New GSL Announcement

[JohnRTroy]

Well, it's hotly debated by you, ad nauseam. I think you've established that in countless posts.

First of all, I apologize for saying hate. That was wrong of me, and like I said I corrected myself by saying "people" instead of publisher.

I'm not the only one critical of it. Both Chris Pramas and Robin Laws have critiques of it. I know Gary Gygax thought it would have been better for them to have traditional licensing, I know Andy Collins was annoyed of the creation of the SRD version of Unearthed Arcana. Orcus, while he would prefer the OGL, understands that a GSL might be better from the WoTC's perspective. And obviously, some people at Wizards feel the OGL feel it's not worth it to keep around. Heck, even Ryan Dancey admitted in an older OGL-F mail that he saw Wizards backing away from giving away content as OGLed versions.

Barring that, give it a rest already.

Look, this forum isn't just for the OGL-F list anymore--all discussion of OGL licensing or future D&D licensing is done here. (If it was just for fans of the OGL I'd bow out, but EnWorld has declared this is the place we debate it). I'm sorry my opinion is unpopular but I think somebody should be intellectually honest and have some skeptical take on the OGL. I want a reasonable license, but I don't see the OGL with a religious-level of zeal that some feel towards it.

 

[Delta]

Secondly, I was pointing out that not everybody is a strict follower of that site or uses the term open the same way. I assume that's why there is some confusion... I don't know where you're getting the idea I'm "spreading FUD" though.

Frankly, I don't see any confusion of the sort that you assert. You're manufacturing a debate that doesn't really exist anywhere else. That's what I would think to be classically identified as "spreading FUD".

 

[BryonD]

but I don't see the OGL with a religious-level of zeal that some feel towards it.

I think there is a major flaw in your use of these loaded phrases.
I've read a lot of things that a lot of publishers have said about the OGL. And the reality is that most people, including those you have quoted, have expressed a lot of praise for the OGL. But rather than being on one radical end of the spectrum (as seems to be easy for you to attempt to misrepresent) there are both really good elements and problematic elements of the OGL. Some result from the way the OGL itself is set up, but most are tied to the very nature of being open.

You have set up a false standard where anyone who says anything at all critical about the system proves your point by being critical and anyone who doesn't proves your point by being "religious" about it. I don't see that as at all a reasonable assessment.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm not the only one critical of it. Both Chris Pramas and Robin Laws have critiques of it.

It's worth noting that, in neither of Chris Pramas's posts that you linked to, does he critique the OGL. The first one is him simply saying that the positive points of the OGL don't have numbers (such as sales data, etc.) to back them up in debates. The second one is him saying that the OGL is just one "weapon" in his publishing "arsenal."

He never once says that the OGL is a bad thing, that it hasn't been good to him, or that it should be removed or limited. In essence, he's not saying at all what you're putting in his mouth.

Wulf and Starman covered Robin fairly well in their posts below; Robin's complaint was largely in regards to product quality - with poor products flooding the market and creating a bubble - more than anything else (a position I don't believe is necessarily correct, but that's another matter).

I know Gary Gygax thought it would have been better for them to have traditional licensing

Gary believed that WotC should have re-released D&D 1E once they acquired the game. He didn't care for the changes that were made to it in 3E in any capacity. He wanted to go back to the old days of TSR in every regard, including licensing. His position had nothing to do with the pros or cons of Open Gaming at all.

I know Andy Collins was annoyed of the creation of the SRD version of Unearthed Arcana.

You keep mentioning this - it's one of the very few instances of a book that was near-totally Open Game Content being released for free on the internet. However, what other people keep pointing out to you, and you keep refusing to acknowledge, is that this is not an indictment of the OGL. Firstly because Andy Collins never once said (that I'm aware of) that the OGL was a mistake in any regard. His annoyance over UA being released online was just that, annoyance. It didn't change his mind regarding Open Gaming. Secondly, the OGL already has provisions to stop things like this - large sections of books can be declared Product Identity, which stops things like that from happening. And thirdly, there are many, many books that are near-totally OGC that have not been reprinted on the internet the way UA was, which is a very strong indicator that that sort of thing is the exception, rather than the norm.

Orcus, while he would prefer the OGL, understands that a GSL might be better from the WoTC's perspective.

We all understand that the GSL might be better for WotC unto itself. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing how the "poison pill" provision is better for WotC at the expense of almost everyone else - quite possibly disproportionally so, as there's room to say that the poison-pilled GSL will have minimal gain for WotC with larger penalties for publishers and fans.

And obviously, some people at Wizards feel the OGL feel it's not worth it to keep around.

It's not surprising that corporate "suits" want to have it killed, since they take the (quite possibly unreasonable) position that the OGL hurts WotC's sales. The fact that Scott and Linae disagree (as Orcus keeps noting) should point out that this position is hardly universal, and suggests that those "in the know" think Open Gaming is better for WotC anyway.

Heck, even Ryan Dancey admitted in an older OGL-F mail that he saw Wizards backing away from giving away content as OGLed versions.

