Paid for by the 4E Hoes For Jesus Association.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
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.
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 beg to differ - in a world of freelance driven product and multiple third party licencees such attempt at circumnavigation may end up just a pointless journey.
Of course you could always just take any old rubbish restraint of trade agreement to Court when the golden rule would likely apply.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Paid for by the 4E Hoes For Jesus Association.
Get in line buddy! This one goes around the block.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I guess they don't believe in the "Skaff Effect" so much know. Wonder what changed their minds?
Perhaps the fact that neither Skaff Elias nor Ryan Dancey work there anymore?
I guess they don't believe in the "Skaff Effect" so much know. Wonder what changed their minds?Perhaps the fact that neither Skaff Elias nor Ryan Dancey work there anymore?
A salute to the old guard!
Thanks for making D&D for all of us Skaff and Ryan!
It seems that they used OGL do do exactly what Dancey stated--to improve the system. Now they want to reap more of the feedback benefit.
It seems that firing a bunch of customers doesn't fit with this theory, though.
It seems that they used OGL do do exactly what Dancey stated--to improve the system. Now they want to reap more of the feedback benefit.
It seems that firing a bunch of customers doesn't fit with this theory, though.
Hey Kruelaid...
YOU'RE FIRED!
Sucka.
Or you could play 3.5, really the choice is all yours skull-face.
;-)
Dear Nick,
I plan on playing both, how else am I gonna run all your slutty trash, Nick?
Your Truly,
Kruelaid
Dear Nick,
I plan on playing both, how else am I gonna run all your slutty trash, Nick?
Your Truly,
Kruelaid
::Nick humps out 5,000 more words of slutty trash!::
I guess they don't believe in the "Skaff Effect" so much know. Wonder what changed their minds?
Thanks for pointing out that interview. I haven't read it in .... years. I just reread it. With everything that has happened in the the past several months (heck, in the last month), its like reading a newspaper clipping covering the Gettysburg Address or pictures of the first American servicemen home from WWII after Germany's surrender. Its a piece of history now. It ushered in the Golden Age of Role Playing. And today we have seen the start of a new Age of Role Playing. Be it Silver or Bronze or Copper or maybe even Platinum, I do not know.
But what I do know is that the future is not yet written. We, the gaming community can and will make it what we make of it. And it is in our grasp to help shape the future. The choice belongs to us.
To you, Open Gaming Licence, I raise a glass in toast. And to the future, however you choose to meet us, may we meet you standing tall.
EDIT: I actually did break out a bottle of my best homebrewed mead for the ocassion. (That and my 30th birthday, but that's beside the point.)
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I beg to differ - in a world of freelance driven product and multiple third party licencees such attempt at circumnavigation may end up just a pointless journey.Of course you could always just take any old rubbish restraint of trade agreement to Court when the golden rule would likely apply.
No - pushing buzz words together is not a legal argument. It would be very easy to draft an affiliates clause that would stop the use of shell entities to get around a forfeiture of the right to use the OGL. I could draft such a clause in my sleep; they get drafted all the time in all manner of commercial contracts. It's the publisher that needs to be restricted, not the freelancer. It's not as if Paizo is going to be barred from publishing 3e, set up a sub to publish 3e, and it would be difficult to get to draft the clause to prohibit that entity from publishing 3e too.
Also, your last sentence doesn't make any sense. There's no restraint on trade - it's a commercial contract between commercial entities. And there is no golden rule of which I am aware in the legal system.
|
EDIT: I actually did break out a bottle of my best homebrewed mead for the ocassion. (That and my 30th birthday, but that's beside the point.)
You homebrew mead?!? Where abouts in Jersey are you? I may have some questions and stuff if you be close enough to Delaware.
EDIT- You can send me an e-mail at falsehealer(at)yahoo(dot)com if you would rather not clutter the thread here.
You homebrew mead?!? Where abouts in Jersey are you? I may have some questions and stuff if you be close enough to Delaware.
EDIT- You can send me an e-mail at falsehealer(at)yahoo(dot)com if you would rather not clutter the thread here.
I'm about an hour from the PA/DE border. I won't be much help though. I haven't homebrewed anything in over 2 years. I'll be starting over as a novice when/if I start back up. All my stuff is just aging. Granted, I am running low so I am going to start up again, but that's not for a while yet.
