OGL To Be Renamed Game System License (GSL)

[pawsplay]

Sometimes people follow their own dogmas or repeat things without thinking about the facts.

No way!

 

[JohnRTroy]

So, kind of like I thought, you're working in an industry where your income derives partly from the existing copyright regime. I might also say "I can see why you'd think that".

I don't own my code. I don't get paid royalties, or own the copyright, so I don't know what you're talking about.

You're clearly "against open source", as you've spent so much time arguing against the philosophical underpinnings of the movement. You actively "dislike the people" who say we need to abolish copyright. You don't think that "the people" should have any right in defining copyrights. You just compared open source to socialism above.

I am not against open source, per se. I think in the computer industry it makes sense, because computer software is very complex and you usually need people working on custom solutions, so programmers will still be needed. I dislike the people who want to change the rules and mandate that all software must be open source, or who say all copyright must be abolished. That is taking away the right of the individual who chooses what method they release things. The government serves the minority as well as the majority.

That's why I compared it to socialism, because you are actually taking away the freedom of the individual to choose their methodology. It's like saying "you can no longer have a house, the government now owns everything". Anybody who's in a creative effort will suffer and thus you'll have less creative types working.

So, we disagree. There are more things than raw profit in the world, and personally I do think that the welfare of "the people", as you say, trumps the profits of corporations or individuals.

But I think people think that suddenly it will be some sort of utopia. It's not going to be. What you'll have in the creative world will probably be akin to some sort of socialistic system where everybody has sub-par work--you'll see more "remixing" of existing content than people creating something new. Do you really think that eliminating the protection laws will help things.

And basically, it's a selfish attitude. "I can have all the music, movies, and books I want for free, nobody can stop us, VIVA REVOLUTION!". That's what some people think. Well, yeah, but when the pool starts drying up of new content I have a feeling that will be the consequence, as the talented person who might be the next Bruce Springsteen or JRR Tolkien or Gary Gygax sticks with his 2 jobs instead of fulfilling his dream. And we'll probably suffer for it in terms of our entertainment. You can't have a successful movie industry without those protections, who will pay for those special effects? Or the programmers of video games? Economies are important, because if you ignore them, you ignore a key part of civilization.

 

[Nellisir]

I keep asking myself one question: Would D&D and the state of table-top RPGs be better today if WotC hadn't released the OGL?
I absolutely do not think so. The d20 sphere around D&D has made it a better game, and the designers & developers better designers & developers.

That's what it comes down to, IMO.

 

[Lizard]

I am not against open source, per se. I think in the computer industry it makes sense, because computer software is very complex and you usually need people working on custom solutions, so programmers will still be needed. I dislike the people who want to change the rules and mandate that all software must be open source, or who say all copyright must be abolished. That is taking away the right of the individual who chooses what method they release things. The government serves the minority as well as the majority.

And who here is saying anything like that?

Indeed, the open source movement relies on copyright, as does OGL. Open Source<>Public Domain. Open source specifies rules about how material can be copied and who has the right to do it, hence, copyright. It is only by copyright law that open source can be "viral", that it can mandate anyone who uses it must share their additions and modifications. The OGL is even more protective of creator rights, allowing the protection of non-derived portions of a book and only opening that which derives from previously open material. I don't see how this is socialism -- the OGL was written very heavily with the intent of protecting the commercial use of work.

My "beef" with WOTC is that they stated, in August, that D&D 4e would be released under the Open Gaming License. It isn't. This has two meanings:

a)They never intended for it to be, and deliberately obfuscated the point to keep competitors off-balance. ("Oh, we meant 'a' Open Gaming License. Just not the one we created, we hold the copyright to, we've always used, and which is the only one with any significant following in the game world.")

b)They intended to release it under a "modified" OGL, but didn't understand their own license well enough to know that modifying it would be pointless. This is the more likely interpretation.

Neither choice is very flattering, and if there's more to it than that, we'll probably never know, since we are not privy to internal corporate debate and it's doubtful anyone who IS privy would ever air any details on the matter.

