New GSL Announcement

[JohnRTroy]

Some of us AREN'T consumers. Some of us are businesses that have had a major part of our operational plans in a constant holding pattern since January, and would just like to know if this all-or-nothing rumor is true or not, so we can get on with our livelihoods.

I wasn't addressing those with legitimate concerns, but for people wanting to know the secret reasons, like those who ask pointed questions like "was the license changed to get around section 9 of the OGL", or similar questions.

 

[Gryffyn]

Heh - knows, yes, gonna tell us, no.

I don't see why they wouldn't. We'll find out anyway when the license is released. The only reason not to tell us is that the intent is not clear, even to them. That would make this week's announcement premature once again.

Anyway, here's why adding an anti-OGL clause to the GSL is a bad idea. If WotC were so confident that 4e was hugely superior to 3.x, then they would have no reason to fear the old OGL. The nice folks at WotC would just say "pfft, go ahead. We're not worried about the old OGL leeching our sales. We know that 4e is just that awesome." Barring GSL-using companies from doing anything for 3.x just tells me they're afraid that 4e will fail. Stamp out the competition with quality, not legalese!

 

[Grogtard]

Thanks to Scott for at least addressing the forum on a Saturday.

Now that I have at least first few cups of coffee, I can turn down my inner censor down a notch or two.
I'm all for capitalism and protection of IP. But in my bright eyed world, I'd prefer it to be: Buy our product because it's the best. Not: Buy our product while we make competition more difficult.

And that's what I feel is behind the decisions with the GSL.

 

[Orcus]

Hmmm... am I missing something? I'm trying to put together a news item compiling all the posts made by WoTC here, and I've found the "can't have the same product in two different licenses" stuff, but can't seem to find where people are getting the "a company may only use one license, period" implication from. I've scoured this thread, and I must have missed that post; could someone point me towards it so that I can include it in the news item?

I was told that specifically by Wizards of the Coast. In direct response to that direct question. The answer was, "we dont want fence sitters. Companies have to choose."

 

[mxyzplk]

Thanks to Scott for at least addressing the forum on a Saturday.

Now that I have at least first few cups of coffee, I can turn down my inner censor down a notch or two.
I'm all for capitalism and protection of IP. But in my bright eyed world, I'd prefer it to be: Buy our product because it's the best. Not: Buy our product while we make competition more difficult.

And that's what I feel is behind the decisions with the GSL.

Yeah, it seems too reminiscient of all of Microsoft's anti-Linux shenanigans. D&D 4e is going to be WotC's Windows Vista. If you REALLY stood behind your product, would you really do this? No.

 

[Gryffyn]

It's not really our business to know their motivations. Being consumers doesn't mean we have the right to know the whys of every decision made by a company.

By "intent," I didn't mean motivation. I know the motivation is to make money. I meant that WotC should know what the language is whatever section of the GSL we're talking about was supposed to accomplish -- barring use of the OGL on a product by product basis, company by company basis, or something else. Seriously, someone knows that. If that's still up in the air, then there's really no license yet, and the whole thing could easily end up back in debate for months....

 

[mxyzplk]

I was told that specifically by Wizards of the Coast. In direct response to that direct question. The answer was, "we dont want fence sitters. Companies have to choose."

Heh, this brings back flashbacks of SNL skits about the Republican resonse to John Kerry. "Flip-floppers! No flip-floppers! Flip-floppers. I just like saying that word." Ah, a touch of humor in an otherwise crappy situation.

 

[Orcus]

I'm hoping that's what they mean - I can understand wanting products upgraded to 4e. It might even allow people to translate OGC content (not their own) to the GSL. The nuclear option that Clark mentioned would indeed be stunningly stupid.

I didnt "mention" it.

I related it to all of you as it was told to me.

I hope they come in and confirm it. I dont like being in the position of sharing my conversations with them and not having an official word.

But, mark my words, this is the policy. And it isnt changing. I tried.

 

[Urizen]

Personally I read this and saw someone describing the situation in simplest terms. That truly IS the core of the issue. It's like electronic musicians who are now able to have a laptop computer, some tracking software, a keyboard and produce quality music. It happens all the time.

Before you were publishing, you were just playing and/or running games and maybe writing up ideas you had and saving them off. Now, w/the ability to publish quickly and cheaply online, you can just type things up, pretty it up with some illustrations and put it up for download or sale. How is that not accurate? I'm sorry if you found what he said insulting, but I just don't see it.

I understand and respect your opinions. Maybe I'm a bit to close to this issue to read his post objectively, though I still contend that it's not as simple as "typing things up, prettying up the pdf with illustrations and putting it up for download or sale."

That may be the most_basic_ interpretation of what creating a pdf (or book, for that matter, as a final print ready version is just taking a pdf one step further) is, but more is involved; editing, proofing, marketing, spending money (sometimes thousands of dollars depending on the writers and artists you use), etc.

The poster implied that anyone can do it. To a certain extent it's true, but if you want solid quality products, it's much more labor intensive than he (and you, no offense intended) makes it out to be.

 

[Scipio202]

2. I don't intend on "simmering down" because this is the window of opportunity to make a difference. I'm sure what the WotC lawyers would like to have happen is
a. We announce new GSL!
b. Everyone is happy because they think we're "still open."
c. People will buy 4e and 3p companies will make their support plans.
d. When the truth comes out, it'll be too late and will only get minor "retraction" style press.
e. Profit.

Well, if you want to "make a difference", probably the best way to get Scott/Linae to listen and have something fruitful to take to the internal WotC meetings is to say "It's really important that the GSL allows X, Y and Z for the following reasons.

Implying that the people you want to influence are manipulative, scheming jerks may not be the most productive way to go about it.

If you're not actually implying that, then I withdraw my comment. But at the moment it looks like you are.