New GSL Announcement

[mxyzplk]

I was talking about a true OGL, where anyone can publish any content from your system. I was mistaken in that there are some systems that have joined the OGL that I wasn't aware of. Fudge, for example, is now using the OGL (and not just a trademark license which it also has akin to WotC) and I didn't know that. So I was wrong about that.

But some of my point still stands. For example, when you can point to a fan site not associated with Green Ronin that republishes ALL the mechanics from True20, or M&M, including power points and hero points (which are NOT open), then I will admit those systems are truly open.

And for Pathfinder, as long as I can only download branded PDFs from Paizo's site, I don't agree that Pathfinder is open. When Pathfinder is released, I'll read their designation of IP. If it would be possible for a fan to publish a website with the ENTIRE Pathfinder system using the OGL (obviously minus Golarion IP and the Pathfinder trademark) then I'll admit that it is truly open.

Basically my definition of an open game, is whether I can use your entire engine (without select elements like character creation stripped out of it) in order to publish a standalone product or website that does not in any way require a product from you.

WotC has generously done this (and a few other publishers as well), but most have not. A lot of publishers just use a trademark license, just like WotC has done with the d20 STL, and just like WotC will do with the GSL. And thats fine. Yet, WotC seems to be unfairly criticized when they do what other publishers do. That's what drives me nuts.

So, you seem to be confused on a couple points.

1. The d20 SRD does not contain the entire ruleset. WotC very specifically left out ability score generation and XP tables. So no, WotC/D&D 3.5e do not meet your standard of openness.

2. All of True20 except for the usual restrictions is open. Here's the PI statement from True20:
The following parts of Chapters 1 through 8 and the
Introduction are designated as Product Identity,
in accordance with Section 1(e) of the Open Game
License, Version 1.0a: all character and place
names and descriptions, all artwork and images.
All other text is Open Gaming Content, except for
material previously declared Product Identity.

3. I'm not sure what a "fan site republishing" these rules has to do with anything - a fan site could republish all of True20 except the art/character/places per above... Don't know that anyone's felt it necessary to do so, but they could. Oh wait, found it; the name "True20" itself is PI so they had to call it the "True System" in its SRD. Go John Kim. http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/srd_true_romantic/index.html

4. I'm unclear whether your point is just a hate-on for Green Ronin specifically - but in case it's general, there's many other public SRDs out there from 3p publishers. http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/

5. What do "branded PDFs" have to do with anything re: Pathfinder? Yeah, their store watermarks the PDFs, but all the rules are open content - if you wanted to take the time to cut out all the open bits and paste them onto a Web page (when the game's in alpha and changing by the week anyway), you're welcome to. Their PI/OGC statement's pretty clear:

Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game Licenseversion 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress.
Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the contents of this Paizo Publishing
game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of
this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content might be reproduced in any form without written
permission. To learn more about the Open Game License and the d20 System License, please visit wizards.com/d20

So just cut all the instances of Seoni and her mighty juggies out and you're fine.

6. Your definition of open isn't the standard one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_content

Anyway, so again I've put together a lovely little primer on OGL, STL, SRD, GSL, etc. that people coult read to make sure they're vaguely in tune with the facts at hand, so that opinions ladled on to make some sense:
http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/open-gaming-for-dummies/

 

[mxyzplk]

Whoops, sorry, dupe post. Delete me!

 

[mxyzplk]

The companies must have thought that putting a d20 label on the book and using a system that some gamers were familiar with (as well as saving themselves work) would make it more profitable/successful. Of course they may not feel that way now, but hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

A lot of people that published under the OGL, and then the subset of those who also were leveraging d20, were also pursuing openness in good faith. That is, if we don't have something stunningly new to say with our rules - it's better not only for us but for everyone else for us to use an open standard. In technology we do that all the time. "There's the right way, the wrong way, and the standard way."

Why are the non-d20 derived games like Spirit of the Century, Action!, etc. using the OGL? Well, they thought that WotC was backing open gaming in good faith, and figure they'd use the "industry standard open license." Now, of course, they are getting screwed for their good faith; had they published using Creative Commons or something else without "Copyright: Wizards of the Coast" on it they wouldn't have to worry about this whole discussion. Definitely a lesson going forward - a company may seem trustworthy at the moment. But it's a company. Turn over all the decisionmakers, get bought out by a larger company - and you can't guarantee that trust. Dancey tried to hedge that by making the OGL as truly open as possible. But even he should have seen, and tried to push for a non-"WotC-owned" open license so that openness would have been more truly guaranteed.

 

[charlesatan]

First off, to those who want to know about the GSL now--honestly, WotC is not bound to share its information publicly. If you want to give them feedback (and they are reading the boards), there's the respective threads here at ENWorld. The public, or even the publishers themselves, are entitled to inner workings of the license until it is finally released. (And it is with good faith on WotC's part that they are communicating with a few publishers.) As for the rest of us, we'll most likely have all our questions answered and clarified when WotC finally releases on the license (either on June 6, 2008 or whatever date if the GSL is somehow delayed due to revision or appeal). (And let people like Rouse and Orcus enjoy their weekend, or what's left of it. )

As for the GSL or no GSL is better debate, assuming it does have a "poison pill" (expect the worst, hope for the best), here's my take on it:

Overall, it's better to have the GSL. First off, remember that the GSL is an option. Obviously, it's not as benevolent as the original OGL, but it is nonetheless an option. Publishers don't have to use the GSL license. If they want to keep things as is or keep things as simple as possible, they simply don't have to use the GSL license and produce the same products they're releasing now.

