Wizards of the Coast is pleased to announce that third-party publishers will be allowed to publish products compatible with the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition game system under the new Dungeons & Dragons 4E Game System License (D&D 4E GSL). This royalty-free license will replace the former d20 System Trademark License (STL), and will have a System Reference Document (SRD) available for referencing permissible content.
The D&D 4E GSL will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in fantasy settings with the D&D 4th Edition rules, and publishers who register with WotC will be granted the right to use a version of the D&D logo that denotes the product as compatible with the D&D 4th Edition Roleplaying Game, in accordance with WotC’s terms and conditions. The effective start date for sales of D&D 4E GSL publications will be October 1, 2008.
The license associated SRD will be available on June 6, 2008, at no cost. A small group of publishers received advanced notice and will receive these documents prior to June 6, at no cost, in order to prepare for publication of compatible materials by the effective start date. If you haven’t already been contact by WotC, you will be able to access the documents on the Wizards website beginning on June 6, 2008.
Wizards is also working on the details of a second royalty-free license, the d20 Game System License (d20 GSL). This license will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in non-fantasy settings with the 4E rules. The exact details for the d20 GSL will be released as they become available.
GSL NEWS
Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Game System License
Wizards of the Coast is pleased to announce that third-party publishers will be allowed to publish products compatible with the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition game system under the new Dungeons & Dragons 4E Game System License (D&D 4E GSL). This royalty-free license will replace the former d20 System Trademark License (STL), and will have a System Reference Document (SRD) available for referencing permissible content.
The D&D 4E GSL will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in fantasy settings with the D&D 4th Edition rules, and publishers who register with WotC will be granted the right to use a version of the D&D logo that denotes the product as compatible with the D&D 4th Edition Roleplaying Game, in accordance with WotC’s terms and conditions. The effective start date for sales of D&D 4E GSL publications will be October 1, 2008.
The license associated SRD will be available on June 6, 2008, at no cost. A small group of publishers received advanced notice and will receive these documents prior to June 6, at no cost, in order to prepare for publication of compatible materials by the effective start date. If you haven’t already been contact by WotC, you will be able to access the documents on the Wizards website beginning on June 6, 2008.
Wizards is also working on the details of a second royalty-free license, the d20 Game System License (d20 GSL). This license will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in non-fantasy settings with the 4E rules. The exact details for the d20 GSL will be released as they become available.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!
-Mike
I'd say that it would be too time-consuming to be profitable.
Anyways, finally some good news about that mess.
Second Reaction: October?
I do, however, like the split between fantasy and non-fantasy.
One question:
....and publishers who register with WotC will be granted the right to use a version of the D&D logo that denotes the product as compatible with the D&D 4th Edition Roleplaying Game, in accordance with WotC’s terms and conditions.
Does this mean you can choose not to register. If so, can you still produce items under the GSL?
It's unfortunate that they won't be able to publish anything for GenCon.
Wizards of the Coast is pleased to announce that third-party publishers will be allowed to publish products compatible with the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition game system under the new Dungeons & Dragons 4E Game System License (D&D 4E GSL). This royalty-free license will replace the former d20 System Trademark License (STL), and will have a System Reference Document (SRD) available for referencing permissible content.
GamerZer0, any chance you can elaborate on replacing the original STL? That one word seems to be stirring the pot for some people.
Am I misreading this, or is this a policy change? I thought that they weren't going to release the GSL for open publishing until late this year/early next year, and that they were only going to allow publishers to work on stuff before that if they paid some kind of licensing fee (5k if memory serves me). Am I recalling this incorrectly?
Your aren't that was the old plan. This is a brand new plan
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!
-Mike
Can people without a business license publish material under this GSL thing?
Will the only requirement be similar to previous? Must include license, must have content WotC and others can use (aka open gaming content), whatever else it said.
Can the products say "allowed to publish products compatible with the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition game system".
Didn't the whole "Tapping" lawsuit make it clear game mechanics could not be copyrighted, rather the presentation of them was what was copyrighted?
Does this license really do anything other than prevent people from publishing a home-brew version of the new edition?
Can people publish a home-brew version of the new edition, so long as they adhere to the above, and not give the game mechanics verbatim as the books published by WotC?
What about older editions? Will they ever see some sort of OGL/GSL/SRD/whatever? OD&D, AD&D, BD&D, etc editions prior to WotC ownership of the copyrights, or direct WotC creation of the edition.
Can we have this in laymens terms as well as the legalese version when the time comes? My characters never earned the skill ranks (I think that is what the d20srd calls them for 3rd edition) enough to have Legalese as a language. :P
Are you able to answer any of the questions presented prior to THIS question? Legally, casually, personal interpretation of the article itself, etc.
Can people without a business license publish material under this GSL thing?
Will the only requirement be similar to previous? Must include license, must have content WotC and others can use (aka open gaming content), whatever else it said.
Can the products say "allowed to publish products compatible with the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition game system".
Didn't the whole "Tapping" lawsuit make it clear game mechanics could not be copyrighted, rather the presentation of them was what was copyrighted?
Does this license really do anything other than prevent people from publishing a home-brew version of the new edition?
Can people publish a home-brew version of the new edition, so long as they adhere to the above, and not give the game mechanics verbatim as the books published by WotC?
What about older editions? Will they ever see some sort of OGL/GSL/SRD/whatever? OD&D, AD&D, BD&D, etc editions prior to WotC ownership of the copyrights, or direct WotC creation of the edition.
Can we have this in laymens terms as well as the legalese version when the time comes? My characters never earned the skill ranks (I think that is what the d20srd calls them for 3rd edition) enough to have Legalese as a language. :P
Are you able to answer any of the questions presented prior to THIS question? Legally, casually, personal interpretation of the article itself, etc.
GamerZer0, any chance you can elaborate on replacing the original STL? That one word seems to be stirring the pot for some people.
The d20 STL (the license to use the red and black logo) is going away.
In its place will be two new licenses. One that allows publishers to use a D&D 4e compatible logo and publish products using the 4e content and another that will allow publishers to use a to be determined compatibility logo (d20 Modern?) and 4e like rules for non D&D/fantasy settings.
Second Reaction: October?
This is a marked improvement over the January, 2009 date we previously had.
Can people without a business license publish material under this GSL thing?
Most likely yes.
Will the only requirement be similar to previous? Must include license, must have content WotC and others can use (aka open gaming content), whatever else it said.
The license will have it's own requirements and should not get in the the way of publishers making 4e compatible products, after all that is it's purpose
Can the products say "allowed to publish products compatible with the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition game system".
The license will allow publishers to say something to the effect of "compatible with the 4e of D&D" but it does grant publishers to grant it to others as I interpret from the question. It's our Trademark after all. This is a big reason for the new license.
Didn't the whole "Tapping" lawsuit make it clear game mechanics could not be copyrighted, rather the presentation of them was what was copyrighted?
I am not a lawyer and although I have familiarity with the concept you are speaking of I can not provide an opinion. In my experience nothing about law is "clear".
Does this license really do anything other than prevent people from publishing a home-brew version of the new edition?
It allows publishers to use the D&D trademark and content
Can people publish a home-brew version of the new edition, so long as they adhere to the above, and not give the game mechanics verbatim as the books published by WotC?
Anyone can use the license.
What about older editions? Will they ever see some sort of OGL/GSL/SRD/whatever? OD&D, AD&D, BD&D, etc editions prior to WotC ownership of the copyrights, or direct WotC creation of the edition.
Not likley unless that content is re-released under 4e and allowed for use under the GSL. But as a whole system and entire contents, no.
Can we have this in laymens terms as well as the legalese version when the time comes? My characters never earned the skill ranks (I think that is what the d20srd calls them for 3rd edition) enough to have Legalese as a language. :P
It is a license and needs to use the legalese.
We'll have FAQs and such to helps answer the questions some will have but that does not replace getting legal advice from an attorney.
Are you able to answer any of the questions presented prior to THIS question? Legally, casually, personal interpretation of the article itself, etc.
I hope we just did
The d20 STL (the license to use the red and black logo) is going away.
In its place will be two new licenses. One that allows publishers to use a D&D 4e compatible logo and publish products using the 4e content and another that will allow publishers to use a to be determined compatibility logo (d20 Modern?) and 4e like rules for non D&D/fantasy settings.
By the looks of this post, and a few other bits here and there it appears that they are trying to cut out the ability to make alternate core rulebooks like True20, Arcana Evolved, Pathfinder, and so on using the d20 system. At least this doesn't seem to be an option for fantasy settings. All systems are going to be attached to the D&D rules, which is a good and bad thing. You don't get to use the d20 system to make your own game, but you can publish a fantasy setting using the D&D rules and actually get to have D&D(compatible) printed on the book. They will be allowing the game framework to be used for non-fantasy settings.
The first part is interesting as well. Does this mean the d20 logo and franchise is ending? Does this mean that current books like Iron Heroes can't use that logo anymore, or does it mean they can't use the old system?
You guys at WotC had me worried there for a while. Thanks for coming through for us.
utterly AMAZING NEWS!
This is a paper launch. It just says in a month and a half we will show you the conditions under which we will allow you to create product that will be compatible with our 4e system. All you have to do is sign up with us. All this says it that their lawyers finally have the contract you have to sign ready if you want to play in the 4e sandbox.
Dragon, I still am.
I confess I was worried about the poor 3rd parties as well.
I am especially concerned they went out of their way not to say who the special partners who get in early are or what they had to do to get first crack at the system. If I were a small publisher who works with D&D I would be a little put out by that.
Just sayin...
Sorry Elemental_Elf I don't see any
This is a paper launch. It just says in a month and a half we will show you the conditions under which we will allow you to create product that will be compatible with our 4e system. All you have to do is sign up with us. All this says it that their lawyers finally have the contract you have to sign ready if you want to play in the 4e sandbox.
Dragon, I still am.
I am especially concerned they went out of their way not to say who the special partners who get in early are or what they had to do to get first crack at the system. If I were a small publisher who works with D&D I would be a little put out by that.
Just sayin...
The list of people who were invited into their small circle of early starters has been public for a while. EnWorld had the list posted back in January. I would imagine that after that, any other publishers who showed interest were given the standard information packet.
At the time, to get first dibs cost $5000. Now it doesn't. Though now that it's free, I would imagine they'll turn away anyone who wasn't on the list of interested parties from the beginning from being one of the early publishers.
Everyone else can start selling in January, so getting the SRD in June instead of today isn't going to crush anyone's dreams.
So a number of questions result, however. If you could:
What does this mean for individuals (not companies) that want to produce D&D-compatible material? The implication I get from the announcement is that you have to somehow enter into an agreement with WotC with the D&D GSL - it's not a "pick it up and use it" EULA style license like the OGL was. Is that correct? What degree of "hoops" will there be for joe/jane blow who wants to make material and release it for free, or put it into a PDF to sell on ENWorld or whatnot? I'm hoping there's no "Gleemax only" nonsense in there for that.
Corollary - can people release free 4e stuff before October?
I know the actual T&Cs will be released later, but is the intent to allow people to produce all the usual materials - adventures, supplements, new classes/races/monsters/rules/game worlds, etc? Or will there be an unpleasant surprise when the T&Cs come out that it'll be limited? (I understand that the D&D GSL does not cover variant OGL-style games of old and that the d20 GSL will cover that).
What's the intent of the "non-fantasy" clause in the description of the d20 GSL? I hope it's just "no medieval fantasy thingys cause that'd compete with D&D," but what about e.g. Urban Arcana/Shadowrun - that's "fantasy" but modern. In terms of current games, I assume Mutants & Masterminds - OK, Conan - not OK. I hope that it's cast such that anything significantly different from the normal D&D milieu would be OK... It'll be hard to define this I think. Ravenloft/d20WoD - "fantasy" or no? Steampunk? Dark Sun style world?
I'm a little confused about the need for a SRD with the D&D GSL. I understand it with the d20 GSL, but for the D&D GSL what's the reasoning to make things "off limits"? One of the biggest problems with the old SRD was that things didn't get put into it much or in a timely manner. And it would suck for it to be a case where "in your adventure, you can't mention the Feywild, or mind flayers, that's PI..." I could see like the Forgotten Realms being restricted so it can be licensed separately, but what in the "core 3 books" should be off limits for adventure/supplement authors? Now, with the d20 GSL, I can see that being a SRD that is kinda core mechanics only and none of the cosmology, etc.
Most likely yes.
Ok this address the concerns I have heard about dealing with that special panel discussin the initial 4th edition new licenses. OGL, STL, d20 trademark, etc.
Hopefully gamers can maybe make little adventures and publish them even for free or a small fee to share with others with the license without geting attacked by rabid lawyers for improper use of IP or copyright violation when a module or adventure contains some proprietary monster name or something.
Because you know people rally want to put the word "beholder" in a module, if only to refer to MM page 14 to have to find the stats on said monster.
The license will have it's own requirements and should not get in the the way of publishers making 4e compatible products, after all that is it's purpose
So even tiny publishers can use it without too much backlash or worry from a mistake where they may not have large law firms to confirm every action. (WB & JKR v HP Lexicon books publisher). The license will be small and tell what is needed like the previous OGL is what I ultimately mean, rather than being something like the full blown trademark use license with more complicated requirements and no-nos for getting to use the iconography.
The license will allow publishers to say something to the effect of "compatible with the 4e of D&D" but it does grant publishers to grant it to others as I interpret from the question. It's our Trademark after all. This is a big reason for the new license.
I think we are saying the same thing. License say I as a publisher can make this simulated cover for a module.
The Dungeon of Blah Blah
compatible with the 4e of D&D
under the D&D 4E SGL included within
WotC would all the use of the "subtitle", but I would not own that subtitle, I just have the right to use it to allow people to know that this non-WotC product is in fact compatible with 4E, but don't have the right to give someone else permission to call something compatible with 4E or any other version of D&D or relative 4E products, such as PHB, DMG, or MM, but solely I can say compatible with 4E D&D as a whole. And would probably need some other disclaimer where the compatible part is that states that the product nor publisher is no directly connected with WotC and that D&D and 4E are copyrighted to WotC....etc etc. etc. legal stuff I barely understand. :D
I am not a lawyer and although I have familiarity with the concept you are speaking of I can not provide an opinion. In my experience nothing about law is "clear".
True. LAws are made for lawyers to have something to argue about while regular people side back and watch.
