From ENWorld:
Mike: Why is Wizards of the Coast calling it the OGL when it really doesn't seem quite open?
Linae Foster: We decided that yeah, OGL isn't the best name for it. So we're going to call it The Game System License from now on or GSL.
Linky
Comment away.
Edit: My only comment, "Well, atleast we now know for sure that section 9 of the OGL no longer applies since they are difference licences."
::Nick Logue experiences DREAD::
I hope WotC realizes that some of the best product comes from third party publishers and allows them to support the game as well as everyone wants them to. Otherwise, I see a lot of companies considering not converting. They would do well to look at the long term success of 4E and not the short term "don't let those other guys write the good stuff" angle. Just my two cents. But what do I know really, I'm not a publisher, lawyer or even an employee of either...I am but a lowly freelancer.
But isn't that the direction the company has moved towards anyway with their moves regarding Dungeon/Dragon, as well as the other licenses?
Yeah, but licenses is one thing, restricting the TYPE of content or tying people's hands creatively is something else entirely. I want to see Golarion able to rock exactly the way Erik, James and Co. intend it to under the GSL. If not, then I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't switch, especially if they can't tell the AMAZING tales they've been telling so far under the scope of the GSL.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yeah, but licenses is one thing, restricting the TYPE of content or tying people's hands creatively is something else entirely. I want to see Golarion able to rock exactly the way Erik, James and Co. intend it to under the GSL. If not, then I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't switch, especially if they can't tell the AMAZING tales they've been telling so far under the scope of the GSL.
What I've read indicates that they want to keep out things like M&M and Iron Heroes (which is really ironic given that it was presumably Mearls' work on IH that got him a job in development at WotC), games that stand alone without any D&D core books. The rumor is that the new license will be structured to require the core books as reference material in order to be usable. Any stand along game is therefore no longer possible.
Something like Pathfinder, which is a setting using the core D&D rules, should be just fine. There's also a morale's clause, but that's more of a save-your-ass type thing in case someone makes an rpg that is really truly vile.
This is all total speculation based on what's come out so far.
Edit: Maybe you do have reason to be concerned about the moral's clause...
(WotC claims they will not use the moral's clause unless the material is truly over the top vile. I'm thinking something like the Complete Child Pornographer's Handbook.)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Edit: My only comment, "Well, atleast we now know for sure that section 9 of the OGL no longer applies since they are difference licences."
Hope Clark hasn't ponied up too much in advance for ToH 4.xm since I'm betting this will kill the thing.
Gods I hope that doesn't come across as smug. As much as I'm thinking 4.x has been legally crafted to keep things like ToH out, I don't want to be right.
Edit: Maybe you do have reason to be concerned about the moral's clause...
(WotC claims they will not use the moral's clause unless the material is truly over the top vile. I'm thinking something like the Complete Child Pornographer's Handbook.)
::Nick dumps three manuscripts in the recycle bin, wondering why he can't write material for the kinds of characters he really loves to play::
;-)
Normally I wouldn't have even bothered with the smiley, but after some recent threads (I'M LOOKING AT YOU TORTURE PORN!), I figured I better play this one safe.
Edit: My only comment, "Well, atleast we now know for sure that section 9 of the OGL no longer applies since they are difference licences."
Hope Clark hasn't ponied up too much in advance for ToH 4.xm since I'm betting this will kill the thing.
Gods I hope that doesn't come across as smug. As much as I'm thinking 4.x has been legally crafted to keep things like ToH out, I don't want to be right.
I hope not too. ToH is the bomb.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Seb, but that does not make too much sense though. For example, say I developed a setting called Aldavir with basic world info that relies on the "core books" for the basics. Then later on I come out with a monster manual type book making the MM unneeded. Would this be in violation of the license?
I really don't know enough to answer the question. I would be surprised if they didn't allow room for new monsters, but you never know. I think a more likely scenario might be something like this:
Monsters all have types (humanoid, elemental, whatever). The rules baggage for those monster types can only be found in the MM. You can make new monsters, you can make new types, but you can't actually include the MM monster types in your product.
I completely made that up, but that would be one way of doing it.
End of the day, I would be very surprised if you couldn't make the basic things like spells, feats, talents, classes, monsters, weapons, adventures, etc. Basically, I expect third parties to continue to be able to provide the meat and potatoes of the game. The ability to build entirely different games (M&M, Iron Heroes) is what will be lacking.