He also said he thought that would be a bad thing. He wasn't supporting your position that the OGL is a bad thing, but rather he predicted that WotC would become close-minded in regards to Open Gaming when they started to see it as a competitor.

Look, this forum isn't just for the OGL-F list anymore--all discussion of OGL licensing or future D&D licensing is done here. (If it was just for fans of the OGL I'd bow out, but EnWorld has declared this is the place we debate it). I'm sorry my opinion is unpopular but I think somebody should be intellectually honest and have some skeptical take on the OGL.

The problem, John, is that that "somebody" isn't you. Your points are questionable at best, and are mendacious at worst. You regularly posit that a large number of gamers and publishers agree with you - often misrepresenting other people's statements in the process - even though there's almost no evidence to support that, and plenty to disprove it. You tout a few small, isolated instances of the OGL being abused as being massive, inherent failures with the entire License. You largely ignore reasonable points made that counter your own, deciding instead to simply repeat the same things over and over.

There is a reasonable stance to be made regarding the negative points of the OGL, and the positive ones of the GSL (as it stands now). People like Goobermunch and Xenchao are doing a relatively good job taking those positions, but I don't believe the same can be said for how you're presenting yourself and your arguments.

I want a reasonable license, but I don't see the OGL with a religious-level of zeal that some feel towards it.

One can be zealous without taking it to a religious degree; enthusiasm does not equate fanaticism. While it's true that there are a lot of posts here that are just blunt statements or over-inflated opinions, there are also a lot of people here who are willing to engage in a reasonable debate over this, and a large portion of those people seem to be doing so in favor of the OGL and against the GSL. They've largely pointed out that your points are without merit, as stated above - simply calling them religious zealots and writing them off is the same sort of behavior that you're accusing them of.

EDIT: Added some more points.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

John, this is what you said:

One item that is hotly contested is the provision that everything released under the OGL is "open". In other words, anybody adding new rules under the OGL must allow other publishers to be able to use them. Some fans love it, some publishers hate it.

It's extremely dishonest to present any of the opinions you linked as critical of the OGL because it required their content to be Open.

 

[Starman]

It's worth noting that, in neither of Chris Pramas's posts that you linked to, does he critique the OGL. The first one is him simply saying that the positive points of the OGL don't have numbers (such as sales data, etc.) to back them up in debates. The second one is him saying that the OGL is just one "weapon" in his publishing "arsenal."

He never once says that the OGL is a bad thing, that it hasn't been good to him, or that it should be removed or limited. In essence, he's not saying at all what you're putting in his mouth.

It's also worth noting that Robin Laws was more critical of the flood of d20 products in the wake of 3E's launch than the OGL itself. He was writing more about being in favor of the 6 month limited release window rather than the OGL license itself.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

It's also worth noting that Robin Laws was more critical of the flood of d20 products in the wake of 3E's launch than the OGL itself. He was writing more about being in favor of the 6 month limited release window rather than the OGL license itself.

He also says this:

It never became the community design collaboration that some envisioned; you didn’t see outside groups developing significant rules structures which were then folded into the main game.

I have two responses to that.

First, even assuming it were true, the fault for that lies entirely with WotC. As the official keepers of the license, any ability to incorporate significant rules structures lies entirely with them, and any failure to do so lies entirely with them.

But my second response is that it simply isn't true: There are LEGION rules structures developed by 3PP and the community at large that are being folded into 4e, starting with Mike F'in Mearls himself and cascading on down from there. The entire lifetime of 3e was a giant playtest of the d20 System and the end result is 4e.

 

[Matthias]

There's two parts my post:

1.

There are LEGION rules structures developed by 3PP and the community at large that are being folded into 4e, starting with Mike F'in Mearls himself and cascading on down from there. The entire lifetime of 3e was a giant playtest of the d20 System and the end result is 4e.

Is it legal to impose the more restrictive GSL license on material that incorporates other material that was created under the perpetual OGL license? What if someone uses the GSL to publish material incorporating some of that shared material, then goes against the GSL by returning to publishing products under the OGL, but still uses some of that shared material?



2. Is there a mailing list or something that I can sign up with that will notify me by e-mail when WOTC's answers to the submitted questions are published?

 

[jmucchiello]

There are LEGION rules structures developed by 3PP and the community at large that are being folded into 4e

Is it legal to impose the more restrictive GSL license on material that incorporates other material that was created under the perpetual OGL license?

In the case of WotC using such material, there are two enormous stumbling blocks to doing this. First, you have to find some OGC that you can unequivocally prove in a court of law WotC used without proper license. And second, the owner of that OGC, someone who most likely would like to work with WotC in the future, would need to file suit against WotC, manage to afford such a lawsuit, win that lawsuit, and potentially ruin their relationship with WotC forever.

Caveat, I don't think WotC is reusing anyone else's OGC in 4e. They hire their own designers for a reason.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Thats quite right. I've been known to offer burnt offerings to the Rouse in my household shrine.

Wait.. What?

curses! bullets... i mean spelling, my only weakness...