It allows publishers to use the D&D trademark and content
WOAH! You can use the D&D logo with this D&D 4E SGL?
I thought you could only used the words "D&D" or maybe even "Dungeons & Dragons", but not an actual brand image such as a logo (like the one in the banner at the top of the page) which is to my understanding what is trademarked.Anyone can use the license.
So someone could rewite and recompile the rules with major changes from the SRD version into a home-brew version. Not call it D&D but maybe "Hellmute's Homebrew RPG Version" and sell it as a modified ruleset so long as it doesn't contain the same descriptions but rewritten descriptions for things (unless the SRD allows a straight copy to be sold, which I doubt) but still gets to use the tables or sets of data without callign it anythign remotely like D&D?
This is a very confusing quesiton and I probably already butchered it to where it makes no sense, but will be wiling to try and simply it more later IF possible to be answered without our attornies present. (I hate getting gifts for lawyers.
)Not likley unless that content is re-released under 4e and allowed for use under the GSL. But as a whole system and entire contents, no.
Would the D&D 4E GSL be where the older edition not covered by the d20 or 3rd edition OGL and such be found, or would they not require their own version of an OGL/SGL/ETC for each edition?
You know people want to be able to make adventures for older editions too even if there is no chance at producing the core books in which to run them, or creating anything similar to the core books which Hackmaster could be said to have been IF you liked those changes to AD&D. But adventures for without being able to reproduce the Rules Cyclopedia should not be that hard to have some kind of SRD to allow inclusion for right?
I know competition with existing game system bad! Maybe a license that wont have people shot for making free AD&D or older material. Again in light of the current Harry Potter thing.
It is a license and needs to use the legalese.
We'll have FAQs and such to helps answer the questions some will have but that does not replace getting legal advice from an attorney.
As long as the FAQ helps break it down:
Products MUST include an unaltered copy of this SGL.
Here is the material you CAN use.
Here is the disclaimer you MUST use.
Here is the "compatible with" phrase you CAN use, and MUST use unaltered.
I hope we just did
It did, I just hope some of these clearifications are possible prior to the actual institution of the new GSL and it becomes active.
There was one more question in light of the DDI.
The article makes no mention of software, such as homemade character generators or something like that, or anything else.
Of course the right to jsut make video games form D&D would not go over so well, and with DDI I don't think a Char Gen would either, but some people like to have things that include their honebrew tabletop games included in a little program for offline use. Computers that may not even HAVE internet access, but can still run a web-browser with javascript, or a complete compiled program.
Is there anything with the license that even allows for free web-based software to use ANY 4E content for ease of things like calculating characters modifiers and such in the event of DDI downtime due to regularly scheduled maintenance or upgrades for inclusion of new material from future core books?
Thanks for answering those intial quesitons at least even if you can't in laymens terms further explain any of the answers.
WOW! The Brand Manager!
Don't know what that is but it sounds important, like you have the final say in all things D&D.
Sorry Elemental_Elf I don't see any
This is a paper launch. It just says in a month and a half we will show you the conditions under which we will allow you to create product that will be compatible with our 4e system. All you have to do is sign up with us. All this says it that their lawyers finally have the contract you have to sign ready if
Well... Ok yeah not utterly amazing... :embarrass I was just excited to see that 4e won't be a truly closed system.
Great news, kudos to Scott and Linae!
So a number of questions result, however. If you could:
What does this mean for individuals (not companies) that want to produce D&D-compatible material? The implication I get from the announcement is that you have to somehow enter into an agreement with WotC with the D&D GSL - it's not a "pick it up and use it" EULA style license like the OGL was. Is that correct? What degree of "hoops" will there be for joe/jane blow who wants to make material and release it for free, or put it into a PDF to sell on ENWorld or whatnot? I'm hoping there's no "Gleemax only" nonsense in there for that.
It will be a registration card you send in acknowledging acceptance of the license
Corollary - can people release free 4e stuff before October?
Yes free promotional stuff will be allowed
I know the actual T&Cs will be released later, but is the intent to allow people to produce all the usual materials - adventures, supplements, new classes/races/monsters/rules/game worlds, etc? Or will there be an unpleasant surprise when the T&Cs come out that it'll be limited? (I understand that the D&D GSL does not cover variant OGL-style games of old and that the d20 GSL will cover that).
The T&Cs for products will look much like the d20 STL
What's the intent of the "non-fantasy" clause in the description of the d20 GSL? I hope it's just "no medieval fantasy thingys cause that'd compete with D&D," but what about e.g. Urban Arcana/Shadowrun - that's "fantasy" but modern. In terms of current games, I assume Mutants & Masterminds - OK, Conan - not OK. I hope that it's cast such that anything significantly different from the normal D&D milieu would be OK... It'll be hard to define this I think. Ravenloft/d20WoD - "fantasy" or no? Steampunk? Dark Sun style world?
Stuff for D&D (medieval fanatsy) will be covered under the D&D GSL. Other stuff like UA will go under the d20 GSL.
I'm a little confused about the need for a SRD with the D&D GSL. I understand it with the d20 GSL, but for the D&D GSL what's the reasoning to make things "off limits"? One of the biggest problems with the old SRD was that things didn't get put into it much or in a timely manner. And it would suck for it to be a case where "in your adventure, you can't mention the Feywild, or mind flayers, that's PI..." I could see like the Forgotten Realms being restricted so it can be licensed separately, but what in the "core 3 books" should be off limits for adventure/supplement authors? Now, with the d20 GSL, I can see that being a SRD that is kinda core mechanics only and none of the cosmology, etc.
The license is meant to give publishers access to content and IP (like use of the D&D Trademark).
The new format of the SRD will be mostly as list Terms, Tables, and Templates and not a full blown rules document so it will be much easier to have timely updates of new content.
I made a suggestion here expounded upon here, here, here, here and Scott replied here which I then replied to Scott here. Also there's a lot of good discussion between my posts by other people
In a nut shell with the new license requiring publishers to specifically list where they got all pieces of OGC in a seperate pdf (or in an appendix in the back if they want). So that down stream publishers know whatparts to put in their Sec. 15's (assuming there is still a sec. 15) and that the original authors still get proper credit for their original work.
Since the new SRD is essentially a expanded OGC declaration to the core books (hopefully the rest of the PHB/s & MM's and DMG's also), will any officially published errata be OGC the moment it is posted to the website?
And one final question (I think) are we still using the term OGC or will there be a new term? That's mostly because I like to be precise in my language
I definitely want to get a chance to meet you and shake your hand. Or hopefully I'd bump into you at some point. From what I am understanding, I could create a book of homebrew monsters; a Monster Manual of sorts, come up with a unique name and post on the cover "Compatible for use with the 4th-edition of Dungeons and Dragons"
Then say, on the very last page go through the legal rigmarole and be able to sell it in hopes for a profit.
And if I want the official 4E/d20-compatible or whatever logo, I could fill out a registration card and send it in.
Am I understanding this right?
The license is meant to give publishers access to content and IP (like use of the D&D Trademark).
The new format of the SRD will be mostly as list Terms, Tables, and Templates and not a full blown rules document so it will be much easier to have timely updates of new content.
Sure, but will publishers be able to refer to anything in the core books or just a subset? Do we have to worry about "adventures with no beholders, slaad, or mind flayers," as we do right now? Or no "Feywild, Shadowwhatnot, and Abyss Revised(tm)" in 4e-speak?
A SRD with just references does make it easier to update, and that's good, but saying "yeah, use any of these monsters" is even easier. I know you want to make it so someone can't just reprint the full text of the PHB/MM/DMG and resell it, but I'm hoping there's a way to do that without causing any intrusive limitation to legit use - adventure in the Feywild, supplement on ecology of the illithid, etc.
Mike &/or Scott,
I made a suggestion here expounded upon here, here, here, here and Scott replied here which I then replied to Scott here. Also there's a lot of good discussion between my posts by other people
In a nut shell with the new license requiring publishers to specifically list where they got all pieces of OGC in a seperate pdf (or in an appendix in the back if they want). So that down stream publishers know whatparts to put in their Sec. 15's (assuming there is still a sec. 15) and that the original authors still get proper credit for their original work.
I was just looking at the new True20 Trademark License and even the normal Section 15 list is kinda long and grody. http://true20.com/licensing/. If someone wanted to specifically annotate further, fine, but I think requiring it would be onerous.
My reading of the announcement is as such.
If you want to put the logo on your product that it is "DnD 4th edition compatable" you are required to get the GLS licence.
If you create something that IS 4th edition compatable, BUT don't mention DnD or refrence it, you are in the clear.
In the same way, if you made a case designed to hold an Iphone, and wanted to sell it as an Iphone Case, you would need to get some permission with Apple. However, if you simply were selling that case as "Holds many common cell phones, PDAs, and other personal electronics" you would not need their permission
however, IANAL
Scott - will there be a "fan" web kit - (ie, graphics items we can put on our homebrew?)
Thanks
-Dave
So, is the 4ed GSL basically like the 3ed OGL?
Good question.
Got 5k to find out?
Good question.
Got 5k to find out?
Irrelevant. The 5k thing is gone.
Good question.
Got 5k to find out?
No fee anymore. Read the news!
Will the new license still allow software i.e. Character Generators, NPC Generators, Treasure Generators etc?
I would like to add onto this question by asking if this extends to certain game-running products such as Fantasy Grounds and the like.
Will the new license still allow software i.e. Character Generators, NPC Generators, Treasure Generators etc?
The products allowed will be similar to those allowed under the d20 STL. No interactive games will be allowed.
I merged the two similar threads into one at the request of the VCL. I apologize in advance for any confusion, but it will work out for the best this way. I promise. :D
Oh there are quite a few more than just two threads related to this GSL. I have seen maybe one on each subforum about it.
If the articles had a thread set up when they went live to direct people to with the "Discuss this article" link then it might aid in people discussing it in the same place, rathern than just sending to a forum to make new threads. Then again it might not work. Just an observation.
The products allowed will be similar to those allowed under the d20 STL. No interactive games will be allowed.
Please clearify this term: interactive game
Is the Game Table considered an interactive game?
Is a series of calculators for modifiers considered an interactive game?
Does it require being able to play through a story (Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft) without using the rulebooks to be considered an interactive game?
Will only the d20 GSL allow for computer aids and tools to be created or D&D 4E GSL allow for those computer aids?
Not everyone knows about or understands fully this former STL.
"Interactive Game": means a piece of software that is designed to accept inputs from human players or their agents, and use rules to resolve the success or failure of those inputs, and return some indication of the results of those inputs to the users. Success and failure includes any determination wherein one outcome is preferable to another. This includes the random determination of hit points, ability scores, and the like.
This is a good working definition of what constitutes an "Interactive Game" as per the STL.... As indicated above, the GSL will use similar language (but may expand upon said definition or change the wording in some way). As such, this is a good working model.
IOWs, any software that accepts inputs (aka: Commands) falls under an Interactive Game. Character generators and Ability Check generators fall under an Interactive Game by this definition as they:
- Are a piece of software that accepts inputs (commands) from the player, or agent (Selecting a Class, Feat, Power, etc is inputing a command).
- Use the rules to determine the success/failure of those inputs (Is the chosen class, feat, power a legal selection?)
- And, return some indication of those results to the user (A printable character sheet).
Sorry to disappoint you, but the STL did not allow these kinds of products, and likely, neither will the GSL
For a detailed description of the kinds of limitations we can expect to see, please read the Open Game Licence, d20 System Licence 6.0, and the d20 System Guide 5.0 which you can find Here
Hope this helps
"Interactive Game": means a piece of software that is designed to accept inputs from human players or their agents, and use rules to resolve the success or failure of those inputs, and return some indication of the results of those inputs to the users. Success and failure includes any determination wherein one outcome is preferable to another. This includes the random determination of hit points, ability scores, and the like.
This is a good working definition of what constitutes an "Interactive Game" as per the STL.... As indicated above, the GSL will use similar language (but may expand upon said definition or change the wording in some way). As such, this is a good working model.
IOWs, any software that accepts inputs (aka: Commands) falls under an Interactive Game. Character generators and Ability Check generators fall under an Interactive Game by this definition as they:
- Are a piece of software that accepts inputs (commands) from the player, or agent (Selecting a Class, Feat, Power, etc is inputing a command).
- Use the rules to determine the success/failure of those inputs (Is the chosen class, feat, power a legal selection?)
- And, return some indication of those results to the user (A printable character sheet).
Sorry to disappoint you, but the STL did not allow these kinds of products, and likely, neither will the GSL
For a detailed description of the kinds of limitations we can expect to see, please read the Open Game Licence, d20 System Licence 6.0, and the d20 System Guide 5.0 which you can find Here
Hope this helps
The most important thing I had to come back and copy and paste into the above reply. Why will this forum not use nested quotations?
Now this is in no way directed at you, just using your definition to help me understand what is therein from the part I had to copy and paste back in..
"Interactive Game": means a piece of software that is designed to accept inputs from human players or their agents, and use rules to resolve the success or failure of those inputs, and return some indication of the results of those inputs to the users. Success and failure includes any determination wherein one outcome is preferable to another. This includes the random determination of hit points, ability scores, and the like.
Those bolded parts contradict the last bit, and that is only part of the problem as I see with it. So I will say a few things here and then ask another question, If you do not mind or anyone explaining further....
Interactive Game, MUST include all those parts by the definition.
-piece of software
-desgined to accept input
-use rules to resolve success or failure
-return results (success or failure) of inputs
Well that seems easy enough, remove the third one. The definition of what constitutes success or failure is really stupid and like someone doesn't even understand the English language. Therefore should not be trying to make some document for any kind of law.
If I am wanting to eat out at a fast food joint and cannot decide McDonalds or Burger King, but want one of those and get one of those then I succeed with no chance of failure. Rolling a d6 to say even is one and odd is the other did NOT determine my success or failure of having lunch.
Likewise random determination of HP is not a success or failure. Zero is an valid option for HP. Not rolling a die or rolling the best HP would still yeild a success at having HP in a character generator program. There is no chance of failure so long as there is a place to indicate HP exists.
What they are trying to say is including something to do the math for you is not wanted, in a way to prevent making a full blown game. It is alos stupid to think that software to fill in forms constitutes being a game. Video Games have calculators in their code to do this math, but not all calculators are games.
Like I said before, all that is neede is to follow the above definition then correct? Since and interactive game constitues all of the above things as indicated by the AND preceding each new part. Simply have places to input the results of real dice rolls, and not have the software roll your dice for you. That is even the software I like best!