I'm still trying to get my head around OGL as a whole, could someone give me some referents?
I encounter content that is explicitly id'd as being in the public domain (which I understand to be about as open as you can get) and content that is copyrighted under(correct term?) various versions of Creative Commons (2.0, 2.5 etc) which I thought was somewhat like th OGL: This is somewhat free/open, but according to these specific points and only this stuff over here, not that over there.
I guess what don't get is how the GSL can actually forbid me from publishing or using the OGL, were the GSL to have such clause? Isn't the point of publishing something under CC or OGL that it can *never* be put back in a more restrictive license? I imagine the answer lies in a small library of legal text, but I just find the concept bizarre beyond belief.
Maybe I've just greatly conflated the relation of CC to OGL, as maybe OGL is close enough to traditional copyright that something like an anti-OGL GSL is possible.
F33b, I am no lawyer. I don't even make a very good rules lawyer.
But this is what I am getting on the discussion:
If you never, ever, wish to publish anything for 4th Edition you are free to continue using the OGL v1.0a to publish 3.5 compatible D20 stuff.
The catch is, if you wish to publish 4th Edition material, you will be required to use the GSL. Now, no one posting here is really sure what this license is like... But it could be worded in such a manner that in agreeing to use the GSL, you forgo your rights to use the OGL v1.0a.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Disenchanter hit the nail on the head. We're speculating that the GSL could be drafted such that if you used it (by publishing a 4e product), you could thereafter no longer be able to use the OGL. We don't have any evidence that this is true, but in any event it would only apply if you used the GSL.
|
Whoa.
I was musing with someone about how WotC could shut down the 3.5 OGL by using the 4E OGL about a year ago. I was figuring they could try some "no back compatible" element in the 4E one, then use that to stop 3.5 publishing. It never occurred to me they could link it in that way. (Publish one 4E product, never get to use the 3.5 OGL again.)
That would certainly be distressing. I wonder if it will make companies reconsider switching?
Whoa.
I was musing with someone about how WotC could shut down the 3.5 OGL by using the 4E OGL about a year ago. I was figuring they could try some "no back compatible" element in the 4E one, then use that to stop 3.5 publishing. It never occurred to me they could link it in that way. (Publish one 4E product, never get to use the 3.5 OGL again.)
That would certainly be distressing. I wonder if it will make companies reconsider switching?
Oh I imagine it would.
|
CEO
|
I guess they don't believe in the "Skaff Effect" so much know. Wonder what changed their minds?
Interestingly enough, Skaff Elias is in my weekly D&D game. I'll have to ask him what he thinks of the new GSL license and how that affects the Skaff Effect. :)
-Lisa
...But it could be worded in such a manner that in agreeing to use the GSL, you forgo your rights to use the OGL v1.0a.
Disenchanter hit the nail on the head....
Whoa....
Mama mia!
Oh I imagine it would.Whoa.
I was musing with someone about how WotC could shut down the 3.5 OGL by using the 4E OGL about a year ago. I was figuring they could try some "no back compatible" element in the 4E one, then use that to stop 3.5 publishing. It never occurred to me they could link it in that way. (Publish one 4E product, never get to use the 3.5 OGL again.)
That would certainly be distressing. I wonder if it will make companies reconsider switching?If I understand the situation correctly, Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro will be able to dictate whatever terms they wish for the GSL unless 4th edition is such a poorly received game amongst players of OGL products that it fails to convert scarcely any of them to the new system. Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro have only to stop printing third edition/3.5 material, including core-rules sets which contain (so I am informed) non OGL material, to cut off an easy supply of new gamers to OGL based products, and force companies which wish to remain OGL to develop & print their own core-rules or die.
(In the event of 4th edition failing to convert many 'old timers', I imagine that at least core-rules support from Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro might resume at least temporarily at some point, simply so that Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro could take a continuing share of any profits to be made.)Whether or not Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro see other companies as competition to be ruthlessly destroyed, as valued support acts, or something else, I am unable to assess. That is, however, my current best guess of the thing most likely to be influencing them in drawing up the GSL.
