Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PatrickLawinger" data-source="post: 4409907" data-attributes="member: 2735">Well, we already have tons of back and forth on this.First, WotC's website does go down, pretty regularly I am afraid, the forums much more often than the DnD pages, but still, it is (was) down when I started reading this thread. That said, I really don't think that has an effect on anything and isn't a point against the GSL (at least not to me).Second, trust is often based on the individuals within a business that one has dealt with. It is obvious to people that have spoken to them at GenCon or via email, etc. that Scott Rouse and Linae Foster strongly support open gaming, yet the GSL is clearly not what they were hoping for either. This means that other people within WotC have had a profound effect on the GSL and are likely to have that effect on any future changes or licenses. In other words, we trust Scott and Linae, but we really do not trust the people "above" them.The level of trust the community had for Ryan Dancey when he was working on the OGL and d20 STL was, I would say, an order of magnitude greater than what the community has for WotC as a whole right now. Scott and Linae are trusted but there is a general feeling that they don't have the power to do what they might really want to do.When you take that reduced level of trust into account, clauses in the GSL become difficult for publishers (mostly established and/or print publishers) to swallow. Yes, the d20STL could be changed at will, but there was a "cure" period where publishers could work to bring products in line with the STL and avoid having to pulp books. Right now, the GSL could be changed in a way that puts your latest print product in violation (even if it is a minor violation) and could end with you losing the right to publish under the GSL AND have to pulp your stock of books. Is this a "probable" outcome? No, honestly, it just isn't probable at all (in my opinion). HOWEVER, it does give print publishers something to fear. I really can't describe clearly how terrifying something like that would be for a publisher. Add a down economy and slow sales into the mix and established publishers are clearly slow to sign onto the GSL.The GSL is similar to other licenses in that it strongly favors the licensor but a lot of publishers feel that it simply does not offer enough in exchange for the rights they have to surrender. It is easy for some publishers to simply use the "copyright route" (as it has been described on message boards) than to worry about the GSL.  Others just don't want to bother with the GSL at all. As a license, well, I have seen worse, but I personally feel that this one is poorly written and leaves clauses open to wide interpretation.It comes down to Corjay's point about trust and business being based on trust. Right now the smaller publishers really don't trust WotC. They trust PEOPLE at WotC but all of us have seen enough changes in staffing that nobody knows who the "people" will be next year. I have my notes from last year's meeting with Scott Rouse and Bill Slaviscek on my desk right now. I can assure you that WotC failed to deliver on a minimum of 3 promises from that meeting. This hasn't helped engender trust on the part of publishers.I do think more publishers will sign on to the GSL in the future, but I also expect established publishers and print publishers to hang back a bit and be very cautious. They will want "clarifications" of material in the GSL to insure that everyone has a clear understanding of the various clauses and that they mean the same thing to everyone involved. PDF publishers and smaller publishers without significant OGL backstock are likely (and so far are) the first adopters.Okay, time to take my kids to the swimming pool ...Patrick</blockquote>

Verification