To Scott and Linae

[jmucchiello]

You have my deepest sympathies for the storm of anger you are about to have to smile in the face off. I can't imagine what this license would have looked like without the fight you say you put forth.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You have my deepest sympathies for the storm of anger you are about to have to smile in the face off. I can't imagine what this license would have looked like without the fight you say you put forth.

I can only assume it would have looked like this:

Spoiler

This place was intentionally left blank

 

[HyrumOWC]

You have my deepest sympathies for the storm of anger you are about to have to smile in the face off. I can't imagine what this license would have looked like without the fight you say you put forth.

Yep, no anger from me towards Scott and Linae, and I can only imagine how bad the license would be without them.

Hyrum.

 

[Lizard]

Yep, no anger from me towards Scott and Linae, and I can only imagine how bad the license would be without them.

Hyrum.

To be honest...I think WOTC saying at the 4e announcement "No open license, sorry" would have been better for all concerned than to drag this out this long, keeping a lot of companies unable fully formulate business plans, and then produce something which many in the field have said does not meet their needs, after all. Again, I have to point to how the original OGL/STL was crafted with full interactivity with likely licensees, and the GSL was formed in secret, with no input/comments/concerns. The process of getting reactions and making changes should have begun in January of '09; it's only beginning now, and I'm being optimistic that WOTC/Hasbro will make changes in response to legitimate concerns, especially the ability to 'fall back' on the OGL if/when the GSL is pulled. The OGL/STL combo allowed publishers to securely print, knowing that even if the D20 program was dropped, they could keep viable products/lines in production indefinitely. The GSL says that the lifespan of your product is exactly equal to the lifespan of the GSL, and there's no reason to assume that the lifespan of the GSL will be equal to the lifespan of 4e.

 

[Alzrius]

To be honest...I think WOTC saying at the 4e announcement "No open license, sorry" would have been better for all concerned than to drag this out this long, keeping a lot of companies unable fully formulate business plans, and then produce something which many in the field have said does not meet their needs, after all.

QFT. Compared to this, I honestly would have preferred no license at all. It's just that bad.

 

[HyrumOWC]

QFT. Compared to this, I honestly would have preferred no license at all. It's just that bad.

I agree, but I don't think we should direct any animosity towards Scott and Linae.

Hyrum.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Well, that's fine to say, but you shouldn't speak for all publishers. Just because you prefer the OGL and don't like the restrictions doesn't mean you should make the judgment that no license would be better--let the people decide if they want to make GSL products.

 

[Nellisir]

You have my deepest sympathies for the storm of anger you are about to have to smile in the face off. I can't imagine what this license would have looked like without the fight you say you put forth.

The sad thing is, pretty much everything they say from this point out is...if not meaningless, at least nothing to take to the bank. WotC could change their stance at any time, for any reason.

 

[Lizard]

Well, that's fine to say, but you shouldn't speak for all publishers. Just because you prefer the OGL and don't like the restrictions doesn't mean you should make the judgment that no license would be better--let the people decide if they want to make GSL products.

I was unaware I'd been empowered to make that decision for other people. Wow! I am LIKE UNTO A GOD!

If I say "I really don't like the guy who was elected. I think someone else should have won.", does that mean I am somehow cancelling other people's votes, or expressing a desire to do so?

If I say, "I hated the Star Wars Prequels. They should have just stuck to the original three.", will George Lucas recall them all from the DVD racks?

I stated an opinion. You may disagree with it, which is fine, but you seem to be attacking my right to state it.

As it is, I might still do work under the GSL, if anyone is going to be publishing under it, or take a chance with my own line of PDFs, which offer minimal risk of loss. I'm also looking at Pathfinder, as I suspect a lot of people are. I don't consider a willingness to use the GSL while considering it an inferior license is hypocritical. This is, as many have noted, what we've got, and it's way too early to see how things will shake out. In a perfect world, 4e was released under the OGL, with a revised Trademark license which would make the logo worthwhile. In a somewhat less perfect world, WOTC would have said "No open license" and made deals with specific publishers as needed. In our world, we have the GSL, and I'm not going to ignore it because it isn't as good as it could be, but I expect my opportunities, both as a freelancer and a (hopeful) self publisher, will be limited.

My point above was not "The GSL is utterly worthless!", but, rather, that if there had been none announced or expected, the process of "forking" D&D that Pathfinder has begun would have started in August, 2007, and by Gencon 2008, some sort of core rules, "bought into" by several major D20 publishers, would have been on sale at GenCon. I can see where WOTC desperately did not want this scenario to occur (and almost certainly knew it would), and using "bait and switch" tactics with the GSL (August, 2007:"It will be released under the OGL". December, 2007:"We have a revised OGL, pay us 5 grand." January, 2007 "Did we say OGL? We meant GSL." Feb, Mar, April 2007:"Any day now...", May 2007:"June 6!", June 6, 2007:"Next week!") looks just a little bit underhanded, even if every statement made was believed true at the time. It takes a certain degree of faith to believe there is no connection between the "nightmare scenario" of a multi-publisher 3.5 clone being on sale within two months of 4e and the long delay in the GSL which kept a lot of publishers from committing one way or the other. Based on the comments by people who know the people involved, I will say I do believe that there was no planned larceny and that it was all a series of corporate snafus and miscommunications.

 

[Oldtimer]

Well, that's fine to say, but you shouldn't speak for all publishers. Just because you prefer the OGL and don't like the restrictions doesn't mean you should make the judgment that no license would be better--let the people decide if they want to make GSL products.

The same tired old song...