I roll my ability scores by hand and put them in. I choose what weapon I want and it calculates the attack and damage from my scores to show me the results of the math. Not a random success or fail, but just addition of the silly modifiers.
So removing the random chances from the softwares capability makes it no longer classified as an interactive game, correct? Because it no longer does all the things specified that an interactive game can.
Which would mean the Game Table for DDI is not an interactive game by that definition since it will not inforce the rules. Maybe it will have a dice roller, but any internet communication software today can have that from instant messagers to internet relay chat, etc. That is not something WotC owns. thus rolling dice in essence destroys the concept as long as the dice don't interact with anything else. thus Game Table could be in part and easily NOT an interactive game.
The funny thing is the Character Builder will roll dice as in the definition to show results from those rolls interacting with other parts the results of those dice.
How int he world can the Game Table by definition not be an interactive game which is what it is being advertised as and must be paid for to use, but the fre to all even non-subscribers Character Builder that helps make character sheets and that is all, be considerd an interactive game?
Its just all backwards! The Game Table is the interactive game, and the Character sheet maker is nothing but an electronic form with a few built in calculators.
Please keep in mind that any term defined in a licence is only defined by the definition contained in said licence. The same term (eg: Interactive Game) used in a different licence, can have a different definition, as that term is only defined in the context of the licence itself.
If the Game Table is marketed as an Interactive Game, then by the GSL licencing definition, it probably is. The two definitions are not mutually interchangable, despite the fact that they may have 95% of the same wording conventions, to describe the same term - Interactive Game.
With that being said: I have found additional information in the Software FAQ specifically relating to the creation of Character generators, Treasure Generators, etc.
Q: If I can't describe character creation and applying experience how can I still make a character generator?
A: You provide the users with the building blocks of the character, you don't tell them what to do with those blocks. A user familiar with the core rules will be able to use the program, while one who isn't will have difficulty. Any documentation you provide has to walk a fine line between explaining how to use the program and avoiding explaining how to create a character.
Q: Will we be able to present alternate modes of character generation - different point buy mechanisms, classless/level-less conversions and so on within the GSL license (or outside it if not)?
Q: The definition 'Fantasy' is a bit woolly, what's the working definition for this? Would a steampunkish setting like Iron Kingdoms or Cadwallon be classed as fantasy? After all, in some eyes Star Wars is a fantasy genre!
Q: Any approximate ETA on the license for the non-fantasy stuff?
Q: The old STL was changed to prevent the production of more adult type materials, like the Book of Erotic Fantasy, will this still be the case and, again, is there an option for operating outside that (if not an OGL, something else) or a defined 'warning label' that could be used?
Cheers,
You cannot create both OGL/3E products and GSL/4E products, even if they are seperate products. You have to choose what you are supporting--3E or 4E.
Paizo, for example, cannot create both 3E and 4E products, even if they are seperate products. Its one or the other. And that goes for every publisher. It appears you can go 3E as long as you want. The OGL and the SRD are not revocable. But once you go 4E, you cant go back and still do 4E products.
And I shouldnt just single out Paizo. I do because I work with them. But lets say Monte wanted to do a 4E update of a book of his and uses the GSL. Once he does that, no more OGL and no more 3E for him (unless he wants to forsake any more use of the GSL, as it was explained to me; now maybe I misunderstood or they change their stance between today and the final version but I think the chances of that are slim).
This should be interesting...
Is this "Our way (4th Edition) or the Highway" stance really what it seems like?
From a Tread over at ENworld... ENworld thread LINKIE
Is this "Our way (4th Edition) or the Highway" stance really what it seems like?
I think it is possible...even likely. I do know that you can not publish a supplement (say an adventure module) that is compatible with both 3E and 4E under the GSL.
I wonder if this provision is what got Hasbro legal back on board, i.e. if you use our GSL, then you forever give up your rights under the OGL...and thus hopefully force the OGL into forced obsolensce. It's well known that habro/wotc is not happy with the OGL.
-Polaris
P.S. It's beyond me what so many here (and elsewhere) are throwing the confetti and popping the champagne exclaiming that Wotc is going to support "open gaming" in 4E when I've seen no evidence even now that shows this is in fact the case (there is nothing inherent in the GSL that we've seen that says that Wotc supports open gaming).
So I can almost understand not being able to put out the same *product* in 4e and 3e. Wizards has a vested interest in stomping out 3.5e after all, as this is going to turn into one of those Windows XP vs Vista semi-undesirable-upgrade situations.
But upon further reflection - this stance as stated means that a company - or individual - cannot publish anything GSL and anything OGL at the same time.
So ENWorld can't publish/sell their first GSL/4e product without purging all OGL/3e products?
In fact, "OGL" doesn't mean using the 3e d20 SRD, that's the d20 STL - there are a lot of "OGL" games that are completely separate - True20, Mutants & Masterminds, etc. Can Green Ronin not publish any Freeport 4e items as long as they are also trying to sell any separate game line under 4e?
In fact a legalistic reading of this means my random free Web site can't have both 3.5e/OGL and 4e/GSL content on it.
This is worse than no GSL at all if all true. Scott, can we get a better, clearer statement on this restriction?
It's even worse than what you wrote and even worse than what I thought. After reading the relevent thread on EN world (already posted on this thread) and talking to some of the 3P people, it comes down to this:
If you publish just one product under the new GSL, then you are forever excluded from using the preexisting OGL in any form for any product.
The new GSL is an open declaration of war on open gaming and the OGL as it currently exists. Nothing more; nothing less. Don't take my word for it. Here's what Wotc-Scott had to say on EN-World in response to this very point (and note he doesn't deny this charge):
Originally Posted by BryonD
But beyond that, this isn't just leaving 3E behind. They can not take back the OGL. But this is a blatant attempt to burn and pillage and salt the fields of the Open Gaming Community. I think it is ok to be mad at that kind of destructive move.
We have invested multiple 7 figures in the development of 4e so can you tell me why we would want publishers to support a system that we have moved away from?
This is not spite, malice or some evil scorched earth policy. Yes, we want people to make 4e books and stop making 3.x. Does that surprise you?
It won't surprise me if the GSL is not for everyone. If M&M, C&C, Conan, or other OGL stand-alones are successful enough for those publishers to sustain their business more power to them. You'll get to buy their books in the future. If not, then they can jump on our license and take advantage of some pretty good perks including getting to use the most valuable trademark in PnP RPGs on their products and gain access to our IP/PI.
__________________
Scott Rouse
SR. Brand Manager - Dungeons & Dragons
Wizards of the Coast
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4173113&postcount=99
-Polaris
P.S. Wotc-Scott, understandable or not, evviiiil or not (and I agree it is not), it is a scorched earth policy.
There's also the question of where this sits with non WOTC material OGL stuff, FATE, RuneQuest etc.
It's my strong understanding that the GSL poison pill provision applies to all OGL material. You use the GSL even once, and you give up all your OGL rights forever.
-Polaris
It's my strong understanding that the GSL poison pill provision applies to all OGL material. You use the GSL even once, and you give up all your OGL rights forever.
-Polaris
I have trouble believing any company would be so stupid as to shoot themselves in both feet.
Wouldn't it be more like if you used the OGL then you can continue to use it forever. You can then make something with the GSL. If you then make something else afterwards with the OGL, then you can no longer use the GSL?
I can see how the GSL may forbid using it from being used to switch back and forth between them, but cannot really see how the GSL can revoke the OGL.
Will it say something like "using this license once, you give up any rights granted by the OGL to produce further material using the OGL, and may only continue to use the GSL." ?
Sounds kind of fishy like that :CueCat saying you had to agree to the EULA hidden inside the package before you can even see the EULA. Seems like the GSL can prevent using the OGL further, but not that the OGL would prevent from later switching to the GSL correct?
I feel sorry for the companies who have to start secondary companies if they want to still be able to continue their previous 3.x material also.
I got a tricky one for you. What if a publisher/printing house that doesn't write the books were to publish a book for several low profile game material makers. One wishes to continue to make material under the OGL, and another wishes to make it under the GSL. Would this publisher/printing house be required to adhere to the GSL, and no longer be able to print books for the game material maker who wishes to continue producing material under the OGL?
Is it the author of the material the one that is udner the GSL, or the ones who actually print and bind books?
Publishing under the GSL is mutually exclusive. In order to publish under the GSL, you cannot also publish under the OGL. Once you accept the terms and conditions of the GSL (by publishing content under this licence), publishing any content under the OGL will void your ability to publish under the GSL.
From my understanding, publishing OGL content after accepting the GSL licence agreement will permanently void your licence agreement to publish GSL content, and may result in your entire GSL product line being pulled.
Publishing OGL material is not the only way to have your licence revoked, although from what I understand, in some cases, you may be able to reinstate your GSL licence, but if you publish OGL content, this is not an option.
The OGL cannot be revoked. You will always be able to publish material under the OGL. The GSL on the other hand, can (and will) be revoked if you publish OGL material.
This is just some crazy stuff! I can;t wait until news break on it before or after the actual release of 4th edition to see what AP, CNET, IGN, or some other news source will have to say about all this. It will be a good article to read, just like all these posts so far on it have been.
I have trouble believing any company would be so stupid as to shoot themselves in both feet.
I once knew a couple of coders (worked for Dell) when I was in Grad School. One of their favorite and pithy sayings went like this:
There is an unending contest between Software engineers to make idiot proof software, and the universe to make bigger idiots.
At which point the other would retort: So far the universe is ahead on points.
My point is this:
Yes Virginia, people (and companies) can be that stupid.
-Polaris
There is an unending contest between Software engineers to make idiot proof software, and the universe to make bigger idiots.
At which point the other would retort: So far the universe is ahead on points.
My point is this:
Yes Virginia, people (and companies) can be that stupid.
-Polaris
I just seems to me that alienating whole swathes of third party companies, many of which don't even use the d20 material, just the license, is counterproductive. I guess it depends how much of this speculation is accurate. I want to see the actual text before I burn anyone in effigy or shower them with kisses.
I just seems to me that alienating whole swathes of third party companies, many of which don't even use the d20 material, just the license, is counterproductive. I guess it depends how much of this speculation is accurate. I want to see the actual text before I burn anyone in effigy or shower them with kisses.
That's understandable, but if you read the thread on EN world linked to this thread a few posts up, you'll find that Scout Rouse and Linnae (sp?) both participated in that thread and neither one denied it....and indeed seemed to say, "Yes so what did you expect?" Again, read the linked thread and judge for yourself.
My point is that what I (and others) are saying about the GSL seems to be lot more solid than mere speculation.
-Polaris
Character generators and Ability Check generators fall under an Interactive Game by this definition
Actually, PCGen followed the d20 STL for some time (and yes, we asked WotC to make sure). We dropped it be cause we wanted to be able to allow the users to roll for their attributes.
Hero Lab currently uses the d20 STL.
The OGL cannot be revoked. You will always be able to publish material under the OGL.
Unless you violate section 13.
13 Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
Honestly, I was seriously hoping for those PDFs to drop in price so that I could obtain OEF copies of the printed books I own. Paying cover price for that many books -- books for which I purchased for less than cover price from Amazon -- was not much of an option for me, which is why I was hoping to purchase the PDFs at lower prices after launch.
Specifically, I was hoping to have searchable versions of all Eberron books for easy reference, but a handful of those books have not yet been made available as PDFs. I was also hoping to build my own compendiums for home use by copying and pasting content from those PDFs.
Bottom line, will the PDFs continue to be available, and if so, will the prices drop after 4e is launched? I'll understand if you can't answer the second question.
The only PDFs that may be left to be sold would be the former magazines, Dragon and Dungeon in compilations of the articles presented online for non-subscribers.
I don't see a treasuregen/citygen/npcgen as a "interactive game". For it to be a game, there would be a way to play it, and quite often a way to win or lose.
(Though if you count generating a random NPC that is "made of win" as a victory, it might be a game :P )
I don't see a treasuregen/citygen/npcgen as a "interactive game". For it to be a game, there would be a way to play it, and quite often a way to win or lose.
When PCGen talked with WotC about this years ago, it was about how a dice roller qualified as an interactive game because, in D&D 3.x, a higher roll was better than a lower roll. You don't want a "1" on an attack roll, nor do you want 3 "1"s when you roll stats.
I once knew a couple of coders (worked for Dell) when I was in Grad School. One of their favorite and pithy sayings went like this:
There is an unending contest between Software engineers to make idiot proof software, and the universe to make bigger idiots.
At which point the other would retort: So far the universe is ahead on points.
My point is this:
Yes Virginia, people (and companies) can be that stupid.
-Polaris
It's not stupid. They're trying to stamp out the previous version. The problem is that they're doing it in a heavy-handed way that's leaving a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, at least for the moment. It's sad to see the legacy of D&D that we all grew up with being forced out through licensing terms.
The problem that I see is that WotC is very good at publishing rules systems, but they were never really all that good at publishing adventures. For many DMs, that's fine. For people like me without a lot of time to stat up monsters, that's not going to fly. My group wants to move to 4th edition, but I'm not interested in doing that until at least one trusted adventure designer moves to the GSL but I think WotC's decision to delay the GSL until the absolute last minute burned that bridge with the best of them.
The rules system looks nice and all, but the best of the new rules were houseruled into many people's games long ago. If the adventure quality continues to be D to C- level, I don't think it's going to be a game my group is going to play. The indications are not good on this one, though, since the best adventure writers WotC had are all publishing OGL material now and have been pretty committed to that.
"no interactive games"; I guess WotC's digital game table is the cause of that.
I don't see a treasuregen/citygen/npcgen as a "interactive game". For it to be a game, there would be a way to play it, and quite often a way to win or lose.
(Though if you count generating a random NPC that is "made of win" as a victory, it might be a game :P )
None of those "gens" could be made either as they use the randon results with input to give a success or fail. It seems some lawyer thinks D&D is about winning with every die roll. Sadly the mater is that randomization do not grant success or fail when making these "gens", and they are jsut trying to redifine the term to be anything that helps with using the data in combination with a randomizer to be an interactive game.
So do not get idea of selling your mind with some dice, cause that would be an interactive game, and WotC holds the copyright to it.
Drow_Battlemind, 30 minutes ago Delete | Edit | ReplyDaveMage wrote:
Here's the latest from Scott Rouse.
The answer is....
...we'll know more next Friday, maybe.
