Here's a thread to discuss wizards new "open" license. Now the relevant stolen data from Mr. Skot.

Posted By: jenskotIf you produce a product using the GSL, you can no longer sell versions of the product (even products created before the GSL came out) that support the OGL! WTF!

Check out the posts from lurkinglidda who is the Licensing Manager at Wizards. WTF!

Posted By: jenskot

If you produce a product using the GSL, you can no longer sell versions of the product (even products created before the GSL came out) that support the OGL! WTF!

Check out the posts from lurkinglidda who is the Licensing Manager at Wizards. WTF!

[3]

We may need a new thread for this!

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15651565&postcount=58

Scott Rouse, Senior Brand Manager for Dungeons and Dragons, is indicating that under the 4e GSL, Wizards can forcibly end the circulation of a third party book that has already been approved for 4e GSL branding. Scott's example is a situation where Wizards and a third party may release products with similar ideas at different times.

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4172942&postcount=51

There are also now strong indications that the license will be written so that the choice to use 3E OGL or 4E GSL will not be a product by product choice buy a company by company choice. Their licensing manager even insinuated (not confirmed) that you won't be able to reprint and sell your old 3E products if you go with the 4E GSL.

Questions remaining so far:

- if you go 4E, what is the mechanism to prevent use of 3E?
- if you go 4E, can you return to 3E and simply never use 4E again?
- if you go 4E, can you continue to sell old OGL products so long as you do not create new ones? What about reprinting old OGL products? What about PDF sales?

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4171829&postcount=29

Apparently now, if you used the 3E d20 STL (not the OGL but the license where you can use the D20 logo but not include character creation rules, which is used in many 3rd Party D&D modules), you will have to stop selling those products in around 6 months once the new GSL license is in effect as the old license can and will be revoked (where the OGL can't).

Let's not freak out and have fan-niptions over some license that no one has read.

yrs--
--Ben

Posted By: Ben LehmanLet's not freak out and have fan-niptions over some license that no one has read.

You make an excellent point. Extrapolating from this, I'll avoid commenting on or thinking too hard about the U.S. Presidential candidates until one has actually been elected. No sense freaking out before the thing is settled. Besides, it doesn't affect any of us personally, neither on these forums nor in the larger community, right?

Posted By: vertigo25Eric that's not really a fair analog. I mean, if the candidates weren't telling you what their policies or stances were, maybe...

...well played, rogue, well played.

Posted By: jenskot
And if these opinions are aimed at the hypothetical, then awesome. Better now before the hypothetical becomes concrete.

Thank you, John. I was a'feared this would be the first S-G thread without use of the word "awesome."

- J

Posted By: jenskotAwesome, almost awesome, less than awesome.

Don't forget the special place between awesome and too awesome. "Saucesome"

Honestly, I think the best way to keep up to date on the OGL stuff is to read Chris Pramas' blog. More than just about anyone, he has a major stake in how this plays out and is also a rational guy who's not going to jump to being alarmist, but also isn't necessarily on the Wizards bandwagon if it doesn't end up making sense for Green Ronin.

Posted By: JDCorley[ EXIT CHRIS PRAMAS, stage right ]

[ IMMEDIATELY ENTER CHRIS PRAMAS, stage right, wearing a blue hat. ]

CHRIS PRAMAS: Hello! I'm in charge of a brand new company! It's called Blue Renegade. I want to make Fourth Edition stuff!

WOTC LAWYER (sighing heavily): I know it's you, Chris.

CHRIS PRAMAS: Naturally. But I'm not here as part of Green Ronin. I'm here as part of a completely new enterprise, look at this piece of paper, it cost me forty dollars to register it with the Corporation Commission! It's a brand new company and I'm very excited to be working with you. Blue Renegade doesn't have any OGL or D&D work going on. Want me to swear to it?

WOTC LAWYER (after a long pause and another heavy sigh): No, I guess not. Here's your permission to print money, I mean to produce Fourth Edition stuff.

