hey cory. that is some pretty strong language of entitlement. i thought it was kind of sleazy of you to source an article that sources "rumors," but it does seem correct that the new open source license (the Game System License- GSL as opposed to the Open Game License-- OGL) will "poison pill" the old license, making it so that companies can not publish "3e" material once they start publishing "4e" material (quotes, since it is by license not edition). okay, now listen. i'm a big open license fan, myself. i think the proliferation & standardization of the d20 rules was a big, visible success for open gaming-- heck, open sourcing period. but you know what? i don't think it is reasonable for you to get pissed about them not doing it the way you'd like. disappointed, sure. disagreed with, sure. but to call it "sleazy" is a bit much. more of the "not free enough" attitude. listen, part of the point of open sourcing is that it is a viable model for success, not charity, right? so it should be self-correcting, should tend to fix itself over time. well, i'll tell you what. i'm all for expressing to wizards of the coast that this is not the best way to go. what are your arguments for it? i'm curious about such things. wizard's obviously wants 4e to be supported, & then after that 5e, & so on. heck, i think you could let things just wither on the vine; if the gsl didn't poison pill the ogl, i'd expect that in a few years time, people would stop with the 3e books anyhow. & how about this as an argument for the open source position: paizo & their use of the ogl. they're going to ogl, at least for a while; they make good products, & if you nullify their ability to produce 4e content, you are depriving yourself of excellent secondary support. you know, like how a good dragon article back in the day could have given me a good idea for a character, thus creating a whole new market-- "oh, i like this prestige class here! maybe i'll do it, & i'll get complete dude & try to convince my dm to let me use alternate rules from unearthed arcana!" or whatever. i guess my point is that i totally support open sourcing the game (even though i now run the storyteller system, which isn't open licensed at all, wish it was) & i agree that a poison pill isn't a good idea. & i think it is a bit of a dick move to go after wizards of the coast & call them names. they can run whatever business model they want. the ogl was revolutionary in the first place. i think it would behoove them not to fall behind in the revolution, but that is their call to make. anyone who wants to follow up on the he said she said of it can go to the forums here. hey cory. that is some pretty strong language of entitlement. i thought it was kind of sleazy of you to source an article that sources "rumors," but it does seem correct that the new open source license (the Game System License- GSL as opposed to the Open Game License-- OGL) will "poison pill" the old license, making it so that companies can not publish "3e" material once they start publishing "4e" material (quotes, since it is by license not edition). okay, now listen. i'm a big open license fan, myself. i think the proliferation & standardization of the d20 rules was a big, visible success for open gaming-- heck, open sourcing period. but you know what? i don't think it is reasonable for you to get pissed about them not doing it the way you'd like. disappointed, sure. disagreed with, sure. but to call it "sleazy" is a bit much. more of the "not free enough" attitude. listen, part of the point of open sourcing is that it is a viable model for success, not charity, right? so it should be self-correcting, should tend to fix itself over time. well, i'll tell you what. i'm all for expressing to wizards of the coast that this is not the best way to go. what are your arguments for it? i'm curious about such things. wizard's obviously wants 4e to be supported, & then after that 5e, & so on. heck, i think you could let things just wither on the vine; if the gsl didn't poison pill the ogl, i'd expect that in a few years time, people would stop with the 3e books anyhow. & how about this as an argument for the open source position: paizo & their use of the ogl. they're going to ogl, at least for a while; they make good products, & if you nullify their ability to produce 4e content, you are depriving yourself of excellent secondary support. you know, like how a good dragon article back in the day could have given me a good idea for a character, thus creating a whole new market-- "oh, i like this prestige class here! maybe i'll do it, & i'll get complete dude & try to convince my dm to let me use alternate rules from unearthed arcana!" or whatever. i guess my point is that i totally support open sourcing the game (even though i now run the storyteller system, which isn't open licensed at all, wish it was) & i agree that a poison pill isn't a good idea. & i think it is a bit of a dick move to go after wizards of the coast & call them names. they can run whatever business model they want. the ogl was revolutionary in the first place. i think it would behoove them not to fall behind in the revolution, but that is their call to make. anyone who wants to follow up on the he said she said of it can go to the forums here. - Post a new comment
- 3 comments
- Post a new comment
- 3 comments