If the link above doesn't work then the podcast can be found here.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hope Clark hasn't ponied up too much in advance for ToH 4.xm since I'm betting this will kill the thing.Gods I hope that doesn't come across as smug. As much as I'm thinking 4.x has been legally crafted to keep things like ToH out, I don't want to be right.
I would bet a significant sum of money that the 4e license will not bar the production of adventures by third parties. They are one of the product types that the original OGL was intended to produce.
(WotC claims they will not use the moral's clause unless the material is truly over the top vile. I'm thinking something like the Complete Child Pornographer's Handbook.)
*cough, cough*bookoferoticfantasy*cough, cough* Really -- they'll enforce the license when they feel like it, or when something might cause enough of a stir to get them in trouble.
Then again, they did publish the BoVD on their lonesome...
Something like Pathfinder, which is a setting using the core D&D rules, should be just fine. There's also a morale's clause, but that's more of a save-your-ass type thing in case someone makes an rpg that is really truly vile.
You mean "truly vile" like a "massacre" of innocents?
Something like Pathfinder, which is a setting using the core D&D rules, should be just fine. There's also a morale's clause, but that's more of a save-your-ass type thing in case someone makes an rpg that is really truly vile.You mean "truly vile" like mass murder of innocents?
::Nick watches Carnival of Tears go up in smoke::
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
(WotC claims they will not use the moral's clause unless the material is truly over the top vile. I'm thinking something like the Complete Child Pornographer's Handbook.)*cough, cough*bookoferoticfantasy*cough, cough* Really -- they'll enforce the license when they feel like it, or when something might cause enough of a stir to get them in trouble.
Then again, they did publish the BoVD on their lonesome...
Yup. They theoretically could just use it willy-nilly if they wanted. The disadvantage of that is that if they (for example) were to bring the hammer down on Paizo for something like Hook Horror Massacre, there's a good chance people will just quit using the new license and go back to the OGL (or do what companies did before the OGL and make up their own system). Assuming the purpose of the license is to allow for third party content, and not some elaborate ruse to lure in third parties and then crush them, it is in WotC's interest to not enforce it in an arbitrary and anti-competitive manner.
All that being said, they did not seem to have much of an issue knee-capping Paizo when the adventure paths and spin-off product lines (Dragon Compendium) started to take off. Granted, that was a totally different license, but it's a good illustration of WotC being less than benign in their licensing.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I would bet a significant sum of money that the 4e license will not bar the production of adventures by third parties. They are one of the product types that the original OGL was intended to produce.
Hope Clark hasn't ponied up too much in advance for ToH 4.xm since I'm betting this will kill the thing.Gods I hope that doesn't come across as smug. As much as I'm thinking 4.x has been legally crafted to keep things like ToH out, I don't want to be right.
I don't doubt that adventures will be possible. I worry that things like the Monster books are not going to be possible.
for example... Auromvorax is OGL under 3.x in Tomb of Horrors. Is this new CGL (Closed Gaming License) going to allow a 4.x Auromvorax, or was the permission to make it Open only good for the OGL 1.0a?
Can I make a 4.x blue dragon that spits lightning, for example?
It does look like it is being designed to force others companies to be come adventure and setting writers (but not to allow reinterpretations).
"Don't like high fantasy, well suck-it you commie!"
(Not saying they can't or don't have the right to do so, but that I don't have to agree or like it.)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't doubt that adventures will be possible. I worry that things like the Monster books are not going to be possible.for example... Auromvorax is OGL under 3.x in Tomb of Horrors. Is this new CGL (Closed Gaming License) going to allow a 4.x Auromvorax, or was the permission to make it Open only good for the OGL 1.0a?
Can I make a 4.x blue dragon that spits lightning, for example?
I'm not sure I follow. The 3.x Auromvorax is out of the bag and can't put back in. Once 3.x open content, always 3.x open content. So, to the extent its a 3.x product, it's good.
That being said, I wouldn't be shocked if a condition to using the 4e license is forfeiting your ability to use the 3.x OGL. That will be a nasty scenario - basically forcing companies to choose between product lines.
In any event, the license won't mean much if you can't take a blue dragon and modify it so that it spits lightening. You might have to do something horribly clunky like say "this blue dragon has all the features of the MM red dragon found on page x, but it spits lightening."
Anyway, this is all well beyond speculation. We'll see one way or the other when the license comes out what it allows for.
That being said, I wouldn't be shocked if a condition to using the 4e license is forfeiting your ability to use the 3.x OGL. That will be a nasty scenario - basically forcing companies to choose between product lines.