[ ENTER DANCING GIRLS, FRANK SINATRA ]

[ SINATRA sings "Fly Me To The Moon" while PRAMAS dances with girls. ]

[ CURTAIN ]

This post is made of win and lol.

Posted By: JDCorleyWOTC LAWYER (after a long pause and another heavy sigh): No, I guess not. Here's your permission to print money, I mean to produce Fourth Edition stuff.

Really, I can see it happening. Green Ronin isn't going to produce 4th Edition content if they have to abandon Mutants & Masterminds and True20 to do it, and I think WotC would want Green Ronin to produce 4th Edition content. WotC should be all over "Blue Renegade".

Posted By: JDCorley[ EXIT CHRIS PRAMAS, stage right ]

[ IMMEDIATELY ENTER CHRIS PRAMAS, stage right, wearing a blue hat. ]

CHRIS PRAMAS: Hello! I'm in charge of a brand new company! It's called Blue Renegade. I want to make Fourth Edition stuff!

WOTC LAWYER (sighing heavily): I know it's you, Chris.

CHRIS PRAMAS: Naturally. But I'm not here as part of Green Ronin. I'm here as part of a completely new enterprise, look at this piece of paper, it cost me forty dollars to register it with the Corporation Commission! It's a brand new company and I'm very excited to be working with you. Blue Renegade doesn't have any OGL or D&D work going on. Want me to swear to it?

WOTC LAWYER (after a long pause and another heavy sigh): No, I guess not. Here's your permission to print money, I mean to produce Fourth Edition stuff.

[ ENTER DANCING GIRLS, FRANK SINATRA ]

[ SINATRA sings "Fly Me To The Moon" while PRAMAS dances with girls. ]

[ CURTAIN ]

:)

"I slay the dragon, but not really. I hit it with my Sword of Awesome, yet I remain covered enough so he can't really reach me anyhow. What? Are you saying that from my comfortable and secure hiding spot I can't really score a good hit at him? I'm not believing that."

Amd what does it mean that "Wizards can forcibly end the circulation of a third party book that has already been approved for 4e GSL branding". Why would or how could someone approve the same book for OGL and GSL? I mean is Call of Cthulhu d20 another version of classic Call of Cthulhu or a totally different book? Detto for Star Wars d6 and d20.

Posted By: buzzI'm with Ben on this. There's no justification for freak-outs until the license text is released.

For the reason I cited in my one-act play, "Ring-A-Ding-D&D", I sincerely doubt that the interpretation (edit: of "company by company") is correct.

Unless, of course, they've reviewed the market data they have access to and concluded two different things.

1) D20 type support material that is directly compatible and effectively supports D&D helps sell and market D&D. You know, stuff like new character classes, spell books, world settings, adventures, etc.

2) Fully independent OGL games like Mutant and Masterminds, Conan, True20, etc, give players "alternative" systems to play >instead< of D&D.

It seems pretty clear that with the new GSL they want all the support for D&D itself, but desire to close off the release of entirely new system variants based off the D20 system and are attempting to force existing leading OGL publishers to abandone already established indepedent OGL systems in favor of being able to play in the 4E sandbox.

Ryan S. Johnson
Guild of Blades Retail Group - http://www.guildofblades.com/retailgroup.php
Guild of Blades Publishing Group - http://www.guildofblades.com
1483 Online - http://www.1483online.com

Ryan, Rouse has specifically said that the new GSL isn't going to stop anyone from doing OGL games. M&M, True20, Conan, Pathfinder, etc are all going to continue. On top of this, they've announced a separate license for people who want to make those kinds of games based off 4e.

I'll agree with your #1 point, though. I think it's obvious that WotC is trying to prevent some of the problems of 3.0's era, e.g., other companies releasing books that claimed they were "core," and/or went to market before the comparable WotC product (WW, guilty on both counts). They also seem (rightfully) to want to separate those products which are for use with 4e, and those that are simply based off d20.

