OGL To Be Renamed Game System License (GSL)

[Jim Hague]

I think that it also crushes a lot of dreams out there.

It's already been said, but...come on. Other games existed, thrived and were innovated before the OGL, there will be the same after. Could we please lay off the repeated myth of the Eeeeeeevil Corporate Guys Crushing the Gamers schtick? If anything, closing the license encourages 3rd parties to innovate to keep up with the market leader.

 

[Delta]

Ethically? I think verbatim copying of entire rule sets crosses a grey line... But ripping the whole thing into an on-line product that directly competes with and discourages people from buying the book and instead going with the substitute can be seen as predatory.

Not surprisingly, this was addressed back when Open Gaming was first introduced, in the SRD FAQ at Wizards.com: ( http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/srdfaq/20040123c )

Q: Can I use the SRD verbatim?

A: Sure.

Q: Could I publish the whole thing?

A: Sure. If you think someone would be willing to pay for it, you're more than welcome to try.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Which is why it's being abandoned.

Honestly, I think this is a good move. Too many kids today keep thinking content is free. The Internet has commoditized information. That's part of the reason newspapers are suffering--everybody started giving away information to get "eyeballs".

The OGL started to commoditize the D&D game ruleset. Hopefully, 4e's GSL will allow people to create without allowing the leeching of content.

 

[Alzrius]

Which is why it's being abandoned.

With all due respect, you're not in a position to say why WotC is using the GSL rather than the OGL for 4E. It's also hard to say that WOtC didn't like how open the OGL was, since we have yet to receive any information regarding the particular use of open content in the GSL. It won't reprint rules per se, but nothing so far has indicated anything regarding third-parties using open content.

Honestly, I think this is a good move. Too many kids today keep thinking content is free.

This statement has a lot of sweeping generalizations. How do you know that "too many" kids think this? What range of people do these kids encompass (are they kids up to age twelve, age fifteen, age twenty)? What, exactly, is "content" and why is it bad that it be free?

The Internet has commoditized information. That's part of the reason newspapers are suffering--everybody started giving away information to get "eyeballs".

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I think that the proliferation of information is a good thing. I certainly think that it can be said, in a fairly objective manner, that the internet has done more good than harm for the human race as a whole. Likewise, new technologies and information always displaces old ones; that's simply natural. When cars were invented, the horses and buggies quickly died out (or at least, the buggies did ), making that industry suffer, but no one still seems particularly upset over that now.

The OGL started to commoditize the D&D game ruleset. Hopefully, 4e's GSL will allow people to create without allowing the leeching of content.

Again, I disagree with this. Given that a commodity is just a product and not a service, D&D has always been a commodity, rules and all. It was just widened with the advent of the OGL, which I believe to be a good thing, since it allowed many, many people to create things that wouldn't have existed otherwise. The incidents of "leeching" that you mention were all relatively few and far between - plenty of people were able to create things without their content being "leeched" due to Open Game Content.

 

[JohnRTroy]

With all due respect, you're not in a position to say why WotC is using the GSL rather than the OGL for 4E. It's also hard to say that WOtC didn't like how open the OGL was, since we have yet to receive any information regarding the particular use of open content in the GSL. It won't reprint rules per se, but nothing so far has indicated anything regarding third-parties using open content.

The fact that they didn't make most of their supplementary content OGL sort of lets us know how they feel.

When cars were invented, the horses and buggies quickly died out (or at least, the buggies did ), making that industry suffer, but no one still seems particularly upset over that now.

This statement is always brought up by people who complain about DRM, the RIAA, etc. It's getting old. I think what's happening now is that people are starting to realize and reverse the trend of content being given away for nothing.

Open Source programming might make sense since you need experienced people to develop for it. Open Gaming doesn't help the industry that much. Licensed gaming maybe, but a license that allows any person to take everything and post it for free isn't a very good license. Some say the d20 glut hurt gaming.

If the GSL gives authors better incentives than the OGL, I have a feeling it will be better liked. It would certainly allow Green Ronin to make new products without having insensitive people ripping it into an on-line free format.

 

[Alzrius]

The fact that they didn't make most of their supplementary content OGL sort of lets us know how they feel.

I disagree. The fact that WotC chose not to make most of their D&D books contain OGC doesn't mean that they didn't like or support their own OGL. If that were true, they wouldn't have expanded it several times to include material from books such as Deities and Demigods, the Epic Level Handbook, and the Expanded Psionics Handbook. It's not for non-employees to say why WotC made the decisions they did, unless they choose to tell us.

This statement is always brought up by people who complain about DRM, the RIAA, etc.

Actually it's always brought up when people complain about new technologies making industries dealing in replaced technologies "suffer," which is why I brought it up.

It's getting old.

And yet, there's still no rebuttal for it.

I think what's happening now is that people are starting to realize and reverse the trend of content being given away for nothing.

Are you talking about with D&D, or with everything? If it's the former, then I disagree, as open sourced materials has never been about content being given away for nothing - that was a byproduct of some books being almost entirely OGC, and since (as I've mentioned before) we don't know what (if any) open content restrictions will be in the GSL, that could still be the case in 4E.

If it's the latter, then I still disagree, but that's rather off-topic.

Open Source programming might make sense since you need experienced people to develop for it. Open Gaming doesn't help the industry that much.

I think it does help the industry that much, as it allowed many new companies to form based around d20 products. Not all such companies lasted, but many are still around, and now making new games of their own, and feeding the new market, even after the "glut" has largely ended.

Licensed gaming maybe, but a license that allows any person to take everything and post it for free isn't a very good license.[/quote

The Open Gaming License didn't do that - publishers who made their books (almost) totally Open Game Content did that.

Some say the d20 glut hurt gaming.