My, a deliciously Lawful Evil twist. Your lawyer is showing. ;P
IMO, There are 2 real hurdles. The first is the Necromancer hurdle. If Necro takes the GLS and makes ToH4E/APH, then its because the licence itself allows alternate monster books and additional classes and races. This would lead me to believe that the GSL is as open as the existing d20 licence. (EDIT: Or at the very least, close enough to the d20 licence).
The second hurdle is the Paizo hurdle. With things like Caravan of Tears and Hornsaw Massacre, it is in question if the GSL will allow products that explore a darker side of humanity then is typical is in most d20 products. This one will be harder to measure. AP3 could be 3.5 simply because the Paizians believe that there isn't sufficient time to do the kind of quality that Paizo is known for or plenty of other good reasons. AP4 is IMO the real results of that test.
I'm not sure I follow. The 3.x Auromvorax is out of the bag and can't put back in. Once 3.x open content, always 3.x open content.
Yes, but to use it, you may need to include a copy of the OGL in the publication. And the GSL may prohibit use of the OGL in any GSL product. You can't have both licenses in one product, can you? (Cuz that potentially could make closed content open, right?)
That being said, I wouldn't be shocked if a condition to using the 4e license is forfeiting your ability to use the 3.x OGL. That will be a nasty scenario - basically forcing companies to choose between product lines.
This is my guess. Otherwise, someone could modify the 3.5 SRD to make True20 2.0 or a Pocket Players Guide 4E.
My take on this is that too many corporate types were in on this decision. The OGL enabled the efflorescence of d20, the Renaissance of the D&D game. The license enabled the creation of new companies and the expansion of other companies into a vast umbrella supporting and promoting the d20 platform. It broadened the game into a platform that you can play with almost anyone, anywhere.
Iron Heroes, Midnight, Ptolus, Arcana Evolved, and all those other games still encouraged the purchasing of related materials, especially those from Wizards. M&M encouraged purchase of related d20 Modern and d20 Future products, and Wizards never wanted to put out a serious Supers game anyway. Yet M&M is recognizably d20. Now sure, Castles and Crusades or True20 are further afield, but they too still encourage or at least don't detract from purchase of the core books. Anecdotally, those playing those games often appear to be gamers who were going to check out from the d20 world anyway. But at least now they are still around and still aware of (if not still collecting) Wizard's products.
Restricting the platform means an eventual reduction of interest.
C'est la vie.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yes, but to use it, you may need to include a copy of the OGL in the publication. And the GSL may prohibit use of the OGL in any GSL product. You can't have both licenses in one product, can you? (Cuz that potentially could make closed content open, right?)
I'm not sure I follow. The 3.x Auromvorax is out of the bag and can't put back in. Once 3.x open content, always 3.x open content.
Right. The GSL could close the door on the OGL as I posted above and as you say here. But, if you just wanted to continue operating under the OGL and completely ignore the GSL, you could.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That being said, I wouldn't be shocked if a condition to using the 4e license is forfeiting your ability to use the 3.x OGL. That will be a nasty scenario - basically forcing companies to choose between product lines.This is my guess. Otherwise, someone could modify the 3.5 SRD to make True20 2.0 or a Pocket Players Guide 4E.
Well, keep in mind the only way they can stop you from using the OGL is to get you to agree not to use it. So, if you don't publish under the GSL, you can still do the things you mention.
There are some factors cutting against the OGL-killing GSL. The biggest is, as mentioned, the fact that WotC wants people to use the GSL. If it's so one-sided that it will ruin a company, that company just won't publish under it.
Interesting times.
So, if you don't publish under the GSL, you can still do the things you mention.
Some of the changes that we've heard about (examples: changing the entire magic system, the way hp/healing works) are, IMO, WotC's way of preventing someone from publishing 4E compatable products with OGL 1.0A.
Interesting times.
Agreed.
Yeah, I wish Japan would stop making our products better too. Can we put a stop to the great Sake Menace too while we are at it?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Heya. I haven't seen the new license. I haven't seen the playtest-y versions of the new game rules. I haven't seen the conditions under which I could see the new lisence and the rules. i know everything third-hand.
But I recall one thread, perhaps here, which implied that the morals clause and other aspects of the license might mean that third-party publishers would need Wizards' approval before publication.
Am I alone in that memory?
If that's the case, then Wizards wouldn't have to come out with the charge that, say, a hypotetical issue of Trailblazer violated some decency standard or another. They'd just have to let the permissions-guy at Wizards go on vacation for a week and take a few days getting back to the third-party guys with permission to publish.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Heya. I haven't seen the new license. I haven't seen the playtest-y versions of the new game rules. I haven't seen the conditions under which I could see the new lisence and the rules. i know everything third-hand.