After all the uproar (and I personally feel that much of it *IS* justified), I'm not surprised that Scott is taking 2 weeks off from commenting on all this. I'm fairly certain that he is not responsible for this, that it is the orders from Hasbro's legal dept., but as WotC's D&D manager, he is going to be receiving the veritable s**t-storm that will be coming from the community. I feel sorry for him, especially since he's been incredibly helpful on the Star Wars board and other boards at their site.
Does it suck? Absolutely.
Is there anything Scott could do to change it? From the sounds of his posts on ENWorld, doubtful.
I, personally, am incredibly disappointed by the terms of the GSL, both in WotC and Hasbro.
Am I going to drop 4E for Pathfinder in its entirety because of this? Um, no, I've already stated both here and on WotC's boards that I intend to play both games. In fact, since I pre-paid for my 4E PHB-1, I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I didn't play a game I've already spent money on.
But still, I cannot help but shake my head at Hasbro's short-sightedness over this.
Oh, and Scott, if you're reading this, you have my sympathies in advance. I have the feeling you'll be needing it...
..as well as a Guinness or twelve, some painkillers, and anti-depressants.
I honestly don't envy your position right now. Good luck.
I always see things like this and just think of the old saying..."You knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred."
You're right and that tempers my sympathies somewhat but only somewhat. Regardless of my own feelings on this issue (and quite admittedly my own passions), I do feel a strong sense of sympathy for Scott and Linnae were found themselves on ground zero when this all started to blow up.
I know what it's like to wear the uniform and do things that you think are unprintably stupid or even mendacious (but legal orders nevertheless). I even know what it's like to have to smile and deceive because you were told to while hating yourself the entire time you're doing it.
Once upon a time, I worked for USAF Intel in site communications and had to do just that on a regular basis. It's why I left to finish my degree the first chance I got.
Now I may be overstating it in their case but I may not (since unlike DnD I can't make myself a telepath
). My point is this:Whatever I may think of wotc right now and it's decisions, I always try to remind myself to seperate the people who work there (who are often very nice people) from who they work for. Sadly, I don't always succeed.
-Polaris
None of those "gens" could be made either as they use the randon results with input to give a success or fail. It seems some lawyer thinks D&D is about winning with every die roll. Sadly the mater is that randomization do not grant success or fail when making these "gens", and they are jsut trying to redifine the term to be anything that helps with using the data in combination with a randomizer to be an interactive game.
So do not get idea of selling your mind with some dice, cause that would be an interactive game, and WotC holds the copyright to it.
And since those "gens" would require 4Ed. material, they then become competition for the DDI.
And, as such, WotC can hold onto that part of its market.
Am I going to drop 4E for Pathfinder in its entirety because of this? Um, no, I've already stated both here and on WotC's boards that I intend to play both games. In fact, since I pre-paid for my 4E PHB-1, I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I didn't play a game I've already spent money on.
Careful, once you play a game under the new license it voids your right to go back and play any previous editions...
Careful, once you play a game under the new license it voids your right to go back and play any previous editions...
*shakes finger*
Now, now, now... no need to give WotC any ideas. :P
*shakes finger*
Now, now, now... no need to give WotC any ideas. :P
[Dark Humor]
Too late. What do you think Monday's GSL annoucement is all about....
[/Dark Humor]
-Polaris
I am all for the burying of D&D3 in a deep grave, but the grave should be marked. Hopefully using the GSL will not force companies with existing OGL material to eliminate paid access to that material.
Now, however, Wizards has stated that any company hoping to publish products for their new edition must agree to discontinue any currently open licensed products and produce no further open products at all — Dungeons & Dragons related or not. A number of companies had leveraged the OGL for their independent games, for example the pulp game Spirit of the Century.
(Full Passage can be found in context - Here (Slash-Dot Article by mxyzplk)
It has just come to my attention that comments such as the above are beginning to circulate as facts, and before any wide-spread panic, hysteria, or mob-mentality is generated, I believe that such comments should be put into their true context.
The above comment (and others) make direct references to a lengthy discussion taking place over on the Enworld forums (of which I am a participant)- a discussion taking place mainly between Orcus (Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games), and the general gaming community, but one in which Linae and Scott Rouse have participated.
This discussion is currently 27 pages and 783 postings in length (as of this writing, of which I have read every single post), and revolves primarily around a single comment made by Clark Peterson on page 4 of that thread (quoted below) which has caused wide-spread speculation and debate.
The New GSL Announcement!
Page 4, Post 51:I believe, in fact, that it is even a bit more restrictive than people are seeing. It is not just that you cant mix the two licenses in one product. It is that if you use the GSL you cannot also use the OGL for 3E products.
[Snip]....It is not a product by product choice. It is a business by business choice. It is not "well, this product will be 4E using the GSL but the next one will be for 3E under the OGL.".....
[Snip].....By the way, this info was from Wizards. Unless I am misunderstanding what they told me or they didnt understand my question, this is how it will be.
Clark
Clark Peterson (Orcus) has clarified what he meant by this posting many times on said thread, and despite the fact that both Linae and Scott Rouse have made comment - neither one has denied or confirmed what Clark has said.
All that has been said by Linae or Scott have been vague references to the stance Wizards is taking such as the following:
Page 4, Post 99: We have invested multiple 7 figures in the development of 4e so can you tell me why we would want publishers to support a system that we have moved away from?
Page 10, Post 279:I am not going to say anything else until I have the final license in my hot little hands.
I am reading the thread, absorbing all the opinions, rants, speculations, thoughts, and musings. I have chimed in on a couple posts but beyond that, sitting here on Saturday morning, with out the license in front of me, I am quickly skating into the realm of speculation and I don't not want to unnecessarily add gas to the fire that may or may not be there. Until I see the final language in the licenses I am going avoid claiming that the language will say x or y.
And finally:
Page 17, Post 505:I just want to let everyone know I have read the thread up to this point. I understand people's concerns and I hope to add clarity to the questions on Monday.
In response to the Slash-Dot article, the following was stated this morning -
Page 26, Post 764:I agree it should be corrected. I was the source of the comment, and I am 100% certain that is what I was told. There is no doubt about it. But we have not gotten an official statement about it. And, as with many things regarding the GSL, it appears to be in flux. As I have said, I hope that my question was either misunderstood or their answer was misunderstood by me.
In any event, this is hardly the thing that should get slashdotted as an actual fact. It is still pending resolution in my mind. I call on mxyzplk to make an appropriate retraction or notation.
Clark
In Other Words: -
Wizards has made no official comment regarding whether the GSL places restrictions solely on content released under the OGL/GSL, or whether this applies to other open game content released under different licences (eg. Creative Commons), and has yet to confirm or deny whether said restrictions will be company wide, or by-product.
Please, disregard the comment made on Slash-Dot. It was made prematurely, and draws conclusions to things which have yet to be confirmed. I will post the official confirmation once it is made available - With any luck, Scott will be providing clarification some time today (if he is able).
Note - The above excerpts are just that, excerpts from the original quoted passages. To read the entire quote, please click the link above, and navigate to each of the referenced quotations.
Kalani
My own feelings and opinions on this issue are well (even painfully) known. However I want to publically say that what mxyzplk did was terribly unethical.
As the prior post notes, Wotc has not positively confirmed that the OGL/GSL exclusion is on a per company basis. I believe this to be factual. I have extremely strong evidence including damning circumstantial evidence that this is in fact that case, but circumstantial evidence is not the same thing as a public statement to that effect.
What gets me, is that he could have had almost the same effect by simply posting the truth. The story is newsworthy, and deserves to be spread around and commented on. He would have been alright to label Clark Peterson and even say he has inside information (which he does) and then say that "official wotc representatives refused comment but did not deny this claim" or at least something to the effect. In short, this is more than just "dire speculation" or "rumor" as some are claiming, but it's still less then a fully stated policy by Wotc...even though I believe a fair reading of the evidence strongly shows that it is in fact their intended policy...at least as of last Thursday when the GSL was announced.
That is all.
-Polaris
We have a unique opportunity for an exclusive interview about the GSL. Morrus and I will select a handful of questions to ask WotC and get answers. Quick, what are the most important things you want to know?
I'll be submitting a list in approximately an hour from this post.
Thanks, everyone.
__________________
- Piratecat, EN World Admin
Since that was just over an hour ago, this interview should be taking place any time. I will post updates as they become available.
Kalani Vernon, Lethal Game System Designer
And can we publish products which offer rules for both 3.5 and 4.0 games in the same product.. I asked this earlier, but I think you missed it.
For example... Can I create a product which stats out the Glimeral character class for both 3.5 and 4.0, or create adventure paths which give stat-blocks for the Glimeral Demon under both systems?
It would be nice if the GSL allowed us to create such hybrid products, as it would allow us to support both player-bases (those who transition to 4.0, and those who remain with 3.5) without requiring two separate product lines for the same fluff.
Under the GSL no. The licenses are mutually exclusive and we want publishers that are onboard with the GSL to support 4e.
This one seems to say one or the other, but it may be meaning something other than choose the OGL or GSL. But if you cannot produce the same thing for both OGL, and GSL, is it just meaning one product cannot include both, or is it meaning that one company cannot use both licenses?
The jury is out although based on what Clark has said, we are lead to believe it applies to all content published by a single company, however we are unsure of whether this extends to non-OGL material also (eg. products published under the Creative Commons licence), although this latter point is unlikely.
We will have to wait for the official word however.
The jury is out although based on what Clark has said, we are lead to believe it applies to all content published by a single company, however we are unsure of whether this extends to non-OGL material also (eg. products published under the Creative Commons licence), although this latter point is unlikely.
We will have to wait for the official word however.
Right, but I think it's important to point out that this conclusion is not just based on what Clark said. It's also based on the fact that Scott and Linnae both answered several questions before Clark's post about per item exclusivity, and not once did they answer in such a way to exclude the possibility of "per company" exclusivity. More damning (and I consider this very valid if circumstantial evidence), the moment Clark dropped his little bombshell:
1. They stopped answering questions about the GSL at all not just on EN world but everywhere.
2. Their subsequent posts (often...understandably...hostile) did nothing to disabuse us of Clark's posit and indeed seemed to be consistant with it (if not outright confirming it).
Don't expect good news today.
-Polaris
Free advertising, or as someone said about the advertisement of the new edition, that D&D has always been spread word of mouth.
I wonder what would happen is everyone stopped tlaking about the new edition. Would people just forget about it, and sales drop for those who don't know about it yet not even being ready for it. (All 3 of them living in an Amish comminuty without TV, etc)
When is this supposed news today and where is it going to happen?
Please don't let it be some video garbage, or podcrap, but actual words you can read on paper.
"Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see.", but I don't care for video anything, because I know how to read.
This licence grants you limited use of the Dungeons & Dragons Product Logo, providing you abide by the following conditions:
a) Discontinuation of all products released under any version of the "Open Game Licence", copyright (c) 2000 Wizards of the Coast on or before December 6 2008; or by the date this licence is first used, if used after December 6 2008.
b) That no new products be released which makes any use of any version of the "Open Game Licence", the d20 System, the Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition Rules, or the Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 rules update.
c) That all products excluding those published under this licence which are designated "open content" be discontinued, and that no new products be released making use of any open-content licence excluding this one.
d) That all products released under this licence make reference to, and require the use of the fourth edition "Players handbook", copyright (c) 2008, Wizards of the Coast.
If you are found in violation of any part of this licence, you immediately void all rights and privalages to use this licence.
The only condition I can see having difficulty sticking in a court of law, is condition C) because this one may constitute a violation of the Sharman Act.
As long as I can publish the Lethal Game System, and retain my legal right to publish under the GSL, I will be happy. Any restriction applying specifically to the OGL will not, in any way affect my business plan as I have no intention of publishing material under the OGL.
Approximately 1 hour ago, Piratecat made the following announcement:
Since that was just over an hour ago, this interview should be taking place any time. I will post updates as they become available.
Kalani Vernon, Lethal Game System Designer
Yup, we have a list of about 30 questions, and we'll be posting the answers as soon as we can. While we're sure to have missed some things, I think the list of questions will please most people.
Do you mean the Sherman Antitrust Act?
Assuming for the moment that this rumor* is true, which part of the Sherman Anti-Trust act do you think this violates? Seems pretty doubtful that they have violated any of them.
* Given the circumstances it seems likely it is true but for now it is still a rumor.
1) The production of open-content/open-game products published under licences other than the OGL /GSL (eg. Creative Commons).
2) The production of in-house closed-content products (eg. World of Darkness) should their parent company (White Wolf) desire to use the GSL (to publish a 4e version of S&S).
Only in situations like the above could they be considered in breach, as the publication of all such material in 1) and 2) can in no way be construed as being products of wizards own merits.....
Wizards created the OGL and the GSL, and holds the copyrights for both licences. Therefore, any content published under either licence (whether d20 or not) can be seen as a derivative work utilizing the "merit" of Wizards (i.e, piggy-backing off their hard work).
Only if they attempt to limit content over which they have no legal control over (no copyright/trademark) would they be in violation of the Sharman Anti-Trust Act.
IOWs - Exclusivity between the OGL/GSL = Legal; Exclusivity between the GSL and all open-game/content licences and/or closed-content productions = Illegal.
To use an example floating about the forums
- While Microsoft would be in their legal right to place sanctions on a hyperthetical Vista-Compatibility licence prohibiting cross-compatibility with XP (the equivalent of the OGL/GSL issue) on a product and/or company-wide basis, they would be in violation of the Sharman Act if their Vista-Compatibility licence prohibited compatibility support for Apple, or Linux, regardless of whether support was on a product or company-wide basis, because Microsoft has no legal right to place sanctions on the support of Apple/Linux by another company.
Assuming for the moment that this rumor* is true, which part of the Sherman Anti-Trust act do you think this violates? Seems pretty doubtful that they have violated any of them.
* Given the circumstances it seems likely it is true but for now it is still a rumor.
may constitute a violation of the Sharman Act.
Trying to figure out what the Sharman Act is. (An act saying you are not allowed to squeeze [Charim]?)
Not making fun of a potential typo or keyboard accent, just trying to find the actual act itself.
Trying to figure out what the Sharman Act is. (An act saying you are not allowed to squeeze [Charim]?)
Not making fun of a potential typo or keyboard accent, just trying to find the actual act itself.
I wouldn't bother. My comment was poorly worded. I highly doubt this is relevant in any way and it's really quite silly to dig into it unless you actually have the legal background to research it properly.