I dunno. I'm not a publisher, so my opinion is probably not worth a whole lot. But I figure that, if you're gonna hitch your company to WotC's wagon, you gotta go where they go. Complain about it, and you're gonna get minimal sympathy from me.

Posted By: buzzRyan, Rouse has specifically said that the new GSL isn't going to stop anyone from doing OGL games. M&M, True20, Conan, Pathfinder, etc are all going to continue. On top of this, they've announced a separate license for people who want to make those kinds of games based off 4e.

Where did you see this? All I've seen Scott Rouse say is that publishers can still make OGL games if they choose, not that they'll be able to do that and make 4E material. If anything, I thought the way he said it implied that it was either/or.

I aim to educate and elucidate regarding the fine musical theater of the early 21st century, what can I say.

And best of luck with future M&M stuff, you keep makin' em and I'll keep buyin' em.

Posted By: buzzThe question of whether the OGL/GSL choice isper companyorper producthas not yet been publicly answered by WotC. All we have right now is Clark Peterson's conjecture. Info from WotC has only stated this is true per product.

If you discount comments like "we don't want fence sitters" and "we understand that many companies will not want to do 4e if they have games like M&M, Conan, etc". (paraphrasing), which sound awful curious if product by product is the case.

At any rate, nothing is sure until they spell it out, a promise that seems to keep on slipping.

Scott Rouse was to have answered questions days ago and there seems to still be no clear indication when this will happen. The Gleemax forums are down and say this is for "routine maintenence". Could the traffic looking for answers be getting too much? Probably not, but this seems to be devolving into a PR cluster f***.

Posted By: Saint&SinnerScott Rouse was to have answered questions days ago and there seems to still be no clear indication when this will happen.

They turned around and told ENWorld to submit a list of questions, and then redirected the questions lists to Gleemax. When the question list will be addressed, and to what level of completeness, remains to be seen.

Posted By: Jason MorningstarNetwork Performance Dailyon this from an OSS point of view, looking at it as a troubling precedent.

Boy, that was weird. Having Stallman rain fiery brimstone upon D&D, poorly informed as it was, was like having William Shatner walk up wearing a Han Shot First t-shirt.

Continued:

Q) Can existing OGL products be updated to the GSL and what are the restrictions, if any?

A. Existing OGL products can absolutely be converted to 4e GSL products, so long as they adhere to the terms of the GSL. In fact, we want to see publishers update their popular product lines to 4e.

Q) What branding opportunities does the GSL offer publishers? Does it allow use of the new d20 logo; or does it allow access to Dungeons & Dragons specific branding?

A. There will be a compatibility logo. Embedded in this logo is a version of the new D&D logo and copy stating compatibility. This compatibility logo is permissible for use on product and marketing materials. There will be restrictions on placement and maximum size allowed.

Q) A six-month "sell-off" period has been mentioned with reference to stock carrying the old d20 logo. Is the d20 STL actually going away, or does this sell-off period apply only to those who adopt the GSL?

A. The d20 STL will be terminated. There will be a sell-off period of six months for products produced under the d20 STL. This is true for both pdf and print products. We’re estimating our own backlist stock to be sold through within 3 to 4 months, so allowing six months to other publishers feels fair. Allowing 6 months for pdfs is really pretty generous and we are already in conversations with publishers and PDF sellers like DrivethruRPG.com and RPGNow on how they can make these changes as easy as possible.

Q) Is the new GSL an open license?

A. We are not classifying the GSL as “open” as defined under the open source movement. It is a royalty-free license for permissible usage of specific D&D 4th Edition content including terms, tables, and templates. There is a significant amount of “openness” to the license and we wanted to provide ease of use and low barriers to entry while still maintaining control over things like the D&D Trademark. The GSL is designed to work with the 4th Edition of Dungeons & Dragons.

Q) Is WotC planning on providing an easily available, downloadable copy of the rules available both online and off without a fee?

A. No. Anyone wishing access to the rules will need to purchase the core rulebooks. The GSL SRD will have a list of the terms, tables, and templates available for use under the GSL and will be available for download at no charge with the GSL itself.