The fact that they are apparently taking their time to get the GSL to Paizo suggests to me the most likely alternates of either Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro incompetance or that Paizo support for the 4th Edition launch may not be relatively high on the Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro list of priorities right now*.
EDIT...
Either prospect fills me with dread (and not in the good way).
Bottom line- WotC doesn't want a plethora of PHB, DMG or MM alternatives, and so allow others to milk their cash cow. I'd imagine even settings could be disagreeable for a similar reason. No, what 3rd parties are good for is adventures and the kind of ephemera that may or may not be successful. Adventures, by their very nature aren't massive sellers, since only the DM needs a copy. Many a game store from my childhood had reams of such forlorn products cluttering the back shelves and indeed it was TSR's dalliance with non-core items that ended up hoisting it on it's own petard.Core books are solid sellers, splat books are have proven to be worthwhile during 3rd Ed and will probably be given free reign all over again. Campaign settings are more uncertain but reap dividends from the novels they can spawn - the rest are a necessary evil that some other poor sap can foot the bill for.
If they do booby trap the GSL with a a clause banning "retroactive" products, it'll be a big slap in the face to any third party publishers and an indication of just how little faith they have in 4th edition that they'd seek to lock other companies into exclusively using their system. The lack of concern in getting the GSL out in a timely manner in the first place also exhibits a slipshod handling of the whole launch. Shouldn't the Hasbro Law Dept. have been working on this while Orcus was still in development? The OGL was intrinsic to the success of 3rd edition in the first place. Shouldn't the final touches have been put on the strategy concerning the roll out been done by the time the 4dventure site went up? Businesses hate uncertainty, especially if it involves investment by them in your product, and the vacillation and vagueness by WotC over the past months must be rattling a lot of cages. Rule one is get your ducks in a row and have the majority of your work done before even announcing a product, especially if it's going to interact with partner organizations/marketing campaigns, etc. It's only in the past month that WotC has even sounded like they had something like a solid plan that they could be confident in.
If this doomsday scenario of Hasbro seeking to suborn all competition does come around, the bigger 3rd party publishers should come together and agree to support a OGL system like True20. Sure, they might take some flak initially, but at least they'd not be tied to the caprious fortunes of the subsidiary of a massive corporation. I applaud Mongoose and Green Ronin on taking this path, which, while somewhat fraught, at least allows their to chart their own destinies.
WHEN WILL WE KNOW? WHEN WILL WE KNOW??HOW MUCH LONGER?
Mike 1
Naysayers 0
I beg to differ - in a world of freelance driven product and multiple third party licencees such attempt at circumnavigation may end up just a pointless journey.Of course you could always just take any old rubbish restraint of trade agreement to Court when the golden rule would likely apply.
No - pushing buzz words together is not a legal argument. It would be very easy to draft an affiliates clause that would stop the use of shell entities to get around a forfeiture of the right to use the OGL. I could draft such a clause in my sleep; they get drafted all the time in all manner of commercial contracts. It's the publisher that needs to be restricted, not the freelancer. It's not as if Paizo is going to be barred from publishing 3e, set up a sub to publish 3e, and it would be difficult to get to draft the clause to prohibit that entity from publishing 3e too.
Also, your last sentence doesn't make any sense. There's no restraint on trade - it's a commercial contract between commercial entities. And there is no golden rule of which I am aware in the legal system.
I wasn't presenting a legal argument I was disagreeing with the certainty of your conclusion - nice job of pushing a bunch of buzz words together though. I am not as certain of the result and the impossibility of getting around such a clause as you are.
I agree the clause you contemplate is not a restraint of trade clause, my bad. The golden rule is "He who has the gold makes the rules", IMO it has frequent application in the legal system.
Call me paranoid, but I somehow think that they will do their best to make books like ToH 4e impossible. The rules themselves seem to be a major hurdle for the creation of campaign settings (especially stuff like Midnight), but the idea that they could put a stop to those via the CGL is scary.
And finally, the Morale Clause sounds to me like something that would make a lot of stuff from Rise of the Runelords impossible. Incestous ogres with dead human parts in the smokehouse? Torture chambers and Dungeons of Sin? Nope, that would scare the kids, can't allow it, pard.
It sounds like you have to agree to only do children's games or none at all, and I don't want that. I think Paizo doesn't want it, either.
