New GSL Announcement

[smetzger]

Most of the commentary and questions posted in threads like these are from non-publishers, and, in fact, from folks who don't particularly have a strong grasp on licensing issues, publishing, or much else beyond some half-formed ideas of what's going on.

Given the frustrations brought about by that, and given that specific information appears to be forthcoming on Monday (which, I hope, will be emailed to the publishers, rather than posted publicly), I'm bowing out of the thread -- and I suspect other publishers are doing so as well.

I disagree. The problem is that lack of clarity from WOTC.
How can we possibly have a productive discussion based on hearsay?

WOTC needs to step up and just release the license for everyone to take a look at. Then we can all move on to dissecting it and figuring out exactly what it means and how each of us can use it.

 

[BSF]

But there was a perhaps less hotly contested poison pill in the original d20 STL/Guide--that we not contest Wizards' ownership of certain things. Under original copyright law, analyzed outside of teh OGL, their claim of ownership was tenuous, but credible enough that the risk of a lawsuit was real. Many of the legally minded folks balked at having to swallow that poison pill too.

And that one is kind of odd to me. More from the standpoint of principle than anything else. However, when looking at the gaming market as a whole, that principle probably wasn't worth fighting for. It would take litigation time and the payoff would never be realized financially, assuming a win. So it becomes a business decision, much like the GSL is.

Which brings up the question as to why I am even involved in these discussions? I realize that many, many publishers will pursue the GSL for financial reasons. It may be well worth the risks. I wouldn't even hold it against them to make a decision to drop OGL products and pursue the GSL if there are exclusivity clauses. But this is the opportunity I have to make my consumer perspective made known.

My perspective may amount to nothing. But if I don't participate in the conversation, my perspective will certainly amount to nothing.

 

[Orcus]

Lets not forget, whatever happens they cant revoke the OGL. They can make a new version of it, but they cant make us use those versions (by its own terms). And they cant recall the content released under the SRD. Its open content. Period. Forever. By its own terms. They gave that stuff away under the license. And Wizards knows this.

So even if the worst is the worst, and even if the GSL says you have to choose 4E or 3E, if you choose 4E you can always go back and make 3E stuff. You just might not be able to make 4E stuff again. The GSL could say you lose the right to use teh GSL if you make XYZ, but the OGL is its own license. The GSL cant force me to forfeit the use of the OGL, all it can do is deprive me of the benefit of using teh GSL. The OGL can never go away and it cannot be restricted, by its own terms. And the content released under the OGL similarly is open forever. Period. Indisputable legal fact.

So people can always go back to 3E.

The OGL is out there. Forever. The Open Content from the SRD is out there. Forever. Legally. Irrevocably. Indisputably. Period.

Clark

 

[xechnao]

So even if the worst is the worst, and even if the GSL says you have to choose 4E or 3E, if you choose 4E you can always go back and make 3E stuff...
Clark

Yes but it is worth noting that the more 3pp risk on 4e the more 3e will lose its power. So by the passage of time the more power Wotc will gain, the less power 3pp will have in every practical scenario. Unless they manage to make OGL stand its ground from the start up. Can they seriously commit themselves to such a thing?

 

[Morrus]

Where did this "3PP" terminology come from? Up until a couple of days ago, I'd never heard it (and I am one!) - now it seems to be everywhere all of a sudden.

 

[xechnao]

Where did this "3PP" terminology come from? Up until a couple of days ago, I'd never heard it (and I am one!) - now it seems to be everywhere all of a sudden.

I personally use it for "third party publisher".

 

[Morrus]

It's not that bad of a "fast one" though, IMO. It seems to me that if they allowed that, just so that people wouldn't have to stop selling their old popular products to those fans who want them, the problem would be mostly solved. It would be a good workaround.

If it actually is in the GSL (which I guess we'll find out tomorrow), what's the point in allowing something they're trying to stop? Why would they "work around" their own clause? If it's there, it'll be there because WotC wants it there, not to create an intellectal challenge for WotC's own staff.

 

[FalconGK81]

Goodness gracious, no. I dont like the alleged provision, but a GSL is better, in my view, then no GSL even with the "poison pill" term.

I'm not saying I wouldnt be happy to support Paizo and Pathfinder. I would do it if I had to. I like 3E. But I want to support 4E. Philosophically, I believe in supporting the current rule set. I've explained that before. So my preference is 4E. But if they dont make that possible, then I will be right there saying Pathfinder all the way. I cant imagine they want that. Wizards is full of smart people. And good people. They know the value of third party support. They wouldnt be going through all of this headache just for some PR spin. They know the value of third party support.

Thanks Orcus, I was beginning to feel like I was taking crazy pills.

 

[pawsplay]

Where did this "3PP" terminology come from? Up until a couple of days ago, I'd never heard it (and I am one!) - now it seems to be everywhere all of a sudden.

Obviously, someone had a hand cramp and a jolt of inspiration.

 

[Big Mac]

So while it is fair to expect your licensees to make the same business decision you have had to make, as I mentioned, since Wizards wont be abandoning pdf and backlist sales of old products, please dont require us, your licenseees, to do more than you will be doing.

Our sales of old backlist and of pdf is no more competing with 4E than your own sale of backlist and pdfs of old products is hurting 4E. Heck, you sold tons of 1E and 2E pdfs during 3E. That didnt hurt 3E sales. And selling old 3E products from backlist wont hurt supporting 4E.

That is my thought and my plea to Wizards, anyway. Probably inartfully said. But I am still working on my open letter. So any feedback is welcome.

I think that what you say here is pretty fair, Clark. I believe that gamers should have the right to be able to buy old stuff and convert it over to 4th edition.

I'd even go further than this and ask for WotC to strike up a new agreement for the Dragonlance PDFs made by Margaret Weis Productions. Cam Banks (of MWP) has promised to create 4e conversions of these PDFs (in his spare time) for Dragonlance Nexus. This is going to make the Dragonlance Campaign Setting something that is going to help drive sales of 4e core rulebooks. It seems to me that it is in WotC's interest to create a new deal that will allow those PDFs to carry on being sold after the DL licence expires.

To be fair, WotC should get something out of the new deal. I'd say that 50 percent sales commission in exchange for lifetime rights to sell the PDFs would be a fair opening bid.

You can read my full shopping list of things I'd like to get from 4e on the Would you buy 4E if it were not open/had no licenses for 3rd party companies? thread.