So, it seems that we may still have to wait until some time this weekend before we get any kind of solid news (if any).
It appears we will have to wait 2-4 days before the interview questions will be responded to, on the basis that Scott is travelling, and that he needs to look at the questions also.
So, it seems that we may still have to wait until some time this weekend before we get any kind of solid news (if any).
Fiddlesticks! I guess that just leaves us with rampant speculations then.
The most recent statements from WotC regarding the OGL/GSL exclusivity and the nature of the GSL beg for revolt - by both customers and publishers.
I think the licensing folks must think we are junkies and that we will have some compelling need to get our fix exclusively from WotC once they've cut off their subordinate dealers.
I want a new drug
One that won't hurt my head
One that won't make me nervous
Wondering what to do
One that don't cost too much
One that won't go away
One that does what it should
One with no doubt
Appologies to Huey Lewis.
Hey,
Just want to let you know I have not forgotten about this. It's almost midnight here at GAMA and I just got back from eating diner.
Today was a little nuts. Got up at 6am, drove to SeaTac airport for a 9am flight to Vegas. Talked to a couple people at the office about the GSL before the flight, worked on my 4e presentation on the plane. Landed at 11:30, cabs line at the airport and check-in lines at the hotel (no your room is not ready yet) and it is now 12:30. Grab lunch and then head up to the Skyview room to set up the WotC meet and greet. Meet and greet with retailers from 3-5:30. Talk with Linae around 5:30 about the GSL then break down the room. 6pm down to the lobby, got my room! Up to my room, track down Jesse Decker to get my bag from his room. 6:30 have my bags and my room, call the family and say goodnight to the kids. Change into jeans and a clean shirt, in the lobby at 7:30 o go to dinner. 12 am back at the room holy crap where did my day go?
Needless to say my day was busy, I don't have anything new to add. Aside from being here (and 8 hours of meetings tomorrow) this is my number 1 priority. As soon as I have something I'll let you know.
Hang in there!
__________________
Scott Rouse
Unfortunately, folks, I have some bad news.
WotC has elected not to go forward with the interview, in favour of a formal Q&A on their own site.
For those interested, I have attached the list of questions we sent to them.
[Edit - I've just received clarification from WotC on their intentions (apparently there was a misunderstanding via email earlier today) - they do intend to answer all of the questions, some of which will be exclusive to EN World and the rest of which will be addressed on both sites.]
That's just wonderful. At least we know that Wotc is improving their PR savvy.
They've just graduated from "Open mouth; Insert foot" to "Open mouth; Insert shotgun; Pull trigger"
What's next?
-Polaris
Everyone,
That's just wonderful. At least we know that Wotc is improving their PR savvy.
They've just graduated from "Open mouth; Insert foot" to "Open mouth; Insert shotgun; Pull trigger"
What's next?
Umm... maybe just maybe some answers? I'm not holding my breath but stranger things have happened.
The traditionalist in me thinks that this whole game of 20 questions is silly. Don't companies usually announce something then have a Q&A? Looking at the press release they announced essentially nothing and now we need to try and play 20 questions to figure out what is in the GSL.
I can't escape the feeling that we are stumbling around while the WotC staff shout "Colder, Colder, warmer, warmer, HOT".
I warn everyone that my mood is akin to the cartoon character with the dark lightning riddled cloud over his head.....so I am in a rather cynical and sarcastic mood (more so than normal)
Umm... maybe just maybe some answers? I'm not holding my breath but stranger things have happened.
Any maybe I will rent some ice-skates for my next trip to hell, too. Wotc with regard to the GSL has for months been trying to avoid giving any answers. What in the world makes you think they are going to change that apparent policy now??
The traditionalist in me thinks that this whole game of 20 questions is silly. Don't companies usually announce something then have a Q&A? Looking at the press release they announced essentially nothing and now we need to try and play 20 questions to figure out what is in the GSL.
I can't escape the feeling that we are stumbling around while the WotC staff shout "Colder, Colder, warmer, warmer, HOT".
If you've been involved in politics or with political campaigns, you'd know exactly what Wotc is doing. They are doing the same thing a politico does when facing a difficult crisis and wants to control what gets released to the media. They do a "mock" interview (often on their webpage these days which is then distributed to the various local workers and HQs) with questions known well in advance, and the answers are carefully crafted to give only the information that needs to be released.
Same. Same. This is about damage-control for Wotc at this point. Nothing more and nothing less. Don't think for a moment that minds were actually changed.
-Polaris
Everyone,
My own feelings and opinions on this issue are well (even painfully) known. However I want to publically say that what mxyzplk did was terribly unethical.
As the prior post notes, Wotc has not positively confirmed that the OGL/GSL exclusion is on a per company basis.
Obviously, I disagree with the first part of that :-)
No, WotC hasn't publicly confirmed it, obviously. (Though I will note publicly confirming it or denying it would take all of 30 seconds, so they have no one to blame but themselves for this continuing.) However, company representatives did state it plainly to a reputable unbiased primary source who we have a direct statement from. Therefore, according to standard journalistic ethics, this is not a rumor (rumors have no attributable primary source). It may make people sad, but "Now, however, Wizards has stated that any company hoping to publish products for their new edition must agree to discontinue any current open licensed products and produce no further open products at all - Dungeons & Dragons related or not" is correct, and it was stated to Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games (a lawyer) in a detailed phone conversation specifically about OGL vs GSL licensing. Clark says, “But, mark my words, this is the policy. And it isnt changing. I tried.”
Standard for factual reporting: "Events with a single eyewitness are reported with attribution. Events with two or more independent eyewitnesses may be reported as fact. Controversial facts are reported with attribution." I reported this with copious attribution (not just naming the source but linking to all the primary documents as well).
If you waited for the guilty to fess up to print a story, there wouldn't be much news in the newspaper. Most "whistleblowing" stories involving the government or corporations have to work off the direct eyewitness testimony of people who don't work for those entities for obvious reasons.
Have you ever read a news article/seen a news story about how some company was **** aroung some poor schlep on their credit rating or ripping them off somehow or whatnot? "Channel 2, on *your* side!" Exact same principles here. Reliable person claims it, company stonewalls, it's legitimate news.
WotC has had a long time now where they've been saying "the GSL is coming" and they haven't delivered. Statements from Linae and Scott in that thread indicate the GSL is done and set in stone. But they're delaying. Why? Why are they stonewalling all through GAMA? Sure, ENWorld came up with 20 questions on the GSL, but there's one simple question that's the big one, and WotC has the answer to it. "Are you going to forbid companies participating in the GSL from publishing products using the OGL?" It's a quick simple answer, that is spurring 90% of the controversy. Instead, we get Scott Rouse posting about what he had for dinner at GAMA.
Given comfort, WotC would happily stonewall until way past 4e is out, everyone's bought the books, and publishers had 4e stuff lined up and in the can, as they have been assured a license that'll let them publish it is in the works. Am I using the power of the press (well, or Slashdot, which is what passes for press on the Interwebs) to force their hand? Hell yes I am. And it's the right thing to do.
Obviously, I disagree with the first part of that :-)
No doubt. However, did you or did you not say this on slashdot news?:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/04/21/1215234
mxyzplk writes "Dungeons & Dragons publisher Wizards of the Coast shocked the role-playing game industry today by announcing that anyone wanting to publish material for the new Fourth Edition of D&D, expected out in June of this year, must forgo open licensing entirely as part of their new Game System License
If this is indeed what you wrote, then I stand by what I said earlier. What you did was unethical. I don't disagree with the facts you've presented one iota nor do I object to the notion that they are facts and need to be reported. I have done the same myself. My analysis of this entire sorry situation is almost in lockstep with your own (which is why I am not repeating what you said in this post).
I even agree given that it IS a fact as you correctly note in the journalistic sense, that it should be reported as such.
However it is not a fact that Wizards made this policy as an official annoucement. That is a lie. Worse (caveat: I am not a lawyer) it may be libel especially since it got picked up by an internet news site. Personally I think wotc has enough PR problems as it is not to bother especially since the 'discovery' phase of any legal action may well require Wotc to officially announce this policy (and I agree with you it is their policy) before they are ready.
In short, I agree with you completely about the message. I think you stepped just over the ethical line in how you attributed it. I would have been fine if you said that Wotc officials refused to deny this and their comments (which we've all seen) seem to imply this. It's almost as good as what you said with the additional benefit of being totally accurate.
The problem with what you did, is you've given those that want to cling to any slender reed that we are wrong (which we are not) ammunition....and that was not a smart (or ethical) thing to do.
-Polaris
Mxyzplk - Most people over on the Enworld Forum agree with you that the OGL/GSL exclusivity clause is set in stone, and yes, Scott Rouse and Linae have all but confirmed it....
However.....
The point that I made in my OP, and the one that Clark also commented on over on the Enworld forum was the fact that you exaggerated this assumed fact in your article (and I quote):
......must forgo open licensing entirely as part of their new Game System License.
.....must agree to discontinue any currently open licensed products and produce no further open products at all — Dungeons & Dragons related or not.
It seems to me that this is the equivalent of Microsoft telling people "If you want to make and sell software for Windows Vista, you can't make and sell any Linux/open source software!"
Your comment draws conclusions to the fact that the GSL/OGL exclusivity clause (which we know exists, but do not know what it contains) applies to all open-gaming/open content products, including those published under licences over which Wizards has no legal control (eg: Creative Commons).
More accurately, the OGL/GSL exclusivity clause seems to be the equivalent of Microsof telling people "If you want to make and sell software for Windows Vista, you can't make and sell any XP/98 open source software!".... Quite a different message than the one your article painted.
While I cannot speak to motive behind what others have said in response to your post, I can state for the record that my post was not meant as a personal attack against you, or your right to journalistic freedom. In fact, like you, I believe in journalistic integrity, which is what prompted my original post - to maintain integrity with the release pertaining to the known facts (and lack thereof) pertaining to the GSL announcement(s).
With that being said, I do believe that you should issue a retraction (or ammendment) to your original post as it has been proven to be in error, and an exaggeration of the known facts, and draws conclusions as fact (all of which are unethical as has been pointed out above).
Given the heated emotions and poor communication at present, everyone will understand if your journalistic integrity was compromised due to your emotions clouding your judgement and/or a lack of information and/or misunderstanding of said information on your part.
We will have trouble (as a community) understanding, if you keep making excuses for the reason you exaggerated the facts in your report, and, especially given the heated emotions - doing so may make you a scapegoat for our collective anger or for Wizards damage control (and I don't want to see that).
Again, I state for the record - I meant no personal insult or disrespect. I only wanted to make certain that what little facts we have were kept in context, and that conclusions were not being drawn (yet).
Edit: Damn, Ninja'ed... I will edit my post to be more concise.
Sorry about that, but since I was the one quoted (and I do not take it back obviously), I felt I had to explain why I said what I did...otherwise it might have been taken as a personal attack. It wasn't (at last not intended to be). It does reflect my feelings about what Mxyzplk did rather than who he is. Just want to make that clear as crystal.
As for his 'assumed fact', that is the logical inference if you read the GSL exclusion provision to it's fullest logical extent assuming a per company exclusion. I think he's got that one dead-centre. I know that you (and Clark) are trying painfully to assume it's less comprehensive than that, but this full exclusion pretty much as Mxyzplk laid it out was never contradicted by Scott or more importantly Linae (and she as licensing manager certainly SHOULD know the extend of such exclusions).
So while it's an inference, given Wotc's response, I'm afraid (despite my prior characterization of him) that I have to part company with you on your second point. I think it is fair to make that point assuming you carefully cite what you know and don't know and who said precisely what.
Basically, I think that Mxyzplk did do his homework and did get his facts straight.....and I think the very thread you speak of is the strongest evidence for that conclusion. That doesn't mean I approve of what he did.
-Polaris
How would Wizards legally justify a blanket exclusivity clause on all open-game products, including those not covered by the OGL or GSL, and have said clause stick in a court of law?
It would be very easy to create a class-action suit against Wizards for breach of the Sharman Anti-Trust act, if they attempted to shoe-horn open-game/content products published under licences over which they have no legal control (eg. Creative Commons), and I just cannot see how Wizards would manage to avoid this outcome if they did.
I fail to see how a company could make a licence which states the following:
By accepting this licence, you agree to make products which are compatible with this product to the exclusion of all other products, including those of our competitors.
This would be the equivalent of say - Toyota making a licence which states:
By accepting this licence, you gain the right to make products compatible with the Toyota Civic, to the exclusion of all other Toyota makes and models, and to the exclusion of any competitors make and/or model.
I fail to see how such a licence would stick. If I wanted to make valves which were compatible with Toyota vehicles, Toyota has no legal right to prevent me from making products compatible with Honda, or GM - That is market monopolization which is illegal under the Sharman Anti-Trust Act. The same applies if I wanted to make products compatible with "World of Darkness" or "Palladium System" or GURPS (assuming for a moment, any of those systems are ever released under any form of open-content licence).
On the other hand, Toyota could legally justify the following licence (not that they would ever make such a thing):
By accepting this licence, you gain the right to make products compatible with all 2008 model Toyota's, to the exclusion of all other Toyota makes and models.
Do you see my point? I just cannot fathom how Wizards would ever be able to make a blanket licence stick without it being considered a "caveat" designed specifically to create market dominance, rather than a "caveat" designed to weed out a discontinued product over which they have full legal privlage (the OGL)... Major difference in distinction.
In any event - This is all just speculation and conjecture. Until we have the GSL in our hands and/or Wizards releases an official statement to these points, that is all it is and nothing you, me, Clark, mxyzplk, or anyone else says which draws conclusions in this regard (one way or another) can be anything but speculation and conjecture, nor can it be labled as anything but without losing journalistic integrity.
Perhaps you are right. My biggest question though is -
How would Wizards legally justify a blanket exclusivity clause on all open-game products, including those not covered by the OGL or GSL, and have said clause stick in a court of law?
It is my understanding that they aren't. It is my understanding that the exclusion provision applies to those products under the OGL or GSL and wotc owns the rights to both. Even though the OGL (all versions) is a perpetual open license, Wotc still owns it.
It would be very easy to create a class-action suit against Wizards for breach of the Sharman Anti-Trust act, if they attempted to shoe-horn open-game/content products published under licences over which they have no legal control (eg. Creative Commons), and I just cannot see how Wizards would manage to avoid this outcome if they did.
