SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

WotC dropped the $5000 licensing fee, GSL is in play for everyone in Oct 2008

Started by Dwight, April 17, 2008, 05:09:44 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13
User actions

Kerrick

#45
April 19, 2008, 11:53:43 AM
QuoteDo I have that right, though? If you want to make 4e products, you have to stop making OGL products? How can such a legal restriction exist?
How? It's a condition of the license. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems pretty clear to me - in order to register with WotC for the right to publish material for sale (as opposed to fan-based content for free on the net), you have to abide by the terms and conditions of the GSL. Which includes the exclusivity clause - no 3.x products. If you break the terms of the license, they have the legal right to yank it and say "No more pie for you." It's like the STL - remember the whole flap over the Book of Erotic Fantasy? Because of the terms of the license, WotC had the legal right to say "Oh hell no, you're not publishing THAT under the STL."
 

Nicephorus

#46
April 19, 2008, 12:05:56 PM
Quote from: walkerpDo I have that right, though?  If you want to make 4e products, you have to stop making OGL products?  How can such a legal restriction exist?

There's currently lack of clarity on that.  It seems that it might be that no product can use both licenses and that there can't be two active versions of the same product.  No restriction at the publisher level.

Dwight

#47
April 19, 2008, 12:12:01 PM
It also looks a lot like WotC is going to set themselves up as arbitrator keeping it out of the courts as much as possible, DM of the GSL as it were. So no weenie shell company end-runs, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

P.S. Of course Clark was bummed. It was like he was a lone upbeat man starting into the face of a stampede of angry sheep, and not getting loads of help from WotC folks (he made a hell of a lot more sense than they did with their canned "we really, really, really believe in 4e". :rolleyes:  No it ain't gonna kill him but it's pretty fustrating, draining, and sometimes painful...voice of experience here. ;)
"Though I'll still buy the game, the moment one of my players tries to force me to NCE a situation for them I'm using it to beat them to death. The fridge is looking a bit empty anyway." - Spike on D&D 4e

The management does not endorse the comments expressed in this signature. They are solely the demented yet hilarious opinions of some random guy(gal?) ranting on the Interwebs.

JongWK

#48
April 19, 2008, 12:53:57 PM
Linae Foster, Licensing Manager, in ENworld:

Quote
QuoteHm, could Linae possibly have meant that you can't produce the same book with both Licenses (the OGL and GSL) in it at the same time? Because that'd make a lot more sense.

Yes, that is what I was trying to convey.

We totally recognize that this mutual exclusivity will keep some publishers from joining us in 4E. That's a business decision they need to make, and we respect that.

and,


QuoteNo. That is not what I was trying to say. I'll try to reword it so it is a little clearer:

Publishers can put out a product under the OGL - OR - they can put out a product under a 4E GSL.

3.x or 4E

Not both.

One or t'other.

By "mutual exclusivity" I mean, different versions of the same product cannot occur at the same time.
"I give the gift of endless imagination."
~~Gary Gygax (1938 - 2008)

Pierce Inverarity

#49
April 19, 2008, 12:59:28 PM
Quote from: FASERIPHere ya go.

LINK

Oh brother...

Can't we all just get along?
Ich habe mir schon sehr lange keine Gedanken mehr über Bleistifte gemacht.--Settembrini

jeff37923

#50
April 19, 2008, 01:19:54 PM
Quote from: Pierce InverarityOh brother...

Can't we all just get along?

Eh, reading it killed some time...
"Meh."

walkerp

#51
April 19, 2008, 01:35:50 PM
Thanks for posting that link JongWK.  It's hilarious how the thread starts out all "see all you Wizards bashers, how good they actually are" and then starts morphing into "WTF??!!" as people start to figure out exactly what this new license means.
"The difference between being fascinated with RPGs and being fascinated with the RPG industry is akin to the difference between being fascinated with sex and being fascinated with masturbation. Not that there\'s anything wrong with jerking off, but don\'t fool yourself into thinking you\'re getting laid." —Aos

JongWK

#52
April 19, 2008, 01:41:10 PM
For my part, I think it's clear what Wizards wants to do with the license, and it's nowhere as apocalyptic or destructive as the conspiracy theorists desperately want to believe (just check the matching thread over at TBP).
"I give the gift of endless imagination."
~~Gary Gygax (1938 - 2008)

walkerp

#53
April 19, 2008, 01:43:00 PM
It seems pretty destructive to me.  They basically want to force all the big players who have published succesful OGL stuff out of their market or force them to kill their succesful lines in order to join the 4e bandwagon.