And some say that the OGL helped gaming more than it hurt, even with the "glut."

If the GSL gives authors better incentives than the OGL, I have a feeling it will be better liked. It would certainly allow Green Ronin to make new products without having insensitive people ripping it into an on-line free format.

I don't think that individual authors will care very much about the GSL versus the OGL very much, though companies (and, apparently, fans) will. I certainly doubt that additional restrictions on types of products (and, possibly, on the nature of open content) will create incentives for people to write where they wouldn't have otherwise.

And last time I checked, Green Ronin can do (and is doing) that already with the OGL.

 

[JohnRTroy]

And yet, there's still no rebuttal for it.

Yes there is.

While there is such a thing as progress, it doesn't mean that you can't try to protect industries or the livelyhood of people. Entertainment industries like the music business, movies, television, books, and video games can continue. Some of it will require adaptation, some will require DRM (of a type that doesn't interfere with people's enjoyment, like Valve's Steam or Apple's FairPlay, some will require laws that actually punish people who steal, some will require education. People always assume DRM will never work while all their stuff will be encrypted and anonymous and completely protected. It's a false statement, and shows short-sighted thinking on their part.

People who state "the market should adapt", never usually condemn people who steal this stuff. It shows their moral caliber.

I have no problem condemning the actions of people who rip the content, because they aren't thinking of the creators. Now, the OGL allows this, but I still think it's shady. If you truly cared about the game, you'd support the writers, because payment is the incentive for them to create.

But those that attempt to use the OGL and pre-existing content to end-run the GSL and produce 4e compatible modules--well, don't expect me to say kind words about those people. "Unethical thief" is what I'd have to say. There's really no moral defense for doing that, Alzrius, if there's an existing license that gives you the leeway to create derivative products.

 

[Alzrius]

And yet, there's still no rebuttal for it.

Yes there is.

While there is such a thing as progress, it doesn't mean that you can't try to protect industries or the livelyhood of people. Entertainment industries like the music business, movies, television, books, and video games can continue. Some of it will require adaptation, some will require DRM (of a type that doesn't interfere with people's enjoyment, like Valve's Steam or Apple's FairPlay, some will require laws that actually punish people who steal, some will require education. People always assume DRM will never work while all their stuff will be encrypted and anonymous and completely protected. It's a false statement, and shows short-sighted thinking on their part.

This isn't a rebuttal. We already have (on a national level) mechanisms in place to try and protect jobs, and provide assistance for reemployment. That doesn't rebut the fact that new industries and technologies do, as a natural consequence, replace their predecessors.

But again, that's getting off-topic.

People who state "the market should adapt", never usually condemn people who steal this stuff. It shows their moral caliber.

This is a blanket statement, made about a non-specific number of non-specific people, attributing something to them that they've never necessarily claimed. In other words, this isn't a very good point.

I have no problem condemning the actions of people who rip the content, because they aren't thinking of the creators. Now, the OGL allows this, but I still think it's shady. If you truly cared about the game, you'd support the writers, because payment is the incentive for them to create.

I personally think that if you truly cared about the game, you'd support the fans, because they're the ones who pay for the writers to keep making such materials (and despite claims that the OGL lets people legally rip people off, that's just for a few very small, isolated instances).

But those that attempt to use the OGL and pre-existing content to end-run the GSL and produce 4e compatible modules--well, don't expect me to say kind words about those people. "Unethical thief" is what I'd have to say. There's really no moral defense for doing that, Alzrius, if there's an existing license that gives you leeway.

The problem is that the license doesn't give leeway for all the kinds of products that people could do with the OGL, and that's the part I take issue with. Making an OGL product that mimics 4E is thus neither thieving, nor unethical from that standpoint.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I personally think that if you truly cared about the game, you'd support the fans, because they're the ones who pay for the writers to keep making such materials (and despite claims that the OGL lets people legally rip people off, that's just for a few very small, isolated instances).

Fans will by the D&D game regardless of the license used. The people who even give a damn about the OGL aspect of it are a very vocal minority. The OGL doesn't affect fans of D&D, so I'm not sure how supporting the OGL supports the fans.

So I don't see how the OGL "helps" the fans at all. I support the fans. I don't support the "rippers", who could arguably be fans but don't seem to care enough about the health of the publishers or freelancers.

 

[Cergorach]

Open Source programming might make sense since you need experienced people to develop for it. Open Gaming doesn't help the industry that much. Licensed gaming maybe, but a license that allows any person to take everything and post it for free isn't a very good license.

Who do you think are working on 4E? Do you think that Mike or Ari (and others) would be working on 4E if the OGL hadn't existed? The same rules apply for the OGL as for the GPL, the usual production methods don't allow for maximum profit, you need to change them. Already society is changing, it's moving from an information based society (copyrights and patents) to a service based society.

If the GSL gives authors better incentives than the OGL, I have a feeling it will be better liked. It would certainly allow Green Ronin to make new products without having insensitive people ripping it into an on-line free format.

Are you naive, or willfully overlooking the fact that people are already posting closed licence material online. It might not be legal in a lot of countries, but that doesn't stop the majority of the population. Slavery might seem something of the past, but we're all wage-slaves, unable to live in this world withouth selling ourselves to someone else for money. While many kids think that content is free, a lot of the 30+ crowd thinks that information should be free and not owned by 'immortal' corporations...

Many years ago there was no copyright or patent and Michael Angelo could make a living, every one is now using his ideas, because there's no copyright or patent on them. Shouldn't those rights then not also be protected (for his heirs)? How about the Bible, the church sure could probably use the extra income. There are many artists that have a subsidy from the state, Wolfgang Baur creates material through patronage, surely there are other ways to provide for creators of content?