But they do have legal control over the OGL. Wotc has never rescinded it's ownership rights of the OGL, just the ability to revoke it at will. Wotc CAN revoke the OGL for breach of contract (for example). Therefore the OGL is not considered 'legal commons' and the Sherman Anti-Trust act does not apply.
I fail to see how a company could make a licence which states the following:
By accepting this licence, you agree to make products which are compatible with this product to the exclusion of all other products, including those of our competitors.
The problem is technically they aren't. All wotc is doing is asking you to give up by contract your ability to use a prior license put out (and still owned) by wotc. Not can such a thing been done, it often is done.
I know it amounts to what you say, but that doesn't cut it in court.
This would be the equivalent of say - Toyota making a licence which states:
By accepting this licence, you gain the right to make products compatible with the Toyota Civic, to the exclusion of all other Toyota makes and models, and to the exclusion of any competitors make and/or model.
Not really. It's more like saying, if you accept this license to make and use our trademark to make software compatible with this version of our operating system, you must forgoe your license to make softwar using a prior version of our software. To the best of my knowledge, that's legal. It's vile, but it's legal (at least to my personal knowledge) in the US. The EU as I understand it takes a harder line against this.
I fail to see how such a licence would stick. If I wanted to make valves which were compatible with Toyota vehicles, Toyota has no legal right to prevent me from making products compatible with Honda, or GM - That is market monopolization which is illegal under the Sharman Anti-Trust Act. The same applies if I wanted to make products compatible with "World of Darkness" or "Palladium System" or GURPS (assuming for a moment, any of those systems are ever released under any form of open-content licence).
Except they aren't, techncially. They aren't saying that if you accept the GSL, you can't make products compatible with HARN or Whitewolf, or Gurps. They are simply saying you can't use any version of our prior license (the OGL).
Look I hate this possibly as much as you do, and you know my personal feelings about this (not a secret), but legally I think that Wotc is on very firm ground here. Do you have a million dollars or more to prove me wrong? That's the question you really need to ask.
On the other hand, Toyota could legally justify the following licence (not that they would ever make such a thing):
By accepting this licence, you gain the right to make products compatible with all 2008 model Toyota's, to the exclusion of all other Toyota makes and models.
And technically (yes I know it's bogus but technically) that's exactly what Wotc is doing. As I said above, as much as I disapprove of this provision, give Hasbro legal credit. They did their homework. They CAN do this. Why do I say technically this is what Wotc is doing even with a per company exclusion? Because Wotc still owns the rights to all versions of the OGL and thus as a contract provision can ask anyone agreeing to the contract not to use this other contract which Wotc technically still owns. In this sense, all OGL games (incl Mutants and Masterminds, et all) are "Wotc Games" in the sense their very existance depends on a license which Wotc still owns. Wotc doesn't own the IP, but they do own the license.
Do you see my point? I just cannot fathom how Wizards would ever be able to make a blanket licence stick without it being considered a "caveat" designed specifically to create market dominance, rather than a "caveat" designed to weed out a discontinued product over which they have full legal privlage (the OGL)... Major difference in distinction.
Except it's not legally. Also given that Wotc only has about a 50% share of the overall RPG market, I think that the 'creation of market dominance' argument would be difficult to show in court....at least in the US.
In any event - This is all just speculation and conjecture. Until we have the GSL in our hands and/or Wizards releases an official statement to these points, that is all it is and nothing you, me, Clark, mxyzplk, or anyone else says which draws conclusions in this regard (one way or another) can be anything but speculation and conjecture, nor can it be labled as anything but without losing journalistic integrity.
Sorry but I am going to part company with you. Some of this is speculation and conjecture, but the existance of the OGL exclusion is a confirmed Wotc fact, and the fact that the OGL exclusion is on a per company basis has been all but confirmed by Wotc.
Your argument seems to revolve around the idea that "they can't be that stupid".
1. On a purely legal basis, Hasbro Legal may not be as stupid as you think.
2. On a marketing/PR basis, who says that Wotc can't be that stupid? I belive it was PT Barnum that once said that he never lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American People. Same, same.
-Polaris
In hindsight, I believe that Mxyzplk, like yourself, had confused the definition of "open gaming" as being exclusive to the "Open Gaming Licence", copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast.
To quote Wikipedia -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_gaming
"Open gaming" refers to the practice of publishing content (rules, sourcebooks, etc.) under a "copyleft", open content, or free content license, which grants permission to modify, copy, and redistribute some or all of the content.
A number of role-playing game publishers have joined the open gaming movement, largely as a result of the release of the System Reference Document under the Open Gaming License by Wizards of the Coast. Open gaming has also been popular among noncommercial role-playing game and supplement authors. Several licenses have been used to facilitate open gaming. Despite this, the concept has yet to make a significant impact on games outside of pen-and-paper RPGs, and most commercial RPG publishers continue to use proprietary game systems.
I suggest you read that article in its entirety. It will put my perspective and argument into proper context as I am in agreement that all known facts support the conclusion you are both drawing, in respect to the OGL..... but not in respect to Open Gaming itself.
That is the distinction I wish to make clear. At present, I can publish Open-Gaming material under any of the following licences (only two of which Wizards has any control over):
- Creative Commons
- Dominion Rules Licence Ver 1.1
- EABA Open Supplement Licence
- GNU Free Documentation Licence
- GNU General Public Licence
- Open Content Licence
- Open Gaming Licence
- Open Publication Licence
- Game System Licence (in June)
- Fact: He also made specific analogy to the GSL being equivalent to Microsoft placing sanctions on companies supporting Apple/Linux if they wished to support Vista.
- Fact: His comments and analogy can (and will) be interpreted to mean that the GSL will sanction publishers from releasing products under any open-game licence on the above mentioned list, as well as any (as yet) un-written open-game licence - with no exceptions.
- Fact: His comments are posted as confirmed facts, and explicitly implies that the above meaning is correct.
- Am I wrong in this assessment of his slash-dot article? - No.
- Are his comments an exaggeration of known (or assumed) facts? - Yes.
- Was he perhaps ignorant/mis-informed as to the true definition of "open gaming"? - Perhaps.
- Would said ignorance/misinformation account for the inaccuracies in his statement? - Most definately.
- Was his post unethical in its delivery? - Hell Yes.
I am not in dispute that Wizards is legally entitled to sanction use of the OGL/GSL. I am in dispute over their ability to legally sanction publishers from publishing content under the "Creative Commons", "GNU Public Licence", "EABA Open Supplement Licence", etc.
If Mxyzplk wrongly believed that the OGL was the only open-game licence in existance, his comments would be 100% accurate under that assumption.... It still wouldnt make those comments any less inaccurate however, and that is my point.
I am not disputing the argument in respect to the OGL/GSL as all of your comments in your posting above seem to be referring to specifically (in fact I agree with them) - I am disputing your argument in respect to all of the other "open-game" licences on that list.
I snipped the rest because this paragraph cuts straight to the chase. Now that I've read your article, I think we are talking past each other, so I will make my position clear. In context I think it is clear (and it is the way I read it hence my above post) that Mxyzplk was talking about the OGL only.
However, now that I reread his quoted comments, yes they do not spefically say that (and should). However, outside of a few 3PPs, I think it is very fair to say that most gamers only have had contact and direct knowledge of the OGL.
Let me be clear: The comments I made above refer only to the OGL owned by Wotc. They do not apply to any other open license owned by any other company. If wotc tried to restrict those, then yes, they'd have an anti-trust suit headed their way. To the best of my personal knowledge Wotc/Hasbro has never suggested you couldn't use other people's licenses...they just want to restrict how you use theirs (a critical difference).
-Polaris
If Mxyzplk wrongly believed that the OGL was the only open-game licence in existance, his comments would be 100% accurate under that assumption.... It still wouldnt make those comments any less inaccurate however, and that is my point.
I won't speak for Mxyzplk. That too would be unethical. I will say that casually when most gamers talk about 'open gaming' they mean the OGL, and I certainly read the article in that context forgetting (until you reminded me) that there were other non-wotc open gaming licenses in town.
So in that context, yes I agree that he should clarify this. In my own defense, I've always tried to use "OGL" in this form to make it clear what I was talking about.
We agree about the ethics. 'nuff said already about that.
Mxyzplk,
As a suggestion, perhaps it would be a really good idea if you went back to slash-dot and said you were talking about Wotc's open gaming license in that article. Otherwise readers could get the wrong impression (as at least some have) that you meant ALL (including non-wotc) licenses. I'd also take back the "Wizard's annoucned" part as well.
Just saying.
-Polaris
However it is not a fact that Wizards made this policy as an official annoucement. That is a lie.
Eh, fine, I can see your point (though I think I lowballed the meaning of accounced and you're highballing it), but in the interest of everyone feeling good about it I'll change "announced" to another verb. How's this:
"Dungeons & Dragons publisher Wizards of the Coast shocked the role-playing game industry today with the revelation that anyone wanting to publish material for the new Fourth Edition of D&D, expected out in June of this year, must forgo open licensing entirely as part of their new Game System License."
I think that's fair. Change made!
Eh, fine, I can see your point (though I think I lowballed the meaning of accounced and you're highballing it), but in the interest of everyone feeling good about it I'll change "announced" to another verb. How's this:
"Dungeons & Dragons publisher Wizards of the Coast shocked the role-playing game industry today with the revelation that anyone wanting to publish material for the new Fourth Edition of D&D, expected out in June of this year, must forgo open licensing entirely as part of their new Game System License."
I think that's fair. Change made!
Almost but not quite. You do realize that there are multiple open licensing agreements for RPGs, right? It's easy to miss because the OGL is so dominant, but unless you have information that I don't, I don't believe that Wotc has ever said that the new GSL would preclude a 3PP from using another open license, just not wotc's OGL, correct?
Given that, I'd make the following modification:
"Dungeons & Dragons publisher Wizards of the Coast shocked the role-playing game industry today with the revelation that anyone wanting to publish material for the new Fourth Edition of D&D, expected out in June of this year, must forgo
-Polaris
Your comment draws conclusions to the fact that the GSL/OGL exclusivity clause (which we know exists, but do not know what it contains) applies to all open-gaming/open content products, including those published under licences over which Wizards has no legal control (eg: Creative Commons).
Hmmm, I can see that, although really OGL and open gaming RPG-wise are 90% the same thing. Every "major" (and that's quite a low bar in the RPG world) RPG that's open is OGL, because people took in good faith that WotC was releasing a generic open license for all to safely use, and they wanted to honor that instead of "rolling their own" and CC has only really come onto the scene more recently - remember this was 8 years ago the OGL launched! I know a long list of OGL games (SotC, Action, etc) but I've only heard of one CC game and haven't seen it myself.
I'll put in an OGL clarification even though I don't think it's strictly necessary. Though I will note that it's certainly not impossible for them to do the same to any open license wiht the GSL. The OGL license, though 'copyright' WotC, is not theirs in any other legal sense that gives them a whit more legal right to jack with people using it than any other open or closed license in the world.
BTW, I'm happy to respond to feedback - the blog does have a "comment" feature you know, I have no visiblity into *****ing hidden in ever forum in the world! (especially since apparently it's beyond the capabilities of anyone affiliated with gaming to get a working fricking search function on their forum!!!) I'm not looking to lie or screw anyone over, I want the truth to get out. And right now the truth deserves some scrutiny from the public, as WotC thinks it can dick the gaming public over on this.
http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/wizards-of-the-coast-declares-war-on-open-gaming/
Enjoy!
I'll put in an OGL clarification even though I don't think it's strictly necessary. Though I will note that it's certainly not impossible for them to do the same to any open license wiht the GSL. The OGL license, though 'copyright' WotC, is not theirs in any other legal sense that gives them a whit more legal right to jack with people using it than any other open or closed license in the world.
I think you'd find it difficult to find a court in the world (or at least the US and EU) that would agree with you. Wotc clearly kept control of the OGL even though it is explicitly perpetual. You can lose your OGL license via breach of contract for example.
-Polaris
I think the (often unconscious, unstated and unarticulated) belief that the OGL is itself somehow "open gaming" and a universal possession of the community -- as opposed to being a WotC legal construct created as a WotC marketing tool that only applies to WotC -- is part of the misguided attitude of anger toward this kind of thing.
Now I do disagree with this and the part of glimeral's feedback that centers on the same sentiment.
Wizards was clear about releasing the OGL as a public-use open license. "We did the lawyer work to create a lovely open license, now you too can use it." And people did use it in good faith. Ryan Dancey had the best interests of the industry and community in mind, and perhaps did not forsee this eventuality. He really believed in open gaming, and I don't think anyone with any knowledge of the events of the early 2000s could claim that it was just a "marketing ploy". http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/the-good-old-days/
As for other licenses - Creative Commons didn't exist at the time. The CC organization wasn't even founded until 2001 and took longer than that to get the licenses nailed down and get onto anyone's radar. Can't use it before you know it exists; I bet a poll of RPG publishers would indicate that less than 50% have even heard of CC. And the reason CC and the OGL exist is that the GPL etc. are very inappropriate for creative works.
There's also some debate (of course there this, is the Internet) about whether people really could rip and replace the OGL with another open license after publishing it with the OGL. I think that's the best approach for most 3ps at this point, for sure, but IANAL.
Almost but not quite.
Geez, simmer down, I'm working through the posts one by one, takes nonzero time, look, I addressed that issue right after...
I think you'd find it difficult to find a court in the world (or at least the US and EU) that would agree with you. Wotc clearly kept control of the OGL even though it is explicitly perpetual. You can lose your OGL license via breach of contract for example.
That's not correct; I assume you're referring to the 13. termination clause which is a simple copyleft clause. If you don't comply with the terms of the OGL it terminates. You have to have that clause in an open license or else someone use it in a non-open manner without repercussion.
A good brush-up for folks concerned about this topic: http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/open-gaming-for-dummies/
There is no breach of contract related to this - now, the d20 STL is a diff. story.
I'm not going to change "open" into "OGL" every time it appears cause I don't think that's necessary (and some of the goal here is to make the article accesible to non-RPG-obsessed geeks), but I have made clarifications to make it crystal clear what the deal is.
http://mxyzplk.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/wizards-of-the-coast-declares-war-on-open-gaming/
Enjoy!
OK, I still think your first paragraph is dodgy but you do go on to clarify later in the article. Others may still take issue with you, but I'm fine.
