release any new content under it. Runequest fans would then be better off using whatever new open license Mongoose supplies since it's also what would be supported going forward.

 

[jmucchiello]

Copyright means something. Yes, it's worth getting worked up over.

In my experience, there really are very few things worth getting worked up over in a message board. YMMV.

 

[SSquirrel]

First scout I would like to say thanks for your work

The Rouse's new nickname is now Scout

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.

If programmers or OGL game offers really dont' want their work to be open source, they need to not use an open license. Utilizing an open license says you don't care if others make use of your hard work.

I do think that repackaging the entire SRD for pocket PHBs and nothing new was taking advantage of the license tho. It's perfectly valid by the license, but IMO pretty lame. Then again, I never bought any of those for just that reason.

Actually I meant GSL, but it could apply to the D&D game too - don't laugh at me - I'm not saying that it would be vastly different, but different enough (4.01) for them to make a sales pitch to the 3rd parties that it's worth doing...and if they DID come up with 4.01, you'd basically be in the same boat - - go ahead and stay with v4, or switch to 4.01 and never be able to publish for any older versions.

But the GSL is the more serious one, because I sincerely believe that it will have terms that say essentially that they can alter or revoke at any time, and that you're basically required to follow them along.

Releasing a new version of D&D (ie go buy new core books) after 1-2 years would be appallingly awful and see D&D lose MASSIVE amounts of customers. Look hwo much griping there was at 3.5 coming out. Again with 4E. Both times people felt it was too soon. I felt 3.5 was too soon and never bought a single 3.5 book. Since I haven't bought a new PHB since 3E first came out, I don't mind a new edition right now. If the GSL is wrapepd up more tightly saying that old versions of the GSL cannot be utilized, then yes they can force people along.

 

[BryonD]

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.

George Lucas can control how you use your VHS Star Wars. For example, you may not show it for profit. WotC can do whatever they want and the rest of the world is free to shrug their shoulders, ignore them and go on as if WotC didn't exist. Big difference.

 

[mxyzplk]

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

You grognards! You don't prefer a game system that isn't even out yet! *And* you don't love the new license that, though not released, will dick over every third party OGL publisher out there! You're so old and crusty!

 

[Morrus]

*emphasis mine*

Now the license that is being revoked is the d20 STL not the d20 OGL correct?

Yes.

Even if the d20 OGL was revoked existing versions of it could still be used.

No. The d20 STL is revocable.

The d20 STL is the one that allows a d20 logo on products.

Yes.

How many companies are actually even utilizing that at this stage?

Many.

Most companies seem to just use the d20 OGL.

By that I assume you mean the OGL not the d20 STL. There's no such thing as a d20 OGL. But yes, the trend has been towards OGL only.

 

[BryonD]

Or they could say, "WotC can't revoke the OGL," which gets across the point they really want to get across much faster, without being inaccurate, and without making light of WotC's legitimate rights.

WotC can't revoke the OGL. WotC can revoke the GSL.

 

[Morrus]

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.

Eh? You think WotC should give away their rules, but if others use the rules WotC has given away, they shouldn't have to give anything back? Would you like Scott Rouse's car, too? I mean - WotC isn't a charity!

No chance that will happen. Even the most benevolent busines in a world wouldn't just give everything away unconditionally. What would be the point of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars developing it in the first place?