WotC Doesn't (Didn't) Understand the OGL

[2WS-Steve]

Psion has mentioned it in other posts and I remember how the OGL in (I think) the Monster Manual 2 wasn't properly implemented. The guys at Lone Wolf, makers of Hero Lab, said this in a forum post:

At the start of January, Wizards announced a new plan
for the 4th Edition OGL and the opportunity to be an early adopter
for a $5000 buy-in. We were keenly interested. The following week,
Wizards rescinded the plan and "re-started from scratch", according
to Wizards' point-person for the program. They've now decided to call
it the "Game System License" to effect a full departure from the OGL
and SRD, which means Wizards may be making substantial changes to how
the new GSL works. Consequently, we have no idea how the GSL will be
structured relative to software like HL. As of this week's update
from Wizards, they are "60% done" with the re-write, after which they
need to get it "reviewed by senior management". This is after four
weeks of re-work already. So our best guess is that we'll actually
have something we can *start* to assess in the middle of March.

Frankly, amateurs with no legal expertise were discussing and debating how WotC would handle the "use any version" clause of the old OGL months ago -- even pointing out precisely that we assumed WotC would simply call it something new, so that it wouldn't count as a new version of the old license.

That, what I imagine is a highly paid legal staff, didn't notice this until January ought to be pretty embarrassing.

 

[Henry]

The only thing that concerns me is that the "Early Adopter" license's actual draw is going to be frittered away to nothing if the license doesn't get out by early March or so. Given that publishers are going to need to have time to absorb the rules and their impact, and that they'll only have five months of lead time, that leaves only a couple of months to produce quality product to look good enough to complement what Wizards has lined up. Too late, and the early adopters and those thinking about it might decide to just wait.

 

[Oldtimer]

The only thing that concerns me is that the "Early Adopter" license's actual draw is going to be frittered away to nothing if the license doesn't get out by early March or so. Given that publishers are going to need to have time to absorb the rules and their impact, and that they'll only have five months of lead time, that leaves only a couple of months to produce quality product to look good enough to complement what Wizards has lined up. Too late, and the early adopters and those thinking about it might decide to just wait.

From what I've heard, they are now considering extending the exclusive period for the early adopters to make up for the lost time.

 

[DaveMage]

Remember when all the publishers were hoping for the rules last November?

 

[Bacris]

If Monte's new book introduces concepts similar to what 4E has, but using 3.5 rules, I foresee some interesting things happening in the industry.

 

[Lizard]

Frankly, amateurs with no legal expertise were discussing and debating how WotC would handle the "use any version" clause of the old OGL months ago -- even pointing out precisely that we assumed WotC would simply call it something new, so that it wouldn't count as a new version of the old license.

That, what I imagine is a highly paid legal staff, didn't notice this until January ought to be pretty embarrassing.

Here's the other thing -- one of the main designers of 4e is Mike Mearls, a man who earned a living with the OGL for many years. Speaking as someone who did quite a bit of OGL development myself, if you earned money from the OGL, you knew it, backwards and forwards. You were on the debate lists and forums, you understood all the terms and requirements. Since I do not think Mr. Mearls is either evil or incompetent, I have to assume he (and the other game designers) were "out of the loop" during the development of the "new" OGL (now GSL), and were never asked to provide their input into it.

Rich Baker is also an OGL "graduate", isn't he?

 

[2WS-Steve]

Rich Baker is also an OGL "graduate", isn't he?

He wrote a module for Atlas, but I'm not sure how much else.

I figure you're right about them not talking to Mearls -- though I don't remember him being on any of the discussion lists so I'm not sure how up he is on the execution of the license as opposed to working with covered material.

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

I assure you that Mearls and the rest of that team has nothing to do with the development of the GSL, as that falls under Legal.

 

[Lizard]

I assure you that Mearls and the rest of that team has nothing to do with the development of the GSL, as that falls under Legal.

And I (and many other freelancers and OGL publishers) had nothing to do with the GSL, but we all commented in August that adding a "community values" clause to the OGL would be pointless due to the nature of the license, so if we knew it (and publicly commented on it), it's odd that none of the OGL-aware developers and designers at WOTC simply remarked, in passing, "Dude, you're doing it wrong." This would imply that not only did WOTC/Hasbro legal not understand the license, that they did not seek any input from those on the staff who DID, nor did they pay any attention to the various public discussions on the license, or the discussions on industry lists which WOTC employees are subscribed to.

That's a level of isolation I find difficult to believe.

 

[Bacris]

Well, there's also the option that the way they wanted to handle the OGL / GSL from the beginning to now changed significantly, so the original agreement worked fine, but then when opinions / decisions changes, the agreement itself had to be changed.

Just a thought, instead of assuming WotC legal were ignorant or isolated.