Am I wrong about that?  For instance, would Mongoose have to stop producing Conan if they wanted to do 4e products?
"The difference between being fascinated with RPGs and being fascinated with the RPG industry is akin to the difference between being fascinated with sex and being fascinated with masturbation. Not that there\'s anything wrong with jerking off, but don\'t fool yourself into thinking you\'re getting laid." —Aos

Seanchai

#54
April 19, 2008, 01:44:33 PM
Quote from: GameDaddyDefinitely a good example of the 800lb gorilla peeing on all the other folks that worked hard and hand-in-hand to help them over the past few years by creating products compatible with the Gorillas goods.

I know! There was a delay in a delay-ridden industry! Bad, WotC! Bad, WotC!

Seanchai
"Thus tens of children were left holding the bag. And it was a bag bereft of both Hellscream and allowance money."

MySpace Profile
Facebook Profile

jeff37923

#55
April 19, 2008, 01:48:46 PM
Quote from: walkerpAm I wrong about that?  For instance, would Mongoose have to stop producing Conan if they wanted to do 4e products?

From my understanding not only Conan, but also Babylon 5 since its OGL too.
"Meh."

JongWK

#56
April 19, 2008, 02:16:51 PM
Quote from: walkerpAm I wrong about that?  For instance, would Mongoose have to stop producing Conan if they wanted to do 4e products?

No. What they can't do is sell the same Conan product as 4E and 3E.

Suppose your Walkerp d20 products are doing just fine under 3E. You can keep them for as long as you want, but you can't "play it safe" and release the same products under both editions in order to milk both markets.

Suppose your d20 products under 3E are doing badly? You can jump to 4E, but you can't keep releasing under 3E to earn a few more pennies.

M&M, Conan, and Babylon 5 will be fine, IMHO.
"I give the gift of endless imagination."
~~Gary Gygax (1938 - 2008)

Hackmastergeneral

#57
April 19, 2008, 02:35:40 PM
Quote from: NicephorusI think it's a matter of people becoming greedy and lazy.  It's like their mom came home to find that they've eaten an entire pie.  When she gets mad, they say "you said I could have pie!"  "Ok, next time, only one slice."  "Whaaah!"

Even a restrictive GSL is far more than most companies offer even if it's not entirely open.  Why aren't people railing against every other game that has no open content at all?  How many publishers on this board offer their system for free use by other companies?

Hear fucking hear.

Is it perfect?  No.  Is it confusing?  Yes.

But what other company is using open source for its game content in any way shape or form.  Or, more to the point (because I'm sure some indie company some guy runs out of his garage does), what RPG company of any significance is doing this?

Is it great?  No.  But its miles ahead of what every other company of any size is doing.
 

Dwight

#58
April 19, 2008, 02:40:27 PM
Quote from: JongWKM&M, Conan, and Babylon 5 will be fine, IMHO.
I wonder if WotC is really worried about those at all? They don't really support 3.5e in any way.  This seems to be more about forcing a choice of what to support between 3.5 D&D and 4.0 D&D, with the intent of starving and encouraging the obsolescence of 3.5e, than forcing a choice between support of 4.0 D&D and say SotC or other OGL that are very much games apart from 3.5 D&D?  The devil is going to be in the details of the GSL, and probably in WotC's stated intentions with it since it looks they'll likely they'll take an active arbitration role.
"Though I'll still buy the game, the moment one of my players tries to force me to NCE a situation for them I'm using it to beat them to death. The fridge is looking a bit empty anyway." - Spike on D&D 4e

The management does not endorse the comments expressed in this signature. They are solely the demented yet hilarious opinions of some random guy(gal?) ranting on the Interwebs.

Hackmastergeneral

#59
April 19, 2008, 02:41:30 PM
Quote from: JongWKNo. What they can't do is sell the same Conan product as 4E and 3E.

Suppose your Walkerp d20 products are doing just fine under 3E. You can keep them for as long as you want, but you can't "play it safe" and release the same products under both editions in order to milk both markets.

Suppose your d20 products under 3E are doing badly? You can jump to 4E, but you can't keep releasing under 3E to earn a few more pennies.

M&M, Conan, and Babylon 5 will be fine, IMHO.

Exactly.  I don't think they are saying "if you publish any 4ed material you can't also publish ANY 3.5 ogl material."  What I think they are saying is you can't sell Conan OGL AND Conan 4ed.  

If Mongoose wants to publish Conan under 4ed rules because they feel it suits the game better, but wants to keep Babylon 5 under the 3.5 OGL, thats fine.  But they can't produce Conan OGL and Conan 4ed stuff at the same time.
 
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13
User actions