But I recall one thread, perhaps here, which implied that the morals clause and other aspects of the license might mean that third-party publishers would need Wizards' approval before publication.
Am I alone in that memory?
If that's the case, then Wizards wouldn't have to come out with the charge that, say, a hypotetical issue of Trailblazer violated some decency standard or another. They'd just have to let the permissions-guy at Wizards go on vacation for a week and take a few days getting back to the third-party guys with permission to publish.
I have heard the oppposite and find that to be a highly unlikely scenario. That would greatly reduce the value of the new license to Wizards if they have to pre-approve every single publication. I think the morals clause is a paper tiger at the moment, and will continue to be boilerplate until some serious s*%@ hits the fan.
Thanks for the new catch phrase, Sebastian. I am going to have to make a new monster now.
The GSL could close the door on the OGL as I posted above and as you say here. But, if you just wanted to continue operating under the OGL and completely ignore the GSL, you could.
But the 4e SRD will only apply to the GSL, won't it? If you want to continue using the old, liberal OGL, you'll have to continue using 3.5.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The GSL could close the door on the OGL as I posted above and as you say here. But, if you just wanted to continue operating under the OGL and completely ignore the GSL, you could.But the 4e SRD will only apply to the GSL, won't it? If you want to continue using the old, liberal OGL, you'll have to continue using 3.5.
Yeah. If you want to continue using the OGL, they can't stop you. They can build the GSL to stop you using the OGL, but that would require that you first use the GSL. No GSL, no power to stop use of the OGL.
I guess they don't believe in the "Skaff Effect" so much know. Wonder what changed their minds?
|
concerning the Morale (?) portion of the liscense, would it not have to establish what is and is not considered immoral before it could be enforceable?
Sorta like copyright infringement. If you do not enforce your copyright, you could lose it.
Of course I am not a lawyer, but read extensively when Metallica was going after some small places for use of their name and this was cited as a reason for such things. These two things may not have a basis in commonality, but they seemed linked to my layman way of thinking.
I'll go back to sleep now <grin>
FW
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Right. The GSL could close the door on the OGL as I posted above and as you say here. But, if you just wanted to continue operating under the OGL and completely ignore the GSL, you could.Yes, but to use it, you may need to include a copy of the OGL in the publication. And the GSL may prohibit use of the OGL in any GSL product. You can't have both licenses in one product, can you? (Cuz that potentially could make closed content open, right?)
I'm not sure I follow. The 3.x Auromvorax is out of the bag and can't put back in. Once 3.x open content, always 3.x open content.
Which would Kill the Tome of Horrors 4.x That's my point.
Sorta like copyright infringement. If you do not enforce your copyright, you could lose it.
Of course I am not a lawyer, but read extensively when Metallica was going after some small places for use of their name and this was cited as a reason for such things. These two things may not have a basis in commonality, but they seemed linked to my layman way of thinking.
Without intending a major digression:
Copyright laws and trademark laws are different beasts. You do not lose your copyrights for failing to defend them, though I would suppose that failure could affect any claimed monetary damages for violations.
I guess they don't believe in the "Skaff Effect" so much know. Wonder what changed their minds?
Different management.
|
|
As a slight digression, it is worth noting that the OGL was never intended to be altruistic. WotC originally reckoned with the launch of 3e that it could not make money with adventures, so it effectively outsourced them to third parties via the OGL (and the spin-off of a couple of magazines to Paizo). It changed its mind when it realised, through the success of Dungeon and, it would seem, the SCAP hardback, that high quality product of that type would sell well. And suddenly the Paizo licence is not renewed and big, chunky hardback adventures are being churned out by Wizards.
While there might be a business logic to it, and I rarely decry that, the recent actions of WotC seem short-termist to me. But then the whole OGL was probably a short-term expedient too. The strategy might be new, but the ultimate motivation seems pretty similar to me.
|
|
concerning the Morale (?) portion of the liscense, would it not have to establish what is and is not considered immoral before it could be enforceable?
No, the license is like a contract that you accept by publishing under it, and people can make contracts as vague as they want. Then lawyers get to come and fight over what was meant once people start trying to enforce the contract.
So down the line, WotC can define "immoral" pretty much however they want, though you might be able to make an argument that you had certain expectations based on their statements that they would only enforce it in "extreme" situations.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
concerning the Morale (?) portion of the liscense, would it not have to establish what is and is not considered immoral before it could be enforceable?
