EN World D&D / RPG News - View Single Post

FormerlyDickensC · 18th April 2008, 07:04 PM

My bad on the wrong forum post...

I'm not trying to write a legal opinion nor base one on the press release, merely point out that the release was "inadequate". (cap't obvious). Also wanted to solicit opinions on what I thought were potential issues. I guess this is what other people here thought to be a "legal opinion". But I never portrayed the post as anything other than a random internet forum post. Others read into it as me trying to say more than I actually was, I think.

I was also equating the STL and OGL - my fault. But OGL cannot be "revoked" per se. If the PHB (for example) was published under the OGL, then that content will remain governed by the OGL. On a side note (irrelevant tangent), I also think that the trademark is of lesser importance in this industry than it would be in others, but not entirely irrelevant or anything like that.

I still think that discerning the application of one license over the other (fantasy vs non-fantasy) is going to be a potentially big problem. This of course depends entirely on the wording of each. I'm really beginning to pick up on a pattern with WOTC releasing statements that confuse more than illuminate. I'm also getting a little fed up with it. But...whatever...

And my comment about WOTC hiring a good IP firm....well I was being a little sarcastic. I mean I hope that hiring a good firm is plainly obvious. I also hope that they spend a good deal of time working it out. It just seems to me that since the license scheme is still changing (for no apparent reason other than the fact that final goals/intentions are still not set in stone) there is the possibility that inadequate effort is being given to such an important item. I would think that something as core as the license for the content (and the inherent goals and purposes of the content as determined by the license) would be a foundation on which the final content was devised, not the other way around. I suppose I'm griping about what appears to be a recurrent theme - haphazard work. But I hope all works out in the end. I am happy that the game is going to be open and I don't want to denigrate WOTC yet again. But I'm scared by what I see. This is not how I would do things. But, who am I? Just a schmo.

Cheers!

18th April 2008, 07:04 PM	#12 (permalink)
FormerlyDickensC Registered User Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 81	My bad on the wrong forum post... I'm not trying to write a legal opinion nor base one on the press release, merely point out that the release was "inadequate". (cap't obvious). Also wanted to solicit opinions on what I thought were potential issues. I guess this is what other people here thought to be a "legal opinion". But I never portrayed the post as anything other than a random internet forum post. Others read into it as me trying to say more than I actually was, I think. I was also equating the STL and OGL - my fault. But OGL cannot be "revoked" per se. If the PHB (for example) was published under the OGL, then that content will remain governed by the OGL. On a side note (irrelevant tangent), I also think that the trademark is of lesser importance in this industry than it would be in others, but not entirely irrelevant or anything like that. I still think that discerning the application of one license over the other (fantasy vs non-fantasy) is going to be a potentially big problem. This of course depends entirely on the wording of each. I'm really beginning to pick up on a pattern with WOTC releasing statements that confuse more than illuminate. I'm also getting a little fed up with it. But...whatever... And my comment about WOTC hiring a good IP firm....well I was being a little sarcastic. I mean I hope that hiring a good firm is plainly obvious. I also hope that they spend a good deal of time working it out. It just seems to me that since the license scheme is still changing (for no apparent reason other than the fact that final goals/intentions are still not set in stone) there is the possibility that inadequate effort is being given to such an important item. I would think that something as core as the license for the content (and the inherent goals and purposes of the content as determined by the license) would be a foundation on which the final content was devised, not the other way around. I suppose I'm griping about what appears to be a recurrent theme - haphazard work. But I hope all works out in the end. I am happy that the game is going to be open and I don't want to denigrate WOTC yet again. But I'm scared by what I see. This is not how I would do things. But, who am I? Just a schmo. Cheers!