New GSL Announcement

[S'mon]

Regarding if any license is better than none at all, my opinion is that a license that poisons the extant OGC is far worse than no license at all.

That's my gut feeling. I teach commercial law, my gut-legally feeling is that a GSL with a no-OGL clause is bad news and most 3pps should stay away from it.

 

[BryonD]

And I'm not sure the poison pill provision means its not "open" but that is open to discussion I guess. I mean, lets not forget that the STL contained something that, to the legally minded among the early adopters, was a big issue--we agreed not to challenge WotC;s ownership of certain things that in my view they clearly didnt "own."

But the STL isn't the Open part. The STL is an optional addition to the Open part.

 

[robertsconley]

See, I disagree. A public, royalty-free license is pretty dang open. There are not alot of those out there for something that is as in demand in its own market sector.

It is not "open" in the same way true open gaming is, I will concede that. But they opened up 4E. ANYONE can grab the license and use it by its terms. At no cost.

The problem is that in many ways the gaming industry community parallels that of the software industry. Community attitudes are similar as well.

In both industries there is a core API (application programming interface) the dominates the entire industry; Windows and D&D. It would be possible for Microsoft in their EULA to say "You cannot release any software you create under the GPL while using this API. Or you cannot release any software you create under another operating system including an older version of Microsoft Windows.

D&D is an open ended product which sets itself in a distinct category that only occupied by a few other type of products like computers. Even if the GSL turned to be the least restrictive form (product by product, backstock ok) it will still cause a substantial backlash among the community. This backlash would create a significant competitor to WoTC's D&D.

This is contrast to the situation with 3rd edition which literally took over the entire RPG industry at it's height. Granted a truly open 4th edition would not have the same impact due to different circumstances. However the d20 SRD could have been relegated to the same bin as GURPS, Palladium, and all the other second tier RPG games if 4th edition had a truly open SRD. But now they will be faced with a seriously supported legal alternative to their own game.

The threat won't be in the alternative company supplanting WoTC. But rather anytime WoTC shoots itself in the feet there will be somebody that just swoop down and pick up the fallen pieces to long term detriment of WoTC's market share.

In the computer world it isn't Linux being superior that is hurting Microsoft but rather Microsoft themselves gleefully blowing holes intheir body.

I am not a lawyer but a computer programmer doing his job for 20 years. I seen how MS defeated IBM, and now how Apple and Linux are knocking MS silly. From a technical standpoint the rumored 4th edition GSL seems eerily like the first missteps of IBM and MS.

Finally people are far more aware of these kinds of issues than prior decades thanks to what happened in the computer world. They don't take needless restriction lightly anymore.

 

[Jack99]

(snip)
Finally people are far more aware of these kinds of issues than prior decades thanks to what happened in the computer world. They don't take needless restriction lightly anymore.

You seem to forget the most important thing. Most gamers don't know anything about the OGL, the GSL, nor do they care.

The only people caring are a certain percentage (depending on who you ask, it's either a fairly small percentage, or a rather large one) of posters on forums like this one, and of course the publishers.

So I really doubt WoTC will be shooting themselves in the foot, no matter what. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that they should be doing what they are doing, merely that I doubt that their tactics will cause a huge backlash.

Cheers

 

[wickederror]

I'm glad for all the info.

I would also like to point out a consumer reaction that WotC may not have thought about, and has only really been touched apon in any of the threads I've read on the topic.

Now, I've pretty much hopped on the Paizo bandwagon, not being really excited about some of the changes in 4th ed. I figured at best I would play it at my local gamestore a few times due to peer pressure, but that's about it. Since new WotC material won't be comming out for my prefered method of gaming, I also had some future plans to delve into some other games I haven't really focused on (most likely True20 and Iron Heros).

As a gamer for 20 years, I'm pretty much as much of a book collector as I am anything...lets face it, gamers love their library. I also buy a fair amount of material that isn't directly related to 3.5 but still filters money back to WotC. I have more than a few stacks of MtG cards, I probably buy about 5-8 novels a year with the D&D logo on the front of them, several fistfuls of mini's, and even some goofier products like three dragon ante. Hell I bought the Star Wars books mainly for the art, and was pretty much planning on buying a few 4th ed books for the art and to steal a few neat ideas for my campaign.

All and all, WotC probably loves people like me, or did up until now...because at heart I'm a gamer and gamer first before a novel-fan, MtG player, mini-collector, or what have you. If I plan on playing True20, and after the first session none of my players can get the books because they are now arbitrarily out of print because WotC wants to remove that competitive product from the market via their new GSL, well they become a company that I don't like. If my buddy tells me about a Necro-game that he DM'ed that was fantastic but too bad it's out of print because Necromancer games signed the GSL from WotC to stay in business, well once again WotC becomes a company that I don't like very much.

You may find this strange, but I don't typically buy products of a company I don't like. I am not only a rollplayer but a collector of mini's, novels, cards, and other silly products and have been for 2 decades...and I am hardly an anomaly, am I? Even though I'm not a big fan of the 4th Ed change, that change never made me consider to stop purchasing products from WotC...hell probably more than a few of the 4th ed books, even though I don't plan to play it just for the art and a few game ideas. I think that changes now.

I don't really have to be empathetic to WotC's plans on this matter...well because I'm a consumer and justification of this act really isn't much of a necessity to me in comparison to having access to the games I want to play.

WotC may want to give some consideration to people like me when they start signing up companies that then have to pull their products that I patronize off of the market.

 

[Morrus]

d20 System Trademark Guide v5

Yep, you're right. Sorry! I wasn't thinking!

 

[kingpaul]

WotC's books - with the exceptions of the MMII and Unearthed Arcana - were never released under the OGL.

d20 Weapons Locker was released as OGL.

 

[Alzrius]

d20 Weapons Locker was released as OGL.

Ah yes, so were a couple of the d20 Modern books IIRC. That's what I get for just thinking about D&D and not the other lines.

 

[Alzrius]

Having thought about it more, I find myself in agreement with S'mon and Oldtimer. The GSL with the "poison pill" clause is worse than no GSL at all.

Even if D&D were completely closed, I think Open Gaming would survive. In fact, without being able to support D&D, the third-party community would rally around 3.5 and keep it alive considerably, maintaining a vibrant industry even without being able to publish products compatible with the new rules. I also think that, eventually, WotC would have seen that, and would have adopted a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" strategy for 5E (or late into 4E life-cycle) and published a licensing option for D&D that would be MUCH more open than the GSL is now.

As it stands now, the GSL is designed to try and shut down the OGL, essentially attempting to squeeze Open Gaming to a fraction of its former self - not in terms of the size of the publishing community, but in terms of how open Open Gaming is.

In short, I'd prefer that Open Gaming simply be allowed to make due with what is has now, rather than have the GSL be out there actively trying to destroy it.

 

[Ashardalon]

Ah yes, so were a couple of the d20 Modern books IIRC. That's what I get for just thinking about D&D and not the other lines.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Weapons Locker was the only Modern title released under the OGL. Most d20 Modern material that is open was released through the Modern SRD instead.