Q) Are there any "types" of product prohibited by the GSL? For example, the old d20 STL prohibited the inclusion of character generation or advancement, meaning that a standalone game could not be created, while the OGL alone did not. Does the GSL contain these restrictions? Are any other types of product restricted?

A. Most of what was in the d20 STL has been pulled into the GSL. For example, no product can describe a process for creating a character or applying the effects of experience to a character. The new license is meant to work with the core D&D rules. The final details will be announced when the license is released in June.

Q) Are products required to adhere to any 'community standards' clause, or anything similar?

A.. Yes. The community standards that were in the d20 STL are now wrapped up into the GSL’s.

Q) Is the GSL a perpetual license, or is it revocable by WotC for reasons other than violation?

A. The Game System License Is revocable as it is tied to the D&D trademark and other intellectual property. Because of this Wizards needs to maintain control of the license.

Q) Why is October 1st the selected date for release of third-party materials, as opposed to, say, GenCon, which would be a far more useful launch date?

A. Our initial intention was to have third-party materials ready for release at GenCon, however there is no way that anyone could develop a true quality product in the short time between now and GenCon. We think that October 1st is more reasonable, and will also allow publishers to take advantage of holiday sales.

Q) Will any third-party publishers be permitted to release product under the GSL prior to October 1st?

A. No. October 1st is the permissible on-sale date for all third party publishers.

Q) Is there anything that you wished we’d asked that we haven’t?

A. You didn’t ask about my 4E character.

Are you guys serious? The license is released the same time as the rulebooks? Did WOTC at least give the other publishers access to the rules first? To claim that they won't allow anyone to release stuff for GenCon because there just isn't enough time -- when they controlled the timeline -- seems kinda like a dick move.

Also: I'm sure that having a revocable license will put everyone's fears to rest.

"Product line" is an interesting compromise. Is it just me or does it seem like Wizards is feeling this out and adapting their plan as they go? Like: release a basic outline, get response, release slightly different information, get more response. Seems like the OGL portions of 4th Ed are much more of an afterthought or at least a secondary part of their planning. At least they seem to be willing to listen to the feedback they're receiving, from the big OGL/d20 publishers at least. It seems clear that they'd rather entice folks like Green Ronin into gradually moving towards 4th Ed-compatible (or at least 4th Ed-similar) material, even if it's in a completely distinct line like Mutants & Masterminds, than compete with (and, potentially, divide the post-d20 spoils among) several independent updates of their own previous game system.

These are going to be some strange days ahead.

Jonathan, what you're describing is entirely possible - but normally, what a company would do is huddle together with its biggest or most influential partners, and then they would work out some sort of contract or license agreement that respects everyone's needs and input. What you'd like to do is create a discrete, intelligent, non-FUD-filled atmosphere so that everyone feels like their needs matter to the other side. You bounce several drafts around, and once all the big players are happy, then you announce it to the public.

Alternately: you come up with really simple, clear, licensing terms that are industry-standard, and maybe you tweak a little bit -- you can do this entirely in private, and then publicize it; getting people's input isn't so important here because it's what they're used to. (I doubt this model works very well for RPG's, though, and even to the extent that the OGL/d20 license conditioned people to a certain way of industry behavior, the 4e license is meant to deliberately break with those customs.)

Regardless of the material terms of this license, the way Wizards has gone about it looks extremely haphazard and kind of discourteous, and must be destroying a lot of goodwill.

I just got this from a friend who works at Hasbro. It was taken in a Wizards licensing meeting, and explains the current way they're releasing and dealing with information:

Posted By: James_NostackAre you guys serious? The license is released the same time as the rulebooks? Did WOTC at least give the other publishers access to the rules first? To claim that they won't allow anyone to release stuff for GenCon because there just isn't enough time -- when they controlled the timeline -- seems kinda like a dick move.