If wizards themselves wants to stick to stuff a ten-year-old (which seems to be the target demographic for wizards and hasbro in general now) won't be scared of, I'm fine with it, but those of us who like to have more mature parts in our games and published material don't want to be censored like that (it's bad enough to live in Germany, where all computer games that aren't fid for an elementary school boy are censored - it's so bad now that even games that are rated as fit only for adults of age 18+ are "disarmed". I don't want roleplaying to follow in those footsteps).
I'm just guessing here, but I think that Paizo's not liking that part at all. I know I wouldn't. I wouldn't publish anything with that license, with that kind of Damocle's Sword hanging over me. Sure, they say now that they will only invoke it in extreme cases, but wizards has been known to say one thing today and do another tomorrow.
Time will tell, but if you asked me right now, I'd say that they're 50/50 about switching to 4e. At best.
If this doomsday scenario of Hasbro seeking to suborn all competition does come around, the bigger 3rd party publishers should come together and agree to support a OGL system like True20.
My memory is kind of fuzzy on the specifics, but I remember after the 4E announcement that some 3rd party companies said they got together over a year prior to discuss what to do if 4E was coming and it was non-OGL. IIRC, Clark/Orcus said something like he was "late" to the talks since he himself did not believe that 4E was coming as early as the others.
But in short, the companies have been working on this for a while.
If I understand the situation correctly, Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro will be able to dictate whatever terms they wish for the GSL unless 4th edition is such a poorly received game amongst players of OGL products that it fails to convert scarcely any of them to the new system.
They can still attempt to enforce any terms found in the GSL even if Fourth Edition is not the blockbuster that 3E was.
Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro have only to stop printing third edition/3.5 material, including core-rules sets which contain (so I am informed) non OGL material, to cut off an easy supply of new gamers to OGL based products, and force companies which wish to remain OGL to develop & print their own core-rules or die.
I think this misunderstands the market. Wizards can put out a hardback book that sells anywhere from 40,000 copies (early 3.0 market high point for a Forgottem Realms product per SKR) to 20,000 copies (an imperfect estimate of recent sales of lingering 3.5 products). The PH alone has been estimated as selling a half million copies. That's a lot of people playing D&D.
Whereas one of the best third party publishers results was Creature Collection I (issued before the Monster Manual was out), that sold out of its initial 10,000 copy print run. I have anecdotal (and hence suspect) evidence that large third party publishers may have had print runs of hardcover products as high as 10,000 (such as White Wolf), but no hard evidence. I do know a number of publishers, including Clark Peterson from Necromancer Games, talked about printing 2000 copies of the Tome of Horrors III (if memory serves - could have been II).
Many of the existing OGL companies, really the third party publishers, have already seen sales dry up and disappear. They were dwindling before the announcement of Fourth Edition. Post 4E announcement, even the pdf sales companies have announced sales figures plummeting to a quarter or a tenth of prior levels (such as EN Publishing).
The OGL was intrinsic to the success of 3rd edition in the first place.
That may be true, but I bet they don't see it that way at Wizards. I suspect it helped significantly, but in a difficult to quantify fashion. Cf the Skaff Effect discussion. :)
|
|
This has been a drive by random mixed metaphor, courtesy of Nick Logue, male prostitute and, arguably worse, 4E freelancer.
-Shudders-
You know Nick, they had a cozy place in the Abyss for you. One entire layer just for you, as Lord of Ogres and Painted Circus Fey.
They also had a consort for you.
But now Mammy Grauls Dreams are shattered...
Now they will put you on Mount Celestia and as punishment for your deed you have to write "My little Pony" RPG adventures for all eternity.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I wasn't presenting a legal argument I was disagreeing with the certainty of your conclusion - nice job of pushing a bunch of buzz words together though. I am not as certain of the result and the impossibility of getting around such a clause as you are.
I agree the clause you contemplate is not a restraint of trade clause, my bad. The golden rule is "He who has the gold makes the rules", IMO it has frequent application in the legal system.
Here's the big difference though: I know what I'm talking about, you're going off what you saw once on Boston Legal. You will forgive me for not giving your opinion greater weight and credibility. If you know of a structure that can bypass an affiliates clause without resorting to complex and esoteric vehicles, I'm all ears.