As for the GSL, yes, there are significant tradeoffs. I like to think it as an opportunity cost. Or in business, it's an exclusivity package. First and foremost, we have to remember that the GSL is free. Second, it comes with an attachment to a brand (now whether this benefit is worth dropping your 3.xx products is for individual publishers to decide). Obviously, GSL will not be a boon to every publisher. But there are advantages to the GSL which make it lucrative (did I mention that it's free?*).

*But just because it's free does not mean it doesn't come with, as I mentioned before, opportunity costs.

Third, at the end of the day, GSL isn't out to kill OGL. It's up for publishers to decide whether they want to support one or the other and most likely, they're going to choose which is better for their business. (If you don't want -insert publisher here- to drop OGL, don't blame WotC for providing them with an option, voice your opinion to the publishers that you want them to continue producing -insert product here-.)

Fourth, the ones who are facing a huge opportunity cost with the GSL are the publishers who have had some success with OGL. If you're a PDF publisher who's sold, say, 20 copies of your product and you don't see those stats changing significantly in the future, the GSL is a lucrative license. Similarly, if I were to decide to start a publishing company now, the GSL is similarly enticing because I have no previous OGL products to begin with. (Yes, it would prevent me from publishing OGL products but that's the cost I'm giving up in exchange for producing 4E products.)

The GSL, even with the poison pill, is an option. It is not the death of OGL. And like all options, just because it's there does not mean you have to take it.

 

[Dark Mistress]

Whoops, sorry, dupe post. Delete me!

Done, consider yourself now deleted from reality.

 

[mxyzplk]

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

Although that's true, if WotC is going t play dirty pool, there's many more things they can do to stomp it out.

Freelancer contracts. Put in a noncompete. "Want to publish anything for 4e through us? You can't have done anything OGL recently or after." Force other companies to do the same via the GSL - "If you want to keep publishing for 4e, make your contributors sign this."

Come on man, you're a lawyer, you know how it works. As the industry player in a near-monopoly position, WotC can certainly stomp out open gaming as well as if it were revocable; make it the purview of hobbyists and crazed libertarians only.

 

[Thulcondar]

First off, to those who want to know about the GSL now--honestly, WotC is not bound to share its information publicly. If you want to give them feedback (and they are reading the boards), there's the respective threads here at ENWorld. The public, or even the publishers themselves, are entitled to inner workings of the license until it is finally released. (And it is with good faith on WotC's part that they are communicating with a few publishers.)

This is an obviously true statement, and I don't think that anyone is disputing it. However, the choice to be opaque in one's decision-making process is just that-- a choice-- and WotC will have to deal with the fallout of that choice. Saying "it's their right to choose" is not enough; the public (both publishers and consumers) has a right to react to which choice they make.

Joe

 

[mxyzplk]

This is an obviously true statement, and I don't think that anyone is disputing it. However, the choice to be opaque in one's decision-making process is just that-- a choice-- and WotC will have to deal with the fallout of that choice. Saying "it's their right to choose" is not enough; the public (both publishers and consumers) has a right to react to which choice they make.

Joe

Yeah, really. How about we just have a bot to post in each page of this thread "Hey, WotC's a company and can do what they want to, don't have to explain it, and don' t have to listen to their customers or any other company if they don't want to." Sure, we all sign off on that, don't strain yerselves finding more ways to say it.

 

[mxyzplk]

Yeah, really. How about we just have a bot to post in each page of this thread "Hey, WotC's a company and can do what they want to, don't have to explain it, and don' t have to listen to their customers or any other company if they don't want to." Sure, we all sign off on that, don't strain yerselves finding more ways to say it.

Oh, and let's also have a bot to say "we don't know everything yet, it's all hearsay, let's wait until we get all the info to talk about it." If that's your stance feel free to go elsewhere in the meantime...

 

[charlesatan]

This is an obviously true statement, and I don't think that anyone is disputing it. However, the choice to be opaque in one's decision-making process is just that-- a choice-- and WotC will have to deal with the fallout of that choice. Saying "it's their right to choose" is not enough; the public (both publishers and consumers) has a right to react to which choice they make.

Yes, that's true. Especially the consequences of their decision part.

But as for the decision making process itself, they're not obligated to share it with the rest of us. At least not NOW, several weeks before the license is publicly released. You can scream, complain, praise WotC when the license is finally released. My point is that they've given us a date and we can expect answers on that day (why give a release date after all if you're going to release the info earlier?). Unless you're the type of person who believes that every piece of info should be disclosed to the public, including corporate secrets or things that haven't been finalized yet.