As for the copyleft clause, yes, and this is what keeps Wotc in control of the OGL. I looked at your link, but if you followed some of that advice you'd lose your shirt. Seriously, even open licenses DO have owners. That's the point of the copyleft clause.
Basically, you can not say that the OGL is part of the legal commons (or else someone COULD use the OGL in a non-open manner). It belongs to the entity that issued it.
Yes, I am not a lawyer, but give Hasbro legal some credit. If you tried to go to court with a Sherman act (anti-trust) agrument with this GSL, you'd lose. In fact I suspect you'd be laughed out of court. That doesn't make what Wotc is doing right....I agree with you. It does make it legal.
-Polaris
Just curious.
Would not the whole slashdot thiing be repeating an opinon piece? I would need to read through what was said where, but it just looks like a collection of facts, that was then repeated. So would fault lie with the one collecting facts and sharing them (myx), or would it lie in the one who then repeated those facts without verifing them (slashdot)?
Just curious.
I find fault with both, but slashdot wasn't around to get a piece of my mind.
-Polaris
Hate to break it to everyone, but there's no standard of "don't post opinions on the Internet where people might see them!" Many of the pieces posted on slashdot are "editorially slanted" - it's not supposed to be value neutral. Let's see what's on the front page today. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/23/145255. I'm sure "phpmysqldev" has people complaining that "It's not random, and what grounds does Craigslist have to say eBay's intentions are less than honorable, and that's not exactly what Craigslist said, and shouldn't we wait for eBay to give a definitive statement before this is put in the Interwebs for literally thousands of people to read between porn sessions?!?!?!?!?!?@#$%)xx!"
Feel free and post opposing opinions, and if the Internet community thinks they're well supported and interesting then your post may also get syndicated in that way.
As a piece of advice, you might want to remember the first rule of holes:
When you find yourself in one, [b]STOP DIGGING![/b]
-Polaris
Well besides, none of the facts are really contested (Wizards said X to Clark and since Scott and Linae said Y and Z), it's more the interpretations and opinions of likely implications of the facts at hand.
Hate to break it to everyone, but there's no standard of "don't post opinions on the Internet where people might see them!" Many of the pieces posted on slashdot are "editorially slanted" - it's not supposed to be value neutral. Let's see what's on the front page today. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/23/145255. I'm sure "phpmysqldev" has people complaining that "It's not random, and what grounds does Craigslist have to say eBay's intentions are less than honorable, and that's not exactly what Craigslist said, and shouldn't we wait for eBay to give a definitive statement before this is put in the Interwebs for literally thousands of people to read between porn sessions?!?!?!?!?!?@#$%)xx!"
Feel free and post opposing opinions, and if the Internet community thinks they're well supported and interesting then your post may also get syndicated in that way.
The thing is that from the thread on ENWorld, it is *very clear* that the understanding of the exclusivity clause by Scott and Linea and that by Clark (and whomever talked to him) is radically different. Scott and Linea seem to have interpreted it as being product by product, whereas the person Clark spoke to thinks it means firm-wide. In your blog, which you submitted to /., you presented one side (firm-wide) as fact and made no mention of the confusion in interpretation at all.
In your blog, which you submitted to /., you presented one side (firm-wide) as fact and made no mention of the confusion in interpretation at all.
Not only that, but his blog and Slashdot both assert that the "company by company" interpretation comes straight from Wizards of the Coast, when in fact it comes from Clark.
The thing is that from the thread on ENWorld, it is *very clear* that the understanding of the exclusivity clause by Scott and Linea and that by Clark (and whomever talked to him) is radically different. Scott and Linea seem to have interpreted it as being product by product, whereas the person Clark spoke to thinks it means firm-wide. In your blog, which you submitted to /., you presented one side (firm-wide) as fact and made no mention of the confusion in interpretation at all.
Well, Scott and Linea have had plenty of chances to say the Slashdot article is filled with holes but they haven't. This is way past ridiculous, a few simple statements, a simple summary of what rights are and are not granted by the GSL would clear this up. Instead we get more smoke and mirrors.
In my experience people that have nothing to hide are up front and forward. People who are trying to hide something they don't want you to know talk in circles and play word games. I am quite frankly sick and tired of smoke and mirrors, a few simple, straight forward statements would clear this up, instead we play 20 questions. Why the games?
Scott has time to post about what he had for dinner but he can't say one simple sentence "mxyzplk's article on Slashdot is deeply flawed".
How can he possibly make any kind of official statement when he has yet to see the final product that Hasbro legal has cooked up? Sure, he knows generally what it will include, at least as far as the last meeting he was involved with is concerned - but specifically, he cannot comment in any official capacity as yet.
None of his comments can be seen as smoke and mirrors as he was completely upfront in stating that he has yet to see the final GSL licence, and therefore, cannot make specific comments.
Um... Scott can be directly quoted that without seeing the GSL, he would be scating into the realm of speculation. He can also be quoted as having said that he himself will not get an opportunity to see the GSL until Tomorrow (Friday).
I was basing my statement mostly on this thread which has very little comment on the topic from any WotC folks. I was actually referring to the comment from MudBunny immediately above which seems to contradict your comment:
The thing is that from the thread on ENWorld, it is *very clear* that the understanding of the exclusivity clause by Scott and Linea and that by Clark (and whomever talked to him) is radically different. Scott and Linea seem to have interpreted it as being product by product, whereas the person Clark spoke to thinks it means firm-wide. In your blog, which you submitted to /., you presented one side (firm-wide) as fact and made no mention of the confusion in interpretation at all.
Maybe Mudbunny fabricated that statement, I don't know. Quite frankly I don't have time to chase all over ENWorld and Wizards to find out which quote is true. If WotC weren't playing so many stupid games with this there would be a straight forward statement somewhere about it. Instead we're forced to dig through 250 posts on ENWorld, another 100+ here.
The reason the article on Slashdot is so interesting? Because it's the only straight forward statement I've heard from ANYWHERE about what is contained in the GSL. Maybe it's a fabrication, I don't know. The fact that no one at Wizards has contradicted it is a bit damning.
All I am asking for is some long overdue straight talk on the GSL.
On page 10 of the 31 page Enworld Thread (post 279) - Scott Rouse said the following, and I quote -
I am not going to say anything else until I have the final license in my hot little hands.
I am reading the thread, absorbing all the opinions, rants, speculations, thoughts, and musings. I have chimed in on a couple posts but beyond that, sitting here on Saturday morning, with out the license in front of me, I am quickly skating into the realm of speculation and I don't not want to unnecessarily add gas to the fire that may or may not be there. Until I see the final language in the licenses I am going avoid claiming that the language will say x or y.
Below, you will find a complete list of all postings by both Linae Foster and Scott Rouse on the above mentioned thread. This list has been compiled with the intent to give an easy reference table with which to put all said quotes in their proper context. Links highlighted in red are important quotes from both parties, while those in black are either personal comments, or irrelevant.
This list has taken close to 2 hours to compile and format. I hope the effort is appreciated.
- Page 1, Post 11: Linae Foster
- [color=red]Page 1, Post 17: Linae Foster[/color]
- [color=Red]Page 2, Post 36: Linae Foster[/color]
- [color=red]Page 2, Post 39: Linae Foster[/color]
- [color=red]Page 2, Post 42: Linae Foster[/color]
- [color=red]Page 2, Post 44: Linae Foster[/color]
- Page 3, Post 78: Linae Foster
- [color=Red]Page 4, Post 99: Scott Rouse[/color]
- [color=Red]Page 5, Post 127: Linae Foster[/color]
- Page 7, Post 208: Linae Foster
- Page 9, Post 254: Scott Rouse
- Page 10, Post 279: Scott Rouse
- Page 10, Post 290: Scott Rouse
- Page 11, Post 302: Scott Rouse
- Page 17, Post 504: Scott Rouse
- Page 17, Post 505: Scott Rouse
- Page 19, Post 556: Scott Rouse
- Page 19, Post 559: Scott Rouse
- Page 28, Post 834: Scott Rouse
Edit: Given how many threads are quoting this information, I will be cross-posting this list into its own thread.
The thing is that from the thread on ENWorld, it is *very clear* that the understanding of the exclusivity clause by Scott and Linea and that by Clark (and whomever talked to him) is radically different. Scott and Linea seem to have interpreted it as being product by product, whereas the person Clark spoke to thinks it means firm-wide. In your blog, which you submitted to /., you presented one side (firm-wide) as fact and made no mention of the confusion in interpretation at all.
Mudbunny,
No, what you are saying is false. I've already busted his chops for claiming Wotc said something officially when they didn't but mxyzplk does have his basic facts straight. It is NOT clear that Scott or Linae at any time said that the exclusion provision was per product. If you read their statements (and glimeral has done yeoman work thanks), the questions assume it, and they answer the questions on a per product basis, but they don't actually say that the exclusion clause is per product rather than per company. Before you argue with me, read them again carefully. At no time would any of Linae or Scott's answers be correct with a per product exclusion but incorrect with a per company one. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. They allow (and even imply) that it is a per product exclusion but they never say it.
Now read their statements (did I think you glimeral yet?) after Clark dropped his little bombshell. Big difference. In both cases Linae and Scott not only don't deny what Clark said, but make interpretations that are consistant with a per company exclusion or 'poison pill' but inconsistant if it were a per product exclusion. If it were a per product exclusion, Linae (since she is the licensing manager) could have stopped this speculation in five minutes. The fact she didn't is extremely strong circumstantial evidence that Clark has it right. All of Wotc's actions since have seem to have confirmed it (without an actual official confirmation).
So, no mudbunny, mxyzplk actually has the basic news correct. Certainly it would pass most journalistic scrutiny if properly cited.
-Polaris
Not only that, but his blog and Slashdot both assert that the "company by company" interpretation comes straight from Wizards of the Coast, when in fact it comes from Clark.
Please don't pile on. If you go up thread, I've already busted his chops over that and he's since edited his blog.
-Polaris
Maybe Mudbunny fabricated that statement, I don't know. Quite frankly I don't have time to chase all over ENWorld and Wizards to find out which quote is true. If WotC weren't playing so many stupid games with this there would be a straight forward statement somewhere about it. Instead we're forced to dig through 250 posts on ENWorld, another 100+ here.
No, mudbunny is confused. It's understandable because it was meant to be. On Friday before Clark dropped his bombshell, Scott and Linae had gone out to various places and started doing Q&A on the GSL. In several of those sessions people asked about the OGL exclusion clause (it was generally known and expected) and were asking about how it would affect one product in relation to another product. Both of them answered those questions.
However, if you read their answers, at no point are those answers rendered false if the exclusion is a per company exclusion rather than a per product exclusion
It's just at the time those questions were asked no one without inside info (Clark) even dreamed that the exclusion would be anything other than product by product.
Basically Scott and Linae allowed people to ASSUME it was product by product IMHO rather disengenously.
-Polaris
Please don't pile on. If you go up thread, I've already busted his chops over that and he's since edited his blog.
-Polaris
Please don't pile it on.
We will be getting official information soon. To keep pushing the buttons of the whole community to express your point, that you have already made abundantly clear, is just stirring the pot.
Please don't pile it on.
We will be getting official information soon. To keep pushing the buttons of the whole community to express your point, that you have already made abundantly clear, is just stirring the pot.
I'm not. I am having a conversation about it the same as everyone else. What mxyzplk did was attribute something official to wotc when that was false. He has since corrected this. As far as I am concerned it is over. It should be for everyone else as well hence my comment.
This GSL poison pill mess is not over and every day that Wotc delays further confirms that Clark Peterson got it right in the first place.
Really, do you really think I am wrong about the GSL Poison Pill at this date? Honestly?
-Polaris
I'm not. I am having a conversation about it the same as everyone else. What mxyzplk did was attribute something official to wotc when that was false. He has since corrected this. As far as I am concerned it is over. It should be for everyone else as well hence my comment.
This GSL poison pill mess is not over and every day that Wotc delays further confirms that Clark Peterson got it right in the first place.
Really, do you really think I am wrong about the GSL Poison Pill at this date? Honestly?
-Polaris
You're darn tootin I think your wrong.
Let's use that car analogy:
WotC comes out with a 300cc engine in a panel van and lets others customize the panel van into other styles(conversion, passenger, utility, etc.) but that isn't what happens. What happens is people take that 300cc and later on 350cc engine and toss it into planes, trains, boats, heck even houses.
Now when WotC comes out with the new 400cc engine in a panel van, now they learned to limit what people do with the added work. They limit you to making the conversion, passenger and utility styles and no more going with the planes, trains, boats, and houses.
If you want to continue making your planes, trains, boats and houses by all means do so. However if you want to use the new 400cc engine well, you don't get to still make the 350cc engine products.
My stop piling it on had nothing to do with mxyzplks misleading article, but about you beating this chicken little argument into the ground a billion times and maybe, just maybe, waiting until WotC makes an official response, which they will do once they get back from GAMA. Then you can go back to being all up in arms about it and make all the poison pill comments you want. It wont change that WotC has done something extremely good for their system by limiting the amount of low quality products that rode the OGL wagon.
You're darn tootin I think your wrong.
OK, show me the evidence that Clark Peterson got it wrong.
Let's use that car analogy:
We can start with that this is a horrible analogy since Tabletop games are nothing like cars and neither is the market.
WotC comes out with a 300cc engine in a panel van and lets others customize the panel van into other styles(conversion, passenger, utility, etc.) but that isn't what happens. What happens is people take that 300cc and later on 350cc engine and toss it into planes, trains, boats, heck even houses.
Now when WotC comes out with the new 400cc engine in a panel van, now they learned to limit what people do with the added work. They limit you to making the conversion, passenger and utility styles and no more going with the planes, trains, boats, and houses.
If you want to continue making your planes, trains, boats and houses by all means do so. However if you want to use the new 400cc engine well, you don't get to still make the 350cc engine products.
This is why it's a horrible analogy. Games are fundamentally resuable packages of information rather than fixed assets like vans which makes the entire above analogy invalid. A better analogy would be software and open-source software markets can be quite successful. In addition to that, your analogy in no way disproves the notion that Wotc is going by to a per-company exclusion or 'poison pill' GSL.
[What you also neglect to mention is for tangible assets, you never see (at least to my knowledge) open source licensing. You do see it in games and software.]
My stop piling it on had nothing to do with mxyzplks misleading article, but about you beating this chicken little argument into the ground a billion times and maybe, just maybe, waiting until WotC makes an official response, which they will do once they get back from GAMA. Then you can go back to being all up in arms about it and make all the poison pill comments you want. It wont change that WotC has done something extremely good for their system by limiting the amount of low quality products that rode the OGL wagon.