Now they will put you on Mount Celestia and as punishment for your deed you have to write "My little Pony" RPG adventures for all eternity.
I really would love a My Little Pony RPG because I could so easily get my daughter interested in this, right under the nose of my ex. She tells my daughter that dragons are boys toys and she's not allowed to play with boys toys, but my ex would be hardpressed to say that My Little Pony is bad.
[/threadjack]
Contributor
|
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.
Right. We are kind of talking about a few different things.
The OGL cannot be revoked. The d20 license can. Not just expire after an agreed upon period, be revoked. Here's a copy of the license:
By downloading the enclosed graphic files and/or by returning the Confirmation Card as presented in the file "card.pdf," the Licensee ("You") accept to be bound by the following terms and conditions:
1. Copyright & Trademark
Wizards of the Coast, Inc. retains title and ownership of the d20 System trademark logos, the d20 System trademark, and all other copyrights and trademarks claimed by Wizards of the Coast in The Official Wizards of the Coast d20 System Trademark Guide found at www.wizards.com/d20 (the “d20 System Guide”), incorporated here by reference.
2. License to use
You are hereby granted the non-transferable, non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, royalty-free license to use the d20 System trademark logos, the d20 System trademark, and certain other trademarks and copyrights owned by Wizards of the Coast (the "Licensed Articles") in accordance with the conditions specified in the current version of this License and the d20 System Guide.
3. Agreement not to Contest
By making use of and/or distributing material using the d20 System trademark under the terms of this License, You agree not to contest the ownership of the Licensed Articles.
4. Quality Standards
The nature of all material You use or distribute that incorporates the Licensed Articles must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, as well as community standards of decency, as further described in the d20 System Guide. You must use Your best efforts to preserve the high standard and goodwill of the Licensed Trademarks. In order to assure the foregoing standard and quality requirements, Wizards of the Coast shall have the right, upon notice to You, to review and inspect all material released by You that uses the Licensed Articles. You shall fully cooperate with Wizards of the Coast to facilitate such review and inspection, including timely provision of copies of all such materials to Wizards of the Coast. Wizards of the Coast may terminate this License immediately upon attempted notice to you if it deems, in its sole discretion, that your use of the Licensed Articles does not meet the above standards.
5. Termination for Breach
In the event that You fail to comply with the terms of this License or the d20 System Guide, You will be considered to be in breach of this License. Wizards of the Coast will attempt to notify you in writing by sending a letter to the address listed on the most recent Confirmation Card on file, if any. Except as otherwise specified herein, you will have 30 days from the date of the notice (the "cure period") to cure the breach to the satisfaction of Wizards of the Coast. If no Confirmation Card is on file, you will be considered to be in breach of this License immediately. If, at the end of the cure period, the breach is not cured, Wizards of the Coast may terminate this License without further written notice to You.
6. Effects of Termination
Upon termination, You shall immediately stop all use of the Licensed Articles and will destroy any inventory or marketing material in Your possession bearing the d20 System trademark logos. You will remove any use of the d20 System trademark logos from your advertising, web site, letterhead, or any other use. You must instruct any company or individual that You are or become aware of who is in possession of any materials distributed by You bearing the d20 System trademark logos to destroy those materials. You will solely bear any costs related to carrying out this term of the License.
In Wizards sold discretion, Wizards may allow You to continue to use the License for Licensed Articles which otherwise comply with the terms of the License.
7. Penalty for Failure to Comply with Termination Instructions
If You fail to comply with the Effects of Termination, Wizards of the Coast may, at its option, pursue litigation, for which You shall be responsible for all legal costs, against You to the full extent of the law for breach of contract, copyright and trademark infringement, damages and any other remedy available.
8. Updates
Wizards of the Coast may issue updates and/or new releases of the d20 System trademark logos without prior notice. You will, at the earliest possible opportunity, update all material distributed by You to use the updated and/or new version of the d20 System trademark logos. You may continue to distribute any pre-existing material that bears an older version of the d20 System trademark logo.
9. Changes to Terms of the License
Wizards of the Coast may issue updates and/or revisions to this License without prior notice. You will conform in all respects to the updated or revised terms of this License. Subsequent versions of this License will bear a different version number.
