Until Version 5 (there were 6 versions!), there were no content resrictions, and the STL was engineered to work with the OGL and SRD. The STL was used if you wanted to use the official trademarks on your product, while the OGL/SRD was there for content development. There obviously isn’t a 4th Edition version of the OGL and the SRD is lacking, to put it mildly.

Up to an including d20STLv4, if you didn’t like the extra restrictions on the new version of the STL: “For a period of 90 days You may continue to distribute any pre-existing material that complies with a previous version of the License. Thereafter written consent should be obtained from Wizards of the Coast. Subsequent versions of this License will bear a different version number.” (as per Section 9). There wasn’t a self-terminate clause, but if you didn’t want to use it, you could just remove the logo and keep trucking because you had the OGL.

With version 5 & 6 (~Semptember ’03) they took out the provision to sell off for 90 days as well as introduced the content restrictions.

So, in my opinion the STL was superior because it had the OGL and a decent SRD. The STL still wasn’t the greatest, but the new GSL is a pale comparison because it does not have an OGL and has a very, very weak SRD.

Your post reads like you are completely unaware of the STL. At no point do you mention that the very clauses you are freaking out over where a part of the d20 license which many 3PPs operated under for years. This is either from a lack of knowledge, which seriously brings into question the validity of your opinions, or a disingenuous attempt to color the discussion and mislead readers who are less informed on these issues. I’m curious to which this is?

In case its the former, I’ll summarize – the removal of clause 6 (in the original) leaves the 4e GSL extremely similar to the d20 STL, only with more rights for those who sign the license, such as a right to self-terminate and sell off inventory.

“Right now, in my view, the GSL needs some major reworking or clarification to be usable. The bottom line, in my view, is that the GSL is a total unmitigated failure. And that is a shame..

Do you think the mere exclusion of the clause that made it difficult (but not impossible) to publish OGL and GSL products at the same time is “some major reworking”? Has adding a very strict (as in obtaining it) six month window to sell of stock in addition to the removal of the previously mentioned OGL clause raise the GSL from the status of “a total unmitigated failure”?

I think not. So of course his current opinion of the GSL mystifies me… Why would someone who spoke so adamantly against the GSL quickly change his mind over, what many consider, minor changes?

This is not a 4e hate thing, I play 4e (spent ALL last GenCon playing), it is a decent game, but not my preferred game. Hell I even write material for 4e. This is soley about the Game System License and Wizards and other proponents claiming it is now “awesome” or “significantly better.” I don’t think it is. Coming from a creative standpoint, the License is too stifling. Coming from a legal standpoint, it is a minefield.

The GSL is a collar and leash that Wizards would like to put on potential third party support so 1) it forces customers of most 3rd party products to purchase WotC core 2) forces WotC moral values on content 3) helps maintain WotC’s chokehold on market by giving them plenty of legal option.

And as I said in my previous comment, if Wizards wants tight contorl over their IP, that is perfectly fine. I just think the GSL is sugar-coated pile of dung that Wizards hopes to control 3rd party supplements through. What I am saying, if you read the very last sentence of my article is you would have less liability and more freedom if you published compatible material under Fair Use.

I think what puts the fear into most publishers is they may not understand exactly what is fair game under fair use and would rather wear Wizard’s GSL yoke than face that uncertainty.

So maybe you are just suffering from nerd-blindness coupled with a little nerd-rage of your own. Why shouldn’t I question whether or not to drink the same nerd kool-aid you, Clark, and the pleased third-party publishers have drank?

Bottom line: if you don’t like my arguement, please propose a counter point on why I am wrong instead of railing on about some moronic bullshit like how I would turn down a hot Russian girl… which by the way would have to deal with my wife first.

I swear, WotC could have had a clause in there stating that once you signed the GSL, they would send a hot Russian girl to your house to fellate you every thursday and your response would have been:

“What!? Why Thursday and not Tuesday? Why not twice a week. Why Russian? Piss off wizards!!”

I mean, you call Clark Peterson an ass-kisser for liking the revised GSL, where the hell do you get the stones for that level of condescension? Your mindless nerd rage makes your “opinions” on all things 4e completely worthless.

@Wimwick: If I were to publish a 4e adventure, and I was smart enough not to sign on with the GSL, I’d put page number references in anyways. I am pretty sure that isn’t protected by any form of IP law.

@mxyzplk: Yeah its better, like having a knife stuck in my back that is only two inches long instead of four…

mxyzplk’s last blog post..Wizards Releases Revised GSL – Is It Better?

I agree with Wyatt on page numbers though. Since we can’t put monster stat blocks in the adventures we can only list the names. No page number to assist in finding the monster quickly. Seems a little too much to me.

Wimwick’s last blog post..Where Are The Familiars?

Ameron’s last blog post..Where Are The Familiars?