OGL To Be Renamed Game System License (GSL)

[JohnRTroy]

So only Wizards has the divine right to do as they see fit? Why is that?

We were given the OGL by Wizards at one time and using it to whatever purpose it can be used is not unethical or wrong in any way. Wizards don't own the ideas behind 4e.

Well, I am thinking of the people who worked hard to create 4e, and then to have others take there work and reverse-engineer it is wrong. 4e is a different animal.

If you guys don't understand that Golden Rule statement I made, I doubt you ever will, so I guess I can't really argue about it anymore. :\

And please stop bringing filesharing into the discussion. I promise you it will get ugly...

Considering you're from the country that has the Pirate Party, Piratbyrån, and The Pirate Bay, I can see why you'd think that.

I have a feeling some of those revolutions will lead to some reforms, but other aspects of it will be similar to the United States "hippie movement". We never did end up living in communes and legalizing hallucinogens. I think once certain industries get hurt and people start realizing people have abandoned their creative efforts because they can't make a living off of them, some of those elements will be reversed.

 

[Nellisir]

1) Take a moral stand and stick with 3e. If you truly feel that the OGL is important, stick with the 3e ruleset.

I think this is the core sticking point here - you've got it in your head that the OGL = 3e. It never has. The entire point of the OGL was to evolve a better game system. How does that happen? Alot of people look at the ruleset and make changes. They get the idea for those changes from looking around and looking at other rulesets. 1e. 2e. Shadowrun. d6. GURPS. M&M. Now what you're really advocating is people should stop looking around, and just navel-gaze - or that WotC should at least be afforded some sainted position, since their ideas miraculously came to them out of their own navels.

Anyways, this has gotten silly. You came out of the woodwork to exult the miracle that is Wizards, and I suspect you'll go back into the woodwork by year's end. You're not going to change your mind, and I'm not going to change mine. Enjoy 4e; I intend to.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I think this is the core sticking point here - you've got it in your head that the OGL = 3e. It never has. The entire point of the OGL was to evolve a better game system. How does that happen? Alot of people look at the ruleset and make changes. They get the idea for those changes from looking around and looking at other rulesets. 1e. 2e. Shadowrun. d6. GURPS. M&M. Now what you're really advocating is people should stop looking around, and just navel-gaze - or that WotC should at least be afforded some sainted position, since their ideas miraculously came to them out of their own navels.

The "point" of the OGL seems to be different depending on who you ask. Depending on who you ask, it was a method of licensing the D&D rules, the ability to share everything for free, the ability to improve, etc. That's how weird it is--some people put the emphasis on how open it is, some people are concerned about D&D compatibility, etc.

The OGL is a game license, that is owned and copyrighted by Wizards. Most of the people who argue about the existence of the OGL are using the core rules from D&D. So 3e is relevant. Why do you think people are so mad about the OGL not being used by Wizards for 4e.

Anyways, this has gotten silly. You came out of the woodwork to exult the miracle that is Wizards, and I suspect you'll go back into the woodwork by year's end. You're not going to change your mind, and I'm not going to change mine. Enjoy 4e; I intend to.

I've contributed in several threads mind you. You seem to think that just because my opinion is unpopular here it is invalid. The only reason this particular thread is active is because of the license announcement.

I'm not a defender of Wizards all the time. I don't think the radical revamp of the Forgotten Realms is a good idea. I think they've made mistakes from marketing. I think that the statement that playtesters shouldn't make negative comments about 4e is dumb and I get a different vibe from this. I think the 90's legal threats from TSR were wrong. I wish they would release "abandoned" property.

I hate some abuses of Trademark, Patents, and Copyrights. I dislike it when individuals get screwed. But I also dislike the new meme where "information wants to be free", the passive-aggressive stance that "you can't put the genie back in the bottle", etc.

Some people are jumping on me for bringing up ethics and morals as well. Well, I'm sorry if it sounds arrogant, but I believe certain things are wrong, and that there is an objective morality, which the law may or may not agree with. Is it legally okay for somebody to create an SRD from somebody else's contributions. Yes. Is it right? Well...the biggest disconnect is that the license says this is possible, and then you get people who think it's sleazy when you "rip" that stuff, against people who quote the license and say "it's allowed and you should expect it". Maybe I'm trying to make people think that their actions have consequences.

I personally think the OGL was a too permissive license, and I'm hoping that the new license is popular enough and protects the rights of creators derivative works. I don't want some of the freedoms to go away, but I don't mind if some of what I consider the more blatant rip-offs are destroyed. I see nothing wrong with having a "morals clause", a "right to revoke", etc. This is still a license of the other game, and I think they should have more restrictions.