10. Updates of Licensee information
You may transmit an updated version of the "card.pdf" Confirmation Card at any time to Wizards of the Coast.
11. Notices to Licensor:
Wizards of the Coast
c/o Publishing Division
Attn: Roleplaying Games Department
PO Box 707
Renton, WA 98057-0707
12. No maintenance or support
Wizards of the Coast shall have no obligation whatsoever to provide You with any kind of maintenance or support in relation to the d20 System trademark logos.
13. No Warranty / Disclaimer
THE D20 SYSTEM TRADEMARK LOGO FILES ARE MADE AVAILABLE ON AN "AS IS" BASIS. WIZARDS OF THE COAST DOES NOT MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, USE OR MERCHANTABILITY. WIZARDS OF THE COAST MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY THAT THE D20 SYSTEM TRADEMARK LOGO FILES ARE ERROR-FREE.
Notice that the "in perpetuity" bit is not there, and notice that WotC retains ownership and can alter the license at will, and all d20 publishers must conform.
The licenses for Dragon and Dungeon, and the Dragonlance license etc. had set timelines with potential for being renewed.
The OGL isn't going away, although I am intrigued by the idea that publishers could be prevented from using it if they use the GSL. I need to read all the stuff about it here in more detail.
I'm just concerned that the GSL could be taken away (or changed) after several publishers have staked their livelihoods on it. I'm not even saying that this is WotC's plan, but afew years down the road, will it even be the same people making the decisions? Who knows?
You say WotC has assured everyone that the GSL will not expire. I haven't seen that. Can you give me a link? AFAIK no one has even seen the GSL yet.
AFAIK no one has even seen the GSL yet.
That is correct. It isn't out yet. It just got it's name last week. Wizards has not said exactly when it will be in people's hands, just that the sneak peak price is $5000.
Right. We are kind of talking about a few different things.
Your post had several licences mixed together that shouldn't have been mixed together. Non-renewed licences is totally seperate from the OGL/d20 licences since neither have a renewable clause. WotC can't revoke the OGL and the d20 licence they can pull at any time with no renewal clause present. Dungeon/Dragon/DragonLance licences had expiration clauses in there. MWP was, IMO, expecting their licence to be renewed. I feel that that is not a good expectation to have. IMO, they should have expected the licence to expire and if it got renewed, gravy on mashed potatoes. But I'm just a freelancer and I'm just armchair quaterbacking. So take my words with a grain of salt. (Did I use enough metaphores for you?)
You say WotC has assured everyone that the GSL will not expire. I haven't seen that. Can you give me a link? AFAIK no one has even seen the GSL yet.
No one outside of WotC has seen the GSL, AFAIK.
2. Tell us about the 4e OGL and SRD.
The 4e OGL will contain some aspects of the old d20 license, and is more restrictive in some areas than the prior Open Gaming License. We are tying the OGL more closely to D&D. There is a free registration process, a community standards clause, enforceability clauses, and no expiration date. Phase One publishers who sign a NDA will have the opportunity to read the OGL before they pay the $5000 early licensing fee.
[snip]
In any case, material that’s open under the 3.5 OGL remains open, and there will be no language in the 4e OGL to restrict 3.0 or 3.5 products.
Emphasis mine.
Now I am going to qualify my remarks by saying that I just went to the WotC page first and on the news article that this was originally cut and pasted from, these paragraphs were reworded and the bolded parts were not present.
To be exact: Link
Q. What about the d20 license? Will that still exist in 4th Edition?
A: We are making the OGL stronger by better defining it. We’re rolling certain elements that used to be in the d20 license into the OGL, things like community standards and other tangible elements of the d20 license.
|
Contributor
|
Thanks! I'm still curious where ENWorld got the additional information, but those links are very useful and relevant to a few concerns that are being discussed here.
Actually, I had seen the WotC announcement, and the comments about rolling the best parts of the d20 license into GSL were what made me worry.
The OGL isn't going away, although I am intrigued by the idea that publishers could be prevented from using it if they use the GSL. I need to read all the stuff about it here in more detail.
