Question about GSL - Scott please comment

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Create a game system MORE people want to use and put it under a CC license. The reason the OGL is popular is because of those darn network externalities. More "code" is under the OGL than any other license, and there's a lot to gain by releasing your new game under it -- access to the huge volumes of existing open content.

I think I risk getting confused with all these OGL threads and what's the topic here or over there in the Mike Mearls on OGL thread.

Anyway, just what I am saying is:
The "core" of the OGL is the SRD. If we want to ensure that we can advance the entire SRD... well, we can't do that. The SRD is basically fixed. We would need some kind of independent repository as a core that can be advanced upon.

Edit: I am willing to admit that this might be impossible or just the dream of a naive gamer.

 

[Fifth Element]

The key is that I didn't have to do it.

Indeed. This gets missed a lot. Many threads contain claims that WotC is forcing you to do something. But they're not. If you don't like the terms, you don't agree to the license. Period.

You could try to negotiate more favourable terms for yourself, though I doubt you'd get very far.

 

[helium3]

Scott is (Senior) Brand Manager, not head of the legal department. These answers have legal implications, so giving out answers on their interpretation alone isn't enough.

In any case, if you want to do something with the GSL, I advise you to get a lawyer. That's the only way to be sure.

Cheers, LT.

Even then, all you really have going for you is your lawyer's interpretation of the what the GSL means. What matters more to the little publishers that can't afford legal battles of any sort is WotC's interpretation of these clauses.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think I know the reason why Mr. Rouse hasn't responded here. The thread title refers to "Scott". We all know he only answers to "The Rouse" now.

 

[Lizard]

I think I risk getting confused with all these OGL threads and what's the topic here or over there in the Mike Mearls on OGL thread.

Anyway, just what I am saying is:
The "core" of the OGL is the SRD. If we want to ensure that we can advance the entire SRD... well, we can't do that. The SRD is basically fixed. We would need some kind of independent repository as a core that can be advanced upon.

Edit: I am willing to admit that this might be impossible or just the dream of a naive gamer.

Uhm...advance the SRD all you want. That's what "open" means. Unearthed Arcana, Iron Heroes, Grim Tales, all "advance" the SRD.

And I dispute the idea that "OGL" is a synonym for "D20".

 

[redcard]

I think I risk getting confused with all these OGL threads and what's the topic here or over there in the Mike Mearls on OGL thread.

Anyway, just what I am saying is:
The "core" of the OGL is the SRD. If we want to ensure that we can advance the entire SRD... well, we can't do that. The SRD is basically fixed. We would need some kind of independent repository as a core that can be advanced upon.

Edit: I am willing to admit that this might be impossible or just the dream of a naive gamer.

I disagree. The core of the OGL , if the OGL was to be treated as a true open source license by the other developers in question, is the OGL itself. If you look in the OGL text itself, you will not find the terms SRD, System, Reference, or Document. Everything is content. It's either in content or out content, but it's all content.

You can change any content that is under the OGL. You can change the SRD and republish it as your own. You can alter it to be for whatever purpose. You can't call it their "Official" SRD, but the OGL doesn't cover SRDs or anything of that sort. It just covers CONTENT. And anything released as open content is yours to do with whatever you want.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Uhm...advance the SRD all you want. That's what "open" means. Unearthed Arcana, Iron Heroes, Grim Tales, all "advance" the SRD.

Yes and no. If I watch the website of the SRD, I will not find these advancements. I have to look through other publishers stuff and check what I want to use (and if I can - it must be declared open, after all). That's very different from a fully viral license like the GPL (and more like the LGPL). The "Kernel" of the OGL seems untouchable, so to speak.

And I dispute the idea that "OGL" is a synonym for "D20".

I think in many circles it is. I know better by now, but I think not everyone is there yet.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I disagree. The core of the OGL , if the OGL was to be treated as a true open source license by the other developers in question, is the OGL itself. If you look in the OGL text itself, you will not find the terms SRD, System, Reference, or Document. Everything is content. It's either in content or out content, but it's all content.

You can change any content that is under the OGL. You can change the SRD and republish it as your own. You can alter it to be for whatever purpose. You can't call it their "Official" SRD, but the OGL doesn't cover SRDs or anything of that sort. It just covers CONTENT. And anything released as open content is yours to do with whatever you want.

Maybe it becomes important to differentiate stronger.

The OGL is just a license, like the GPL.

The SRD gives us a open "thing", like, say the Linux Kernel or the OpenOffice. But unlike those, we can't change it. But unlike for the Linux Kernel or OpenOffice, there is no process for advancing it. That means, we need other "thingies" (maybe applications would be a good choice) to reach the same openness as Open Source software does.

 

[redcard]

Maybe it becomes important to differentiate stronger.

The OGL is just a license, like the GPL.

The SRD gives us a open "thing", like, say the Linux Kernel or the OpenOffice. But unlike those, we can't change it. But unlike for the Linux Kernel or OpenOffice, there is no process for advancing it. That means, we need other "thingies" (maybe applications would be a good choice) to reach the same openness as Open Source software does.

But.. you can change it. You can change it just like you can change a fork of the linux kernel or a fork of OpenOffice. Both of those exist. In fact, OpenOffice is a fork of StarOffice.

The problem you have is that what you call the SRD is controlled by Wizards. But that can be forked out to a different controller. It can be advanced, but it'd have to be controlled by a different company.

I quote , from the OGL:

"Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content.

If the SRD is OGC, which it is, then go ahead and fork it.

EDIT:

See, this is one thing that the Open movement in gaming has done VERY poorly. All this OGC stuff CAN be taken, CAN be put on a website, CAN be maintained using source control. CAN be patched. CAN be forked.

It SHOULD be done. A LOT. If the people controlling OGC are not doing it, then it MUST be done. Otherwise, you don't have an open model.

 

[Mercule]

That's not the part under debate. The part under debate is that they also say this -- If you put down the new toy, you cannot go back to the old toy.

If you end up exiting the GSL, though, you're out of it. Even the "no OGL" clause would no longer apply. Of course, you can't jump back and forth, especially if the GSL doesn't apply to you because you violated it.

But, the way I understand it (IANAL), the GSL can dictate what terms violate itself, but once you're out, you're out.