So some people think that the two-part interview that ICv2 did with Scott Rouse (D&D Brand Manager) answers some of the pending questions about the OGL/GSL debacle. But that’s only based on an uninformed reading of the interview. Not even WotC is claiming that this interview is an answer to the question, but it’s about licensing in general so some people are getting confused.
Part I is the part mentioning licensing; go read it then come on back.
First, of all, I wasn’t going to comment on this interview cause I felt like it was too much “piling on” the topic – but then people started posting about “Well, I’m glad that’s all cleared up then.” So here goes.
Note what Scott didn’t say. He didn’t say “A company can publish OGL stuff and still be a GSL licensee.” He said:
“The OGL is irrevocable.” Yes, we knew that.
“It’s not the same as the d20 STL”. We knew that too.
He discusses how publishers will need to sell off their d20 STL products by the end of 2008, destroy what’s left. Then, if they want to keep publishing that content, it’s OK as long as they do it under the OGL and don’t have a d20 logo on it (since the d20 STL is going away.”
We knew that too. Note that he doesn’t say “they can publish that under the OGL and move forward with the GSL.” They’ve said in the past that the OGL is irrevocable and people can go forward with it, as long as they don’t want to touch D&D 4e.
Actually, I don’t think this interview was Scott or Wizards spreading FUD, they just were careful not to address the controversial point. In fact, it’s nice to have this info in a public interview and not just forum posts. Only reason I’m talking about it is some people are mistaking this interview for something it’s not.