To be honest, I expected this once I saw all the fluff changes. The truly significant changes between 3e and 4e are fluff changes, IMO. A change in how a rule works isn't anything nearly as significant as a change in what a creature/plane/world/spell is in the D&D framework. 30 years of history are being written out of the game and the largest consumers of product are intimately familiar with that history.
Such a decision made me think, "Why would the heart of the game (the fluff, not the rules) change?" And the only reason I could come up with was that the heart of the game was OGC with but a few exceptions.
The only way to prevent potentially migratory customers using the new rules itineration while continuing on with the old fluff (and hence, 3rd party products) is to make all the old OGL no longer usable in conjunction with the new GSL. I expect something like "No material previously released under an OGL can be used in conjuction with GSL material." Also, such a clause cuts out the possibility of simply taking old OGC, updating it, and re-releasing it in a market flood.
Also, looking forward to 5e, the only way to reduce customer migration resistance in the future is to currently create a license that is revocable and one which cannot be used with other open licenses. We'll see if I'm right. I hope I'm not, but it's what I fear.
Joseph Browning
Expeditious Retreat Press
Also, looking forward to 5e, the only way to reduce customer migration resistance in the future is to currently create a license that is revocable and one which cannot be used with other open licenses. We'll see if I'm right. I hope I'm not, but it's what I fear.
DO you think 5E will be a paid licence only? IMHO, it is the most logical conclusion. You have publishers who have sales drops for a year and then another half year where only those that want to pay $5K will be able to sell products for the new edition. To me that sounds like a setup for the next edition being a paid licence only.
Also, looking forward to 5e, the only way to reduce customer migration resistance in the future is to currently create a license that is revocable and one which cannot be used with other open licenses. We'll see if I'm right. I hope I'm not, but it's what I fear.DO you think 5E will be a paid licence only?
I'd expected this one to be paid only. So, my opinions on these subjects aren't always the best. :)
Joseph Browning
Expeditious Retreat Press
To be honest, I expected this once I saw all the fluff changes. The truly significant changes between 3e and 4e are fluff changes, IMO. A change in how a rule works isn't anything nearly as significant as a change in what a creature/plane/world/spell is in the D&D framework. 30 years of history are being written out of the game and the largest consumers of product are intimately familiar with that history.
Such a decision made me think, "Why would the heart of the game (the fluff, not the rules) change?" And the only reason I could come up with was that the heart of the game was OGC with but a few exceptions.
The only way to prevent potentially migratory customers using the new rules itineration while continuing on with the old fluff (and hence, 3rd party products) is to make all the old OGL no longer usable in conjunction with the new GSL. I expect something like "No material previously released under an OGL can be used in conjuction with GSL material." Also, such a clause cuts out the possibility of simply taking old OGC, updating it, and re-releasing it in a market flood.
Wow you hit it right on the head, I can imagine the board room meeting of a bunch of lawyers sitting around trying to figure out how to get out of the old OGL-"I got it we change everything and blow up the worlds hahahahahahahahahahaha, now they must conform to our will or be destroyed.!
I really hope Paizo can continue with Pathfinder and not having to bend to the Wotc mandate.
I'd expected this one to be paid only. So, my opinions on these subjects aren't always the best. :)
Joseph Browning
Expeditious Retreat Press
BTW, welcome to the boards, welcome to have you here. I love XRP products
Emphasis mine.2. Tell us about the 4e OGL and SRD.
The 4e OGL will contain some aspects of the old d20 license, and is more restrictive in some areas than the prior Open Gaming License. We are tying the OGL more closely to D&D. There is a free registration process, a community standards clause, enforceability clauses, and no expiration date. Phase One publishers who sign a NDA will have the opportunity to read the OGL before they pay the $5000 early licensing fee.
[snip]
In any case, material that’s open under the 3.5 OGL remains open, and there will be no language in the 4e OGL to restrict 3.0 or 3.5 products.
[devil's advocate]
No expiration date, but not irrevocable (hey look, it's 5e, you can't make 4e stuff anymore). Also, they wouldn't be restricting any 3.x OGL products if there were an anti-publishing clause in the GSL, they'd be restricting the publishers from making both 3.x OGL and 4e GSL content (convert or you're on your own).
