WOTC, Scott, Where in the World is the GSL

[Brown Jenkin]

Forgive me if the answer to this is obvious (I'm not in the industry), but can someone explain (or speculate) as to what WotC's goal is, or what they hope to gain by having an NDA for the license itself?

Edit- Nevermind. The purpose is the whole early adopter deal. I was just being thick I guess

No that is a very good questions which others would like answered as well.

 

[Relique du Madde]

Forgive me if the answer to this is obvious (I'm not in the industry), but can someone explain (or speculate) as to what WotC's goal is, or what they hope to gain by having an NDA for the license itself?

Edit- Nevermind. The purpose is the whole early adopter deal. I was just being thick I guess

Given that it's an NDA I'm pretty sure its to prevent the license from being posted on the web. For instance think about what kind of negative PR WoTC would receive if the GSL stated something along the lines: "All developers who create products using the Dungeons and Dragons 4e rules set are prohibited from creating future role playing game rules supplement for the d20 OGL."

I'm pretty sure that if that was to be the case they'd rather have it be a non-issue until the game is released, that way when GSL is revealed (in July or August) people wouldn't care as much and would not protest unlike what they would do if the details of the license were known well in advanced.

 

[Orcus]

No that is a very good questions which others would like answered as well.

Its just normal business practice. As a lawyer, I have negotiated hundreds of transactions. Every one I can think of -- including all of my licenses as a publisher, with WW, Judge Guild, Paizo, etc-- has included a confidentiality clause and is private. Licenses arent public. The GSL is interesting because it will be a public license when finalized, but now in draft form it is not. There is absolutely nothing unusual about having the initial draft of it under an NDA. My guess is the publishers may request a tweak here or a change there. In fact, it would be unusual if it were NOT under an NDA. There are lots of things about this whole GSL procedure that people could get upset about. The fact it is under an NDA is simply not one of them.

 

[Alzrius]

There are lots of things about this whole GSL procedure that people could get upset about.

What would you say some of those things are, Clark? I'm curious about how the procedure (along with the information about the GSL that's been publicly confirmed) looks from a publisher's standpoint.

 

[mhensley]

Please remember that even after the GSL is distributed for our review, we are all under NDAs so you likely wont hear anything for a while.

I don't want to hear the details of the license. I would like to hear some damage control and reassurance from wotc. I want Scott to come pat us on the head and tell us everything will be alright.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Its just normal business practice. As a lawyer, I have negotiated hundreds of transactions. Every one I can think of -- including all of my licenses as a publisher, with WW, Judge Guild, Paizo, etc-- has included a confidentiality clause and is private. Licenses arent public. The GSL is interesting because it will be a public license when finalized, but now in draft form it is not. There is absolutely nothing unusual about having the initial draft of it under an NDA. My guess is the publishers may request a tweak here or a change there. In fact, it would be unusual if it were NOT under an NDA. There are lots of things about this whole GSL procedure that people could get upset about. The fact it is under an NDA is simply not one of them.

Once more I would like to hear that from them and not you. No one is arguing that most licenses aren't public. The GSL however is not like most licenses and one of the main differences is that it will be public because that is its entire point. The point is to give 3rd parties the legal safety blanket to reuse WotC IP under certain circumstances. If this is to be similar to the OGL like they have stated then it will likely also be needed by every Tom, Dick, and Harry to post certain campaign stuff on the web. If this was a private licensing deal such as your deals with WW and Paizo then there wouldn't be an issue, but it is not. It is the public license that everyone will be using come June 6th and therefore a item that everyone is interested in because it does impact more than licensed publishers.

You are also making an assumption that we don't know about. Is the 5K buy in also a right to comment on the license or is it as we have been told just a early look at the rules and an exclusivity period. If it is a license comment period then they should say so. So far everything that we have been told is that the license available to the early adopters will be the same as the final version. WotC has said nothing about there being a comment period, even for those that pony up 5K. If this is why it is under NDA then WotC should say so, if not they should tell us why it is under NDA.

I am glad you are giving your opinions on the matter as you are one of the experts on the OGL and I am glad you are here. I am noticing a trend though here with your posts where your comments are coming off as fact and that that should be enough to end the discussion. I don't know if it is intentional and I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that it is not your intent, which is why I am letting you know what it is looking like in print. Unless you have been hired as legal council for WotC on this matter and authorized to answer for them then that is one thing, otherwise myself and others would like to hear this from WotC themselves.

Edit: Spelling.

 

[GMSkarka]

Personally speaking, I'd rather that WOTC staffers do what they're doing: concentrate on getting this GSL issue resolved and out to us publishers who have signed the NDA, instead of wasting time answering GSL questions from non-publishers.

No offense, but the GSL is, essentially, an issue for publishers. If you aren't a publisher, haven't signed the NDA, then your questions are nothing more than by-stander curiousity -- which is all well and good, but I'd rather that they not waste time dealing with that.

 

[DaveMage]

No offense, but the GSL is, essentially, an issue for publishers. If you aren't a publisher, haven't signed the NDA, then your questions are nothing more than by-stander curiousity -- which is all well and good, but I'd rather that they not waste time dealing with that.

Fansites could be affected as well, so it may not be just a publisher issue.

 

[GMSkarka]

Fansites could be affected as well, so it may not be just a publisher issue.

Non-publisher use of the GSL is not remotely a factor until after the public go-live date.

 

[Orcus]

What would you say some of those things are, Clark? I'm curious about how the procedure (along with the information about the GSL that's been publicly confirmed) looks from a publisher's standpoint.

I'm not getting sucked into that Nice try. And you are smart enough to figure out on your own what the frustrations are for a publisher. Its pretty simple--we dont have the license yet or the content yet.

But I am still 100% convinced that Wizards supports open gaming and that Scott and Co. get it and will allow us to support 4E.

Clark