The original plan was that companies who payed the $5,000 advance-look-see fee would be able to release products for GenCon (or really soon after, iirc), and companies who did not would have to wait until October. Since the license was released so late, they ditched the $5,000 fee, but just lumped everyone into the "Wait until October" category.

I dunno. I can't really get angry about any of this. It seems apparent that the delays are a result of WotC fighting with the Hasbro suits to create a license that didn't totally suck ass. Despite the delay until October, publishers still ended up with free access to the most popular IP in tabletop gaming.

Sure, it hasn't been all hugs and puppies, but... welcome to the business world.

Unpack that a bit for me Jonathan.

How are you envisioning the GSL trickling down into the rest of the hobby in a detrimental manner. What might that look like?

Ralph, Renato's right that, at this point, it's simply a lot of bad emotions, that they're telling folks already used to playing in their playground that, if they want to stay, there are a bunch of new rules they have to follow. But, on the other hand, I think WotC being less open about their IP is likely to have a strong effect. In fact, I would argue that the backlash against the perceived weaknesses and problems of open gaming started a while back.

Remember the John Kim vs. Green Ronin fiasco over posting the open portions of Blue Rose on the internet, as a kind of SRD? To me, that indicated that Green Ronin was not actively on board with many of the core principles of open source, despite their own use of open content. In contrast, Evil Hat enthusiastically welcomed efforts by their own fans to make an SRD for Spirit of the Century. Recently, Green Ronin have taken a more pro-open stance with their True20 material, but I suspect this is -- at least in part -- motivated by an attempt to build a foundation for True20 when it looked like WotC was putting a firmer grip on their own IP. They're still actively dissuading attempts at a True20 SRD.

So, from my perspective, a shift in thinking about open content and the value of it has already happened in the minds of several major roleplaying publishers. The changes to WotC's open content procedures are really an indication of these developments more than something entirely new. But I would argue that something is wrong when roleplaying publishers increasingly feel the need to prevent their fans or fellow publishers from "unfairly" taking advantage of their work. Legitimately protecting your IP from damaging, unfair practices is one thing, but protecting a specific business model or method of operating is another, and I think the latter is actually happening more often. The way open source generally works as a commercial business model is that you give away some open content (Linux, webcomics, SRDs) and make your money selling content that isn't open or freely available (support, t-shirts, hardcover books with full color art). But WotC and Green Ronin clearly want to have their cake and eat it too; they want people to spend money for the privilege of having access to open content (via print or PDF versions, or both). That's pretty odd, yeah?

But, honestly, that's how most publishing works under the OGL. Do OGL publishers put their open content on their website, for people to use? Nope, not generally. Sometimes they make PDFs of their products free after they've sold about as many as they play to, but that's it. And now they have even less of an incentive to make open content really open and available, with major publishers taking pains to put more barriers around content that's supposed to be free to use. I imagine a widespread turtling is not far off, with a large number of folks retreating into their shells instead of being coaxed into abandoning them entirely. Is there a future in which you can play D&D for free (i.e. the corebooks can be freely downloaded), but have to pay for "official" supplements compiled by WotC from both fan and freelancer material (and made all pretty)? Maybe, but it just moved a bit further off, since WotC (and others) have decided that this open stuff isn't as awesome as they thought it was and, instead of getting more open (and, generally speaking, roleplaying's barely open at all, yet), we're going back to being more closed.

James, if you look at D&D vs. SpyCraft vs. Mutants & Masterminds... the differences are pretty substantial. I mean, from an indie perspective it sometimes seems like its "all d20 to me," but the OGL has definitely led to some interesting stuff. Just check out the list of OGL supplements Steve Kenson drew on for True20 (bottom of the page). It's less about building replacements and forks and more about building a body of material, though sorting through all of it to find the good stuff can be hard, especially when you often have to buy stuff to see if it has open content that you can actually use in producing your own open content.

Posted By: buzzThe "generic" 4e-era d20 license has yet to be seen.