No, the license is like a contract that you accept by publishing under it, and people can make contracts as vague as they want. Then lawyers get to come and fight over what was meant once people start trying to enforce the contract.
So down the line, WotC can define "immoral" pretty much however they want, though you might be able to make an argument that you had certain expectations based on their statements that they would only enforce it in "extreme" situations.
Finally another lawyer (or is it a lawyer-to-be still?) steps in with an answer! And a quicker and less self-important answer than I would've given. Good to have you around PCF. How goes the lawyering on your end? Are you at a big soul sucking firm yet?
|
Contributor
|
My big concern about the GSL is that if it is more like the d20 license than like the old OGL, WotC will reserve the right to revoke and or later the license at their discretion.
Under the old d20 license, on at least a couple of occasions WotC made changes to the license that 3rd party publishers had to alter their products to comply with the new rules. From what I read on RPGNow, even going back and double checking existing products was a huge expense.
But what I'm getting at is really this. WotC has given out licenses in the past that have either been changed, revoked, or not renewed, leaving other publishers in the lurch. If I was a third party publisher, I would be very cautious of this possibility.
But then, I have not seen the GSL.
But what I'm getting at is really this. WotC has given out licenses in the past that have either been changed, revoked, or not renewed, leaving other publishers in the lurch.
Licenced products (i.e. DragonLance, Dungeon/Dragon Magazine) are completely seperate from the OGL/d20 licence. MWP knew that someday their licence to DragonLance would end; Paizo knew that someday their licence to Dungeon and Dragon Magazine would end. It would have been spelled out in their licences when it would expire. There could have been clauses for renewal if both parties wanted to renew and judging from MWP's reaction a few days after Paizo announced that their Dungeon/Dragon licence would not be renewed, they fully expected the DL licence to be renewed and were taken aback when it became apparent that it would not. Note: Official Licenced products like Kingdoms of Kalamar and DragonLance have the Wizards Official Licenced Product Logo as well as the d20 logo on it.
OGL 1.0A states right in there "In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content." (Emphasis mine) There laywers here can tell me if I am inaccurate, but my best understanding is that the licence will continue, forever. Non-official licenced products have only the d20 logo on it (assuming those products comply with the d20 licence as well).
GSL, WotC has stated, like 3 weeks ago, that the GSL (calling it then OGL) will not expire, at least IIRC. It's the "immoral" part that has me and others worried.
Hmm...well, if WOTC tries to use GSL to prevent stand-alone games, I'd be ok with that. I have no problem with them wanting to sell more Player's Handbooks. So if GSL->new D20, I think that is fine.
If they try to clamp down on things like Tome of Horrors 4E, they aren't doing themselves (or any one else) any favors. That would be a serious misstep. Hopefully they don't make that mistake.
Yeah. If you want to continue using the OGL, they can't stop you. They can build the GSL to stop you using the OGL, but that would require that you first use the GSL. No GSL, no power to stop use of the OGL.The GSL could close the door on the OGL as I posted above and as you say here. But, if you just wanted to continue operating under the OGL and completely ignore the GSL, you could.But the 4e SRD will only apply to the GSL, won't it? If you want to continue using the old, liberal OGL, you'll have to continue using 3.5.
I think the prospect of the GSL preventing a third party from being able to publish under the OGL is pretty remote. One could simply set up different legal entities to publish GSL product and keep publishing OGL.
I think WOTC is more likely to use market forces to close down the value of the OGL.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think the prospect of the GSL preventing a third party from being able to publish under the OGL is pretty remote. One could simply set up different legal entities to publish GSL product and keep publishing OGL.
It's equally easy to draft the license to prevent that. It was one of the first things I thought of myself, but then realized how easy it was to circumnavigate.
YOU CAN'T PUT THE GENIE BACK IN THE TOOTHPASTE!!!
This has been a drive by random mixed metaphor, courtesy of Nick Logue, male prostitute and, arguably worse, 4E freelancer.
Paid for by the 4E Hoes For Jesus Association.
YOU CAN'T PUT THE GENIE BACK IN THE TOOTHPASTE!!!
Not to self, furvently argue this point during game when it does not apply in any way, shape or form.
This has been a drive by random mixed metaphor, courtesy of Nick Logue, male prostitute and, arguably worse, 4E freelancer.
Paid for by the 4E Hoes For Jesus Association.
For the record, I love your sense of humor.