I spent a lot of time defending WOTC against the conspiracy theorists (First with the OGL, then with the open call for submissions which ultimately produced Eberron.[1]) when they (WOTC) were in the moral right, and now that they're in the moral wrong, I have no problem calling them on it.

[1]"They just want to STEAL OUR IDEAS!" Yeah, buddy. Like your ideas -- a half page description of a world -- are remotely worth stealing. Ideas are easy; development is hard.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm just wondering...

If the new SRD will be page references of OGC (or whatever legal term they're going to call it), will someone here do the dirty work of copying them and compiling them for copy-n-paste publishing?

Sorry, JohnRTroy. The OGL is only flawed because it does not specifically instruct nor permit the use of OGC in computer software without the WotC trademarks. Other than that, there is no other flaw. OGC does not mean Public Domain. If you don't want anyone to use it, designate it as Product Identity.

Perhaps what WotC could have done in the first place is not provide content-filled SRD, but a page-indexing SRD, which is what they're doing for the 4e SRD.

Ryan Dancey got it right the first time.

 

[JohnRTroy]

And who here is saying anything like that?

Cergaroach and Oldtimer, I've seen comments like that back in the thread.

Sorry, JohnRTroy. The OGL is only flawed because it does not specifically instruct nor permit the use of OGC in computer software without the WotC trademarks. Other than that, there is no other flaw. OGC does not mean Public Domain. If you don't want anyone to use it, designate it as Product Identity.

It's still a license. Restricting software is not flawed--they didn't want the CRPG industry competing with the D&D license. The flaw was WoTC--at least from their perspective--is that they gave away too much.

If the new SRD will be page references of OGC (or whatever legal term they're going to call it), will someone here do the dirty work of copying them and compiling them for copy-n-paste publishing?

There probably won't be what we think is an SRD. I'm sure they will restrict this practice.

 

[Ranger REG]

It's still a license. Restricting software is not flawed--they didn't want the CRPG industry competing with the D&D license.

Who says the software industry want to make D&D labeled software? I didn't say that. I say why not permit them to use OGC in software.

The flaw was WoTC--at least from their perspective--is that they gave away too much.

Not much, from my perspective. I consider OGL to be generic, not proprietary.

They kept much of the good useful mechanics from The Book of Nine Swords from third-party publishers. Or let third-party companies besides AEG to use OA (minus the Rokugan cra-, err stuff).

Right now, I don't see an incentive to ride on WotC's coattail with 4e (except among hardcore D&D fans, but they always prefer WotC over somebody else).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If the new SRD will be page references of OGC (or whatever legal term they're going to call it), will someone here do the dirty work of copying them and compiling them for copy-n-paste publishing?

I consider it inevitable.

I also predict the new license is going to be a mess.

 

[Nellisir]

If the new SRD will be page references of OGC (or whatever legal term they're going to call it), will someone here do the dirty work of copying them and compiling them for copy-n-paste publishing?

I suspect there'll be a mechanism to prevent that. It might be as simply as requiring any GSL product to have X% of new/original Game System Content. It'll might be tough to pull together an "official" SRD if you have to provide an equal amount of new content.

 

[kenmarable]

I consider it inevitable.

I also predict the new license is going to be a mess.

Agreed. Although I will be gladly proven wrong, I somehow don't think "restrictions" and "simplicity" fit well together in legalese. Something more restrictive in what you can produce will most likely either wind up vague (and therefore potentially abused) or onerously convoluted (and still potentially abused). I remember the circling arguments over OGL software just between the d20 STL restriction on "interactive" and the OGL requirement of "OGC being clearly defined". If those restrictions generated endless debate among well-informed people, I'm pretty sure more restrictions will just cause more debate and confusion.

*shrug* But the ball's in WotC's court to sort all that out however they want. We're unfortunately just spectators (unlike 3.0 where drafts of the OGL were posted on a publishers list for comments before it was finalized, I forget if the d20 STL also had publisher review or not).