Everybody is jumping on Wizards thinking they're gonna shut all creativity down. Why not wait and see what the license allows. If the new license is really bad, I'll definately condemn it.

 

[pawsplay]

The OGL was too permissive, eh? It seems to me that really, you're made at WotC for not following your vision of how things should be done. The ownership of ideas is just not workable. I don't think anyone really knows yet what will work. I think the consensus is that the OGL was good for third parties and WotC both, that it created a lot of goodwill and protected all parties from needless litigation. If you want to argue against that, you're going to have an uphill battle.

I don't think 4e is ultimately intended to be that "closed" anyway. I suspect that WotC simply feels they need to retrench their market share, and that they can convince the industry to play ball with them for about two years in order to bolster's 4e's bottom line. I imagine that in the long run you will be able to do just about anything other than write a Mutants & Masterminds.

And in the long run, games like M&M have plenty to work from with the OGL we have now. The thing that bothers me is the potential landmine if someone strays a little too close to the 4e design. I hope that WotC would have the good sense to not go off half-cocked and allow a reasonable remedy if infringement were claimed, but I know from my time in the corporate world that the legal team sometimes acts independently from other segments in a company.

 

[pawsplay]

I've contributed in several threads mind you. You seem to think that just because my opinion is unpopular here it is invalid.

I don't think anyone thinks your opinion is invalid. Incoherent, possibly. Unworkable? Most likely. Against the mainstream of opinion on a d20 fan site? Oh, yes. Not based on international IP laws? Already been established.

You are welcome to your opinion but it seems to be based on personal feelings that others don't share.

 

[Nellisir]

I personally think the OGL was a too permissive license, and I'm hoping that the new license is popular enough and protects the rights of creators derivative works.

Can you give actual examples of how the OGL is "too permissive" and/or fails to protect the rights of a creator? Without resorting to WotC and Unearthed Arcana?

 

[Ranger REG]

I personally think the OGL was a too permissive license,

"Too permissive"? Are you seriously trying to make me spit my soda all over my PC?



If I didn't know you better, I'd think you're one of the old TSR lawyers.

Just ... hehehe ... kidding.

 

[Vigilance]

Wizards don't own the ideas behind 4e.

Actually, I'm fairly certain Wizards does own the ideas behind 4e, legally, morally, ethically and by any other standard one would normally apply to "ownership".

They used a very talented, well-compensated staff, supplemented by newly hired personnel and freelancers for an R&D project that took several years, and that ultimately led up to 4e.

So yeah, they own the ideas behind it.

Chuck

 

[xechnao]

Actually, I'm fairly certain Wizards does own the ideas behind 4e, legally, morally, ethically and by any other standard one would normally apply to "ownership".

They used a very talented, well-compensated staff, supplemented by newly hired personnel and freelancers for an R&D project that took several years, and that ultimately led up to 4e.

So yeah, they own the ideas behind it.

Chuck

No, you can't be certain on answering what people question in this thread. There is no 1 golden rule regarding commerce and trade -be it ideas or material goods. It depends on the circumstances of the relative situations.

Now, one may try to guide the circumstances so to educate towards a certain situation. This is politics: economic politics.

Some people are happy with the current model of economy and politics -the current global capitalistic model. OTOH some people disagree with it.

This is what they are talking about and you can't just say you are certain about one kind of policy.

 

[Yair]

Actually, I'm fairly certain Wizards does own the ideas behind 4e, legally, morally, ethically and by any other standard one would normally apply to "ownership".

They used a very talented, well-compensated staff, supplemented by newly hired personnel and freelancers for an R&D project that took several years, and that ultimately led up to 4e.

So yeah, they own the ideas behind it.

Chuck

Ehm.... that they invested money into something really has little to do with whether they have ownership over it. I agree that I'd like to compensate them for their troubles and encourage them and others to make similar efforts in the future. But that doesn't mean they own the ideas. It means that I will buy 4e, and I will (already have preordered, actually).

Wizards doesn't own the ideas because they didn't (I think) patent them. They own the copyrights, which isn't at all like owing the game concepts or mechanics. I'm glad this is the case for while I like for people to be paid to develop and publish better games, I don't really like the idea of people owning any idea, whatsoever. At best it's a necessary evil.


What I'm disappointed with is that it seems I'll now have to create a homebrew system. Or find another system, that isn't D&D. There are several changes to 4e that I suspect I won't like, but would be willing to put up with for a better overall gaming experience. But now that it has become clear to me that I couldn't do what I actually intended to do with 4e - start an entirely OGL game - I will have to cobble-up or find a more esoteric ruleset anyways. Which is a lot of work I was hoping to avoid, and will limit my enjoyment of online content and message-boards, and gaming options. Arrgh.