[/devil's advocate]
I'm not a lawyer, but IT professionals have to be familiar with software licenses and user agreements or they could get their employer in big trouble. For example, the free version of GoogleEarth is for home use only; if installed on a company computer, that violates the license and could obligate the company to purchase one of the other versions (one copy for each computer it's installed on).
|
In any case, material that’s open under the 3.5 OGL remains open, and there will be no language in the 4e OGL to restrict 3.0 or 3.5 products.
Right, which is a useless thing to say as they cannot possibly do so in any case. What already exists as 3.5 OGL material cannot be affected by the GSL. In fact, people can go on forever producing material under the OGL (any version of it they choose to use). HOWEVER, that does not remove the possibility of *FUTURE* production of OGL material if you choose to use the GSL (or CGL as someone has been calling it - clever :). That line could be read as:
"In any case, material that's open under the 3.5 OGL remains open, since we can't time travel and change the licence at this point (but look out once that technology exists), and there will be no language in the GSL which indicates our future expected ability to time travel and do such (since once we do that the course of future events will be changed such that the absence of the language will be inconsequential). We reserve the right to make you our b|tch3s if you sign the new GSL which will prohibit you from producing any MORE OGL material, though."
While a little wordier, it says the same thing in the end. :)
If they wanted to be clear, they should have said something like:
"In any case, material that's open under the 3.5 OGL [note: they really should find someone who knows what he's talking about and can use proper labels for the various contracts/licences to write this stuff] remains open as per the terms of the OGL. Participating in and producing material under the upcoming GSL will in no way restrict future, concurrent production of OGL-covered material and GSL-covered material."
But they didn't. While their marketing is bad, sometimes that might be a cover to stop people from thinking about what *isn't* being said. Or it could just be more public fumbling with language. :)
...But it could be worded in such a manner that in agreeing to use the GSL, you forgo your rights to use the OGL v1.0a.Disenchanter hit the nail on the head....Mama mia!Whoa....
What are you guys surprised about?
The real possibility of that situation...
.
.
.
Or that Sebastian and I agree on something? ;-P
Just shocked.
Well, I think that when Paizo makes the decision they should make it for keeps anyway. The problem would be that they can't provide conversion notes to 3.5, is that so?
If so, the move would kill as much of 3.5 as possible and isn't a move that benefits the game, it just benefits WotC. It is also a slap to those who do no wish to change, but hope that some companies might provide conversions. It would alienate their 'fired customers' even more, as if saying, 'we want to render as much of your 3.5 material useless as possible and limit the chances that you might ever see additional supplements for the game you invested in'.
That's what shocks me.
Anyway, from citations above it seems that would not be so.
Now they will put you on Mount Celestia and as punishment for your deed you have to write "My little Pony" RPG adventures for all eternity.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooo!
::Stops all 4E freelance::
Now they will put you on Mount Celestia and as punishment for your deed you have to write "My little Pony" RPG adventures for all eternity.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooo!
::Stops all 4E freelance::
I recoil in horror at the thought of the twisted scariness of a Nick Logue take on My Little Ponies. Didn't anyone posting on this thread see Jason Nelson's 'Avinash' Round 2 entry in the RPG Smurfstar competition?
Here's the big difference though: I know what I'm talking about, you're going off what you saw once on Boston Legal. You will forgive me for not giving your opinion greater weight and credibility. If you know of a structure that can bypass an affiliates clause without resorting to complex and esoteric vehicles, I'm all ears.
I wasn't presenting a legal argument I was disagreeing with the certainty of your conclusion - nice job of pushing a bunch of buzz words together though. I am not as certain of the result and the impossibility of getting around such a clause as you are.
I agree the clause you contemplate is not a restraint of trade clause, my bad. The golden rule is "He who has the gold makes the rules", IMO it has frequent application in the legal system.
You dont tolerate people not just accepting your opinion do you? Why would you make the Boston legal comment in ignorance? It was wrong and unecessary. I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything. I accept your view as based on experience and education specific to drafting affiliation clauses and structures attempted to be used to avoid them. I guess we will soon see the licence and what happens then.
I wager the OGL drafters never contemplated what was published under it.
We are tying the OGL more closely to D&D. There is a free registration process, a community standards clause, enforceability clausesThe wording bothers me....