New GSL Announcement

[Flynn]

A couple people here complaining is hardly a "hotly contested debate raging like a hurricane all around" me.

Ummm, Orcus, could it be, based on the second paragraph of his post, that perhaps Wulf was being sarcastic? Sometimes tone doesn't carry via email and forum post. The statement didn't jive with Wulf's previous comments, IMO, of course, so that's how I took it.

Of course, I'm not Wulf, so maybe I misunderstood.

Just Trying To Help,
Flynn

 

[jmucchiello]

I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate on this, but I think Wizards having at least a few more protections--as unpopular as this opinion is sometimes--is better for the hobby and the D&D brand.

WotC doesn't need any extra protections to maximize their benefit from the OGL. They can release as little or as much OGC as they want under the OGL. You don't think that 8+ years of 90%+ of the RPG designers on the planet tinkering with your rules system for free did not benefit WotC when they were writing 4e?

People talk about the genie being out of the bottle. But IMO the OGL being as open as it was created conditions under which infinite monkeys wrote Hamlet. Any greater restriction in the OGL reduces the number of adopters and you lose critical mass. (Someone get my metaphors out of this blender, please.)

The PI statement is true, but there was a problem, I felt, with the viral nature. If you did do things to protect your content like not give away the names and descriptions of your spells or monsters, some would call it "crippled OGL",

So? What affect does this have on WotC? How is WotC harmed by 3PPs "crippling" their OGC? WotC never really reused 3PP OGC so crippled or not has no bearing on who useful the OGL was to WotC. And don't say they didn't reuse it because so much was crippled. Many major 3PPs released whole product lines full of 100% OGC. WotC could have easily dipped into a vast array of "uncrippled" OGC if they had wanted to. They just didn't want to.

and there is a 5% clause or something like that.

That's the d20STL. Not relevant here.

It was and is sort of a peer pressure. I think it's sort of the disagreement between philosophies. Some publishers are a bit afraid of ripping occuring.

Pubs who feared ripping took the so-called crippled OGL route. Others just said 100% OGC except names, etc, and had no problems. Most of Freeport is 100% open. Where's the Freeport wiki?

It's my theory that the GSL won't have that viral nature built in, or it will be more restricted or controlled.

You haven't explain how WotC was harmed by the viral nature of the license. You say 3PPs didn't like it but everything you've said about its viral nature seems like a win-win for WotC. In fact, the only thing about the viral nature that limited WotC was they didn't reuse OGC from 3PPs so I'll bet the GSL will not only maintain the viral clauses but may also indemnify WotC from the viral clauses.

 

[JohnRTroy]

You haven't explain how WotC was harmed by the viral nature of the license. You say 3PPs didn't like it but everything you've said about its viral nature seems like a win-win for WotC. In fact, the only thing about the viral nature that limited WotC was they didn't reuse OGC from 3PPs so I'll bet the GSL will not only maintain the viral clauses but may also indemnify WotC from the viral clauses.

I didn't say WoTC were harmed or helped by it. I do think it's better to not force the viral as the norm--this is more of an argument for third parties. I'm not alone in my viewpoint, even if it may be a minority view.

However, with the current assumed requirement that the OGL has to be dropped by the company to sign up for the GSL, I suspect that might be one reason for the hard line of asking publishers to give it up, along with other reasons. (And if Wizards really wants to protect itself, they would have a line in the new GSL saying they and they alone reserve the right to reuse content, which makes sense from a legal perspective, the indemnification.)

But we'll see.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Ummm, Orcus, could it be, based on the second paragraph of his post, that perhaps Wulf was being sarcastic?

I'm not exactly batting 1000 lately. Folks who shouldn't be are reading snark into my posts, and yet when I'm actually so sarcastic that I get slapped by Piratecat, the sarcasm flies right past Clark.

My internet is broken!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Maybe you could cook up an example, but I would say no. Not helping as much as something should is still a help. Harm is different than help. I guess you could come up with some concept that anything that does less than 100% of its maximum possible value is a harm, but that is not that way people in business view it, I dont believe.

I can tell you with certainty that a "successful" product by any measure, that nevertheless fails to live up to management expectations, is considered a failure in a corporate culture such as Hasbro.

It doesn't matter how unrealistic those expectations are.


It's like telling a child that she's getting a puppy for her birthday, and she says, "Oh that would be wonderful! Or maybe even a pony!" When her birthday rolls around and she gets a puppy, she hates it.

/clumsy analogy

 

[Alzrius]

This was mentioned elsewhere, but ICv2 has posted a two part interview with Scott Rouse while at GAMA.

Part 1: http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/12449.html
Part 2: http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/12450.html

The first part reiterates what we already were told about the OGL and d20 STL; there's no new information there (except perhaps the implication that what we've heard about the d20 STL is unchanged). Part 2 discusses the launch and advertising campaigns for 4E.

 

[jmucchiello]

I didn't say WoTC were harmed or helped by it. I do think it's better to not force the viral as the norm--this is more of an argument for third parties. I'm not alone in my viewpoint, even if it may be a minority view.

My point was that if WotC is not harmed by the viral nature of the OGL, why would they bother changing that aspect of the new license? What incentive do that have to make the GSL non-viral other than JohnRTroy (et. al.) doesn't like it? How does making it non-viral benefit WotC?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

My point was that if WotC is not harmed by the viral nature of the OGL, why would they bother changing that aspect of the new license? What incentive do that have to make the GSL non-viral other than JohnRTroy (et. al.) doesn't like it? How does making it non-viral benefit WotC?

Presumably all the publishers that John knows that don't like the viral nature will finally feel comfortable enough to start publishing.

It should be a very exciting time for the hobby, since these are all new publishers that nobody has heard from before.

 

[JohnRTroy]

My point was that if WotC is not harmed by the viral nature of the OGL, why would they bother changing that aspect of the new license? What incentive do that have to make the GSL non-viral other than JohnRTroy (et. al.) doesn't like it? How does making it non-viral benefit WotC?

I think for the same reason that they've changed the license from Open Gaming to Game System. I suspect somebody at WoTC/Hasbro is not a fan of the copyleft elements of the license--the motives or the whys don't really matter. Otherwise, why would they care about the OGL at all, they'd continue to use it. I know I could be wrong, but I have a sneaking suspicion I'm not.

Presumably all the publishers that John knows that don't like the viral nature will finally feel comfortable enough to start publishing.

No, you missed my point. The only license for D&D now is the OGL. There is no other license, so anybody using it has to agree to the viral terms. My point is I believe the true freedom for the publishers would be to let the publishers choose whether or not to make it viral, and make that inherent in the license. Granted, PI can help prevent it, but let them make that choice by default in the new license. I'm kind of saying let it be "opt out" instead of "opt in" by default.

 

[BryonD]

No. The only license for D&D now is the OGL. There is no other license, so anybody using it has to agree to the viral terms.

So you are NOT claiming that anyone new would join the publishing arena. Just that those that are there would have a warm fuzzy feeling with a new set of guidelines?

My point is I believe the true freedom for the publishers would be to let the publishers choose whether or not to make it viral, and make that inherent in the license. Granted, PI can help prevent it, but let them make that choice by default in the new license.

I agree with you there. If WotC gave me free use of their stuff and I was allowed to use it without any similar reverse expectation on myself, I'd call that a really cool deal. I'd also like some free books while we are doing one-sided deals.