Uh, Mark, as far as I understood the matter, GSL is the 4e era d20 license. WotC's main point with the change of licensing is that completely unrelated games (M&M, Spycraft, and son on) will be actively discouraged (e.g. not possible). All the new additional products will be DnD modules/addons/expansions/adventures.

All those who were looking for a good "base system" to riff on can come reading Fate's SRD, or maybe True20's base free system (if and when it comes out).

Renato: Mark is referring to the d20 GSL, which is coming out sometime in 2009+, after the D&D GSL, which will supposedly allow publishers to use 4th Ed mechanics to publish games in other genres besides fantasy (and, I guess, will allow you to have character creation mechanics, maybe? who knows).

Posted By: renatoramI kinda remember the wotc reps being pretty clear about not including character creation/advancement and so on in derivative games... thus rendering them DnD in disguise, basically, and forcing you to buy at least the PHB, but as I said, there could be different plans for the future d20 license. But sheesh, that's a long wait... publishers will likely convert to something else, I think: waiting in complete uncertainty for 1.5 years, without knowing for certaing the terms of the license sounds pretty risky business :)

Honestly, I think that the existing fanbases for the popular derived RPGs (Spycraft, M&M, etc) could really care less, so those publishers are losing nothing by waiting to see the second license. And since those RPGs are released under the OGL, they don't really *need* a new license.

I think that the second license will be a lot more open and OGL-like. WotC obviously just wants to make sure that the D&D brand is protected this time around, ergo, it gets its own license, while general d20 gets another.

Mark: I totally get why WotC is making the decisions they are making from the perspective of a traditional business model in a growing industry. But RPGs are a shrinking industry and have been for some time, partially because -- so I suspect -- the traditional business model doesn't really work. So, yeah, I don't blame them (or Green Ronin, etc.) for hedging their bets, but I do think it's a shame that no one has a business model that's really based on the idea of open content. Instead, everyone seems to be satisfied with selling access to supposedly open content, which isn't all that different from selling closed content. It's certainly more familiar, so it's clear why they're going that route, but I don't think it's going to do anything to "save" roleplaying, because I think that business model is ultimately doomed. But if they want to make money on the way out, that's fine. It just means they have increasingly less and less to contribute to the future of the hobby, which I don't think involves closed content.

Posted By: ValamirI would have been much happier with 3.0 if it had been Wizards only. 3.0 product I bought from Wizards on average was head and shoulders in quality above any of the stuff I bought from 3rd parties.

I didn't have this experience at all; early on in 3rd edition the WotC products frequently sucked just as bad as the 3rd parties. Late in the game we're comparing thisng slike Arcana Evolved to the PHB 2, Ebberon campaign setting to Ptolus, d20 modern products to Spycraft or teh Red Star campaign setting. I think those go to the third party publishers.

"So, yeah, I don't blame them (or Green Ronin, etc.) for hedging their bets, but I do think it's a shame that no one has a business model that's really based on the idea of open content."

Jonathan: Right with you.

Uh... there was a third edition of D&D? Huh...

Mike

Posted By: buzzYou ask, e.g., Steve Long of Hero Games about going OGL with HERO (which comes up all the time on their boards), and he will look at you like you're crazy, rightfully so. You're basically asking him to give away their primary source of revenue.

That's true.

But that's not quite what I'm asking him to do. When you stop by the Hero site, is there a rules-lite version of the game for free? Is rules-tinkering acceptable right on the boards, including presentation of the hacky bits in PDF form, and the like? Does the community around the board filter that content, talking up the best and down the worst, and does the company encourage it?

What I'm asking him to do is to consider a ramped up version of that, and to look for ways to gain revenue by intensifying and acknowledging that process.

Posted By: Mike HolmesIn what other ways could one generate revenue from sharing IP?

The way I've heard is along the lines of:

Share IP -> Spinoffs -> Get the attention of lapsed gamers -> return to fold -> buy core game.

But that may be as ephemerous as the "trickle down effect" in economics (I notice that when it comes to 1981 dollars I'm way poorer than my dad was when he had a kid, even though I'm as far or further along career-wise).