What do 3rd-party publishers think of the GSL?

[Pinotage]

Looking at their boards, it looks like both Goodman and Necromancer are still on board. If that's not the case, someone correct me.

Yes. At least as I understand, though there may be differences. I haven't heard from Goodman, but I think they're all in with 4e. Necromancer are still looking for clarification on a few things, but Clark posted in another thread that he was now thinking about keeping 3e and 4e lines entirely separate and not updating any of his old material or lines. i.e. no Tome of Horrors 4e, but he did mention doing one for Pathfinder.

Pinotage

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I saw that about ToH, which is ironic, given that 4E is the line that most needs classic 1E monsters getting a modern treatment.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I can probably guess the answer, but has Expeditious Retreat Press come out with a decision?

 

[Orcus]

Okay, I get all that. Makes sense.
However, for a new writer getting into just 4E modules, the GSL seems to be okay. (Although I definitely agree with wanting monster statblocks in the licensed module; less page flipping)

I agree that there are far fewer considerations for adoption for someone who doesnt have an OGL backstock.

 

[DaveMage]

I can probably guess the answer, but has Expeditious Retreat Press come out with a decision?

I'm hoping their reaction to the GSL is in their name...

 

[Fifth Element]

It's funny, I don't see Wizards retiring their 1E, 2E, or 3E PDF product lines, but I have to do that?

Your concerns are valid. But Wizards owns the rights to 1E, 2E, 3E and 4E and the related IP. The OGL and GSL are licenses to use defined portions of their IP free of charge.

You know there's a big difference between their position and ours. I'm unenthused about the GSL - I'm undecided as to whether I'll ever publish any 4E stuff. And the sales of my 3.5 stuff dried right up when 4E was announced. But realize that you can't hold Wizards to the same standards. They own the stuff to begin with.

 

[Bacris]

But realize that you can't hold Wizards to the same standards.

I feel it's fair to call out hypocrisy, double-standards, or bait-and-switch when I see it.

In this case, the statement was made that the old back stocks of material for 3.x would not be made to "go away" with the GSL if the material was going to be made 4E compatible, just that the publisher could then not go back to 3.x for that material.

Instead, we now have that material has to be permanently removed if it is converted to 4E. Want Tome of Horrors in 4E? Well, then Tome of Horrors 3E has to go away.

That seems like a reverse course to me from what was said, while WotC's same products are still left intact.

Am I saying they don't have the right to? Absolutely not. But I think it's valid to point it out.

 

[Napftor]

Half-expecting this kind of debacle, I'm happy Tricky Owlbear has OGL/3.5-only products. At this time, there's no intention on the part of my company to provide 4e support. My product lines can continue without interruption or fear of sudden termination. For those publishers who plan on operating under the GSL: best of luck, but it is not for me thank you.

 

[der_kluge]

My new book "8-armed Tantric Goddesses of the Ancient Indian Mythos" will fail to see print under this license, so that I may bring you "Fluffy bunnies go on an adventure" instead.

That said, I actually had an idea for a PDF book that I seriously doubt would be allowed under the GSL since a significant portion of the books focus is on [a serious look] at prostitution.

Oh well. I'll do it for the OGL instead. No biggy.

 

[Orcus]

Half-expecting this kind of debacle, I'm happy Tricky Owlbear has OGL/3.5-only products. At this time, there's no intention on the part of my company to provide 4e support. My product lines can continue without interruption or fear of sudden termination. For those publishers who plan on operating under the GSL: best of luck, but it is not for me thank you.

That's good, because "owlbears" are not in the SRD, meaning your whole company could be in violation of the SRD

Hey, wait, neither is Orcus...