No. That's not going to happen unless Wotc comes out with more information. I'm not telling you what to do; please return the same courtesy. If you believe that I have misread the evidence then say so and why. Otherwise I can talk about it along with everyone else.
-Polaris
Um... Scott can be directly quoted that without seeing the GSL, he would be scating into the realm of speculation. He can also be quoted as having said that he himself will not get an opportunity to see the GSL until Tomorrow (Friday).
He could have always pulled a Gamer_ZerO and say something like "i don't have any information about the GSL yet", or just not made a comment at all about it.
This is just observation of course, but as the saying goes "Better to keep you mouth shut and let everyone think you an idiot, than to open it and remove all doubt." Meaning, no one had to respond to anything said on ENWrold, or Paizo, etc. Maybe a user/administraor/staff "WotC_Legal" could have come to these forums and addressed the issues, or said that the details are not ready for public release yet until the time specified (if it was) in the article about it.
I mentioned somewhere, that maybe someone said something they shouldn't have. The above saying sort of means the same thing. If Scott had not made any claims, or defense of the situation then it wouldn't have been an issue would it?
People would have still jumped to wild conclusions and speculation, but it could have been handled better with a bit of planning.
Not blaming Scott entirely, because the article itself, and whateer email/phone call/etc Clark got or whatever made the conclusion come to light was also a part of the problem.
Having legal matters and issues with this GSL seems to have spurred someone to comment on wild speculation. Had more people jumped into discussion of other things revolving around 4th edition like the other articles and such it might have given people something else to talk about as well.
So it isn't really a one sided problem.
Page 10, Post 279: Scott Rouse
We had simple goals in mind with the license.
I find the goal #5 to be missing. That being anything to do with gamers, and only to do with businesses. That interview/summit/panel first mentioning the sTL talked about some criteria to make products good for gamers, or better than just anything under the OGL. This seems to not even have the gamers in mind at all. I could care less about their business reasons, because it all boils down to one thing, money.
From my point of view, that money comes from gamers. you do not make happy gamers, or a product that gamers will want, your other goals interest in money, will not be very likely when those gamers refuse to spend money on the products because they are made with money first, gamer not even mentioned or in mind....
Gamers happiness, entertainment, and enjoyment should be the FIRST goal.
I guess some have had enjoyment in guessing what all this means, but it has done damage to the gaming community as far as I see it.
This is not directed at you, just using your posts to identify what I am talking about since you took all the time to round up the information to help prevent added speculation of facts.
Please don't pile it on.
We will be getting official information soon. To keep pushing the buttons of the whole community to express your point, that you have already made abundantly clear, is just stirring the pot.
Soon is this mythical date that seems to keep slowly drifting backwards in time. As long as we will get answers "Soon", or shortly, or eventually...
The product is going to be released "Soon". We're not asking for a lot, just a tiny bit of straight talk.
OK, show me the evidence that Clark Peterson got it wrong.
Show me the evidence that he is right
We can start with that this is a horrible analogy since Tabletop games are nothing like cars and neither is the market.
Nor are they like computers. And the analogy is much much closer than you think. Unless you have forgotten that an analogy is Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. not something that is similar
This is why it's a horrible analogy. Games are fundamentally resuable packages of information rather than fixed assets like vans which makes the entire above analogy invalid. A better analogy would be software and open-source software markets can be quite successful. In addition to that, your analogy in no way disproves the notion that Wotc is going by to a per-company exclusion or 'poison pill' GSL.
[What you also neglect to mention is for tangible assets, you never see (at least to my knowledge) open source licensing. You do see it in games and software.]
Not a car guy I see.
No. That's not going to happen unless Wotc comes out with more information. I'm not telling you what to do; please return the same courtesy. If you believe that I have misread the evidence then say so and why. Otherwise I can talk about it along with everyone else.
-Polaris
How can you have spent the better part of a week or more freaking out on something that hasn't been fully explained.
Soon is this mythical date that seems to keep slowly drifting backwards in time. As long as we will get answers "Soon", or shortly, or eventually...
The product is going to be released "Soon". We're not asking for a lot, just a tiny bit of straight talk.
Have people been living in basements for this long???
Haven't ever heard of GAMA
The association was formed in 1977 to protect the interests of the Origins Game Fair, and was incorporated as a non-profit venture in 1982.
GAMA organizes two shows each year, the GAMA Trade Show (GTS) in Las Vegas, Nevada - a professional trade show aimed at game retailers, and the Origins Game Fair in Columbus, Ohio - a 15,000 person consumer show that is aimed at the game-playing public.
Care to guess what's going on this week or guess where nearly all the game companies go for that week? I can give you a hint... It's in Vegas
And before anyone jumps up and says "thats what phone/web/video conferences are for" please remember that arranging said conference would be very difficult given the time constraints they have due to said GTS convention, and their participation in said.
This bombshell could not have come at a worse time for Wizards than it did.....
Do not take this statement as my defending Wizards for this debacle. I am not defending them, nor am I part of the Lynch Mob. In fact, I have attempted to remain a neutral party in this whole affair with the sole intent of making certain that - if any lynching is going to happen, it should be done based on the actual facts, and not wild rumor and exaggerated claims.
I do have a personal opinion in all of this, I am just choosing to reserve it, as it will not help matters any. Being a neutral party is going to be more helpful than jumping on either band-wagon could ever be.
This statement is meant just as it is.... This bombshell dropped at a very bad time for Wizards. Regardless of how unfortunate the timing was for them, they are faced with the reality of it, and only time will tell whether they manage to save face, or screw over their image in their capricious and temperamental gaming audience.
The bombshell dropped by Clark just came at a very bad time for Wizards (PR wize) as it dropped the day before they were all flying out for the GTS (as mentioned above). This is very unfortunate for Wizards as half of their office is half-way across the continent, making it very difficult for them to conference a solution.
You are under the impression that I am complaining about a 1 week delay which is completely wrong. I am frustrated at the fact that this has been delayed and promised repeatedly over the last 6+ months.
Scott's casual statement about "I'm not going to say anything until I see the final document" is a nice evasion, but frankly I don't buy it. The idea that Scott doesn't know the essence of the license is ridiculous. Especially in light of the fact that in that same thread he talks about some fairly specific elements on the license. It isn't until he is confronted with a question that he is uncomfortable answering that he claims ignorance. It takes exactly 30 seconds to say "In my understanding the license affects single products only." That isn't even a legally binding statement.
This is not a surprise that cropped up last Friday, and "oh gee we're at GAMA so can't talk now". This is something they have been developing for at least 6 months. Scott knows what's in it, Linae knows.
Smoke and mirrors.
Have people been living in basements for this long???
Haven't ever heard of GAMA
The association was formed in 1977 to protect the interests of the Origins Game Fair, and was incorporated as a non-profit venture in 1982.
GAMA organizes two shows each year, the GAMA Trade Show (GTS) in Las Vegas, Nevada - a professional trade show aimed at game retailers, and the Origins Game Fair in Columbus, Ohio - a 15,000 person consumer show that is aimed at the game-playing public.
Care to guess what's going on this week or guess where nearly all the game companies go for that week? I can give you a hint... It's in Vegas
If you were following any of the GAMA news, the show is over and Wizards stonewalled all the way through it. Publishers asked them incessantly, and distributors asked the publishers incessantly about when they'd have 4e products, and everyone had a generally tense time.
I'm not sure if you're living in a basement or not, but you're certainly living in denial...
If you were following any of the GAMA news, the show is over and Wizards stonewalled all the way through it. Publishers asked them incessantly, and distributors asked the publishers incessantly about when they'd have 4e products, and everyone had a generally tense time.
I'm not sure if you're living in a basement or not, but you're certainly living in denial...
Perhaps they're being careful as to what they're releasing since it seems that some people have already decided that they were commiting nefarious deeds and are taking pleasure in bad publicity:
"Hrmf. After being given just one hour to put together questions for the conference call with WotC, ENWorld was told it would be “2-4 days” until the answers would be available. So keep standing by. Then once they fess up, submit this to Fark so they’ll really get a reaming " (posted April 21, 2008 at 8:25 pm by mxyzplk)
Perhaps they're being careful as to what they're releasing since it seems that some people have already decided that they were commiting nefarious deeds and are taking pleasure in bad publicity:
So what you are saying is they are trying to figure out what to tell us in such a way that mxyzplk won't be able to say "I told you so"?
Here's a thought. How about they just focus on telling us what's in the license. No matter how badly it is received the delaying and telling half truths is only going to make things worse.
There, that's out of the way... Now they can answer, unless there's an ulterior motive for delaying. If they're afraid of the press they'll get for their real stance, that should be an indicator to them that their stance is wrong...
There will be no answer this week and quite possibly no answer next week either.
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4184637&postcount=64
Geez, Wotc! What sort of operation are you running anyway??? By the time you do say something no matter how bad, no one is going to believe you anymore (not just people like me).
-Polaris
Scott did say something about the WotC gang spending next week reading over the thing and determining whether everyone is happy with it. That doesn't sound like "It's done and we're all completely clear on it, we just haven't decided how to describe it to you yet."
Scott also indicated that he wouldn't "personally" be happy if the license forced other companies to destroy or deny the existence of their backstock. So it's possible that the full implications of the exclusivity clause (and now, the response to a particularly severe interpretation of it that was communicated to Clark Peterson by at least one WotC employee) are just now becoming clear to some folks at WotC.
Yes, that does seem a little odd. Still, all they announced last week was that there would be a GSL (which apparently required a hard fight by itself), not that it was completely finished at the time. If even Rouse isn't comfortable speaking on a major implication of the license without a copy in front of him (and preferably time to study and discuss it), and if even the "early access" third parties won't be seeing the license for two weeks or more after the announcement, it's certainly possible that the thing just isn't done.
(Which could mean that Clark's informant was also working from partial information, or else that the worst-case form of the exclusivity clause was not part of the agreement between Scott and Linae's pro-license faction and their anti-license opponents, and now they have to check and/or modify the license to soften that consequence.)
Deadstop
I dunno. It's really starting to sound as though not just the Q&A, but the license itself, has yet to be finished.
If that is true (and you well could be right), then what on earth was Scott and especially Linae (the licensing manager!) doing on EN World, here, and (presumably) at GAMA answering very technical product related questions concerning this GSL???
I find this mind boggling.
-Polaris
http://www.networkperformancedaily.com/2008/04/mysql_isnt_going_from_open_to.html
If that is true (and you well could be right), then what on earth was Scott and especially Linae (the licensing manager!) doing on EN World, here, and (presumably) at GAMA answering very technical product related questions concerning this GSL???
Don't worry, answers are coming "Soon"
Rather than mess with this discussion I'm going to focus on looking at the alternatives.
Answers are now up at the ENWorld main page and in this thread.
And yet it answers nothing for me. Why not just cut the crap and give a straight answer. Lawyers are nothing but cockroaches that need to be exterminated. Most people speak plain english, so why can't these answers be given in that?
Can someone make the same book of monsters/feats/powers/classes/etc for both 3rd and 4th using both the OGL and GSL?
What the hell is this "product line" crap?
Yes = 3 letters
No = 2 letters
How much less space it would take up and time to type to just say yes or no.
That is all people want, a simple frelling yes or no answer.
:headexplo
Can someone make the same book of monsters/feats/powers/classes/etc for both 3rd and 4th using both the OGL and GSL?
No.
Happy now?
No.
Happy now?
But they could probably make mostly the same book, it has to be distinct enough to avoid any confusion. You don't want someone to get confused buying Artifacts for 3.5 with the grey cover and the faux metal trim when they want to buy Artifacts for 4e with the grey cover and the faux metal trim.
But you could release say...
Artifacts for 3.5 with the grey cover and the faux metal trim as an independant piece.
and
Treasures for 4e with the black cover and the faux metal trim as an independant piece.
Paizo cannot release Pathfinder for both 3.5 and 4e, but they could maintain Pathfinder for 3.5 and also create a different set of adventures for 4e.
It also means that Masterminds and Mutants is perfect and golden just as she is.
No.
Happy now?
Not really. But I would like to know where you found this information, to see if it then includes clearification.
Yeah, Yeah! I asked for a simple yes or no, but have some other bits that need to be explained to me. So what if I am slow getting all this legal crap figured out!
So to correct my assumption.
Company Fred can make 3rd edition rules based book of classes called Fred's OGL Classes.
Company Fred cannot then convert those classes to 4th edition based rules, publish that book as Fred's GSL Classes (insert compatibility logo).
Vice Versa.
Does that sum it up?
in the WotC News FAQs
Q. I have multiple product lines. If I update one product line to 4th Edition, do they all have to be updated?
A. No. Publishers are able to choose on a product line by product line basis which license will work best.
Q. Do I have to give up my right to publish 3.5 OGL products in order to publish 4e compatible products?
A. No. Publishers are free to print product lines under either the OGL or 4E GSL. We would love to see our industry colleagues convert their entire product offerings to 4E, as we are doing, but we do not expect or require entire companies to convert to the new edition.
If Fred's Classes are a product line, then Fred's Classes can only be made under the OGL or the GSL. If I'm understanding the answer correctly, then Fred's Classes can continue to be made under the OGL or updated to the GSL, and Jane's Classes can be made under the GSL or the OGL (choosing one). The GSL will probably (hopefully?) explain what specifically constitutes a product line.
Edit: To clarify, it looks like if you move Fred's Classes to the GSL, all of Fred's Classes you distribute from that point on have to be made for the GSL and no longer for the OGL. This has no bearing on Jane's Classes or other product lines.
If Fred's Classes are a product line, then Fred's Classes can only be made under the OGL or the GSL. If I'm understanding the answer correctly, then Fred's Classes can continue to be made under the OGL or updated to the GSL, and Jane's Classes can be made under the GSL or the OGL (choosing one). The GSL will probably (hopefully?) explain what specifically constitutes a product line.
Edit: To clarify, it looks like if you move Fred's Classes to the GSL, all of Fred's Classes you distribute from that point on have to be made for the GSL and no longer for the OGL. This has no bearing on Jane's Classes or other product lines.
OK, so just make the OGL product first, then after it is printed, make the GSL product dated and printed afterward.
No need to actually make the OGL again as a reprint once you have made enough copies to supply with under OGL.
Please continue any discussion there. Thanks!