It allows you to search the
messageboards, send and receive private messages, give yourself a
custom usertitle, turn ads on or off, create a custom style for your
profile, get a nifty badge under your username, and gives you a special
warm glowy feeling! Oh, and it gets rid of this annoying message, too!
RPG Legalities: OGF/4eGSL/d20STLDiscussions about the Open Gaming Movement, the Open Gaming License, along with WotC's GSL. This is the new home of the OGF-L and d20-L listserver discussions.
You should make a new company to run the 4th edition licence, and keep the old company identity pure OGL.
In fact, reading the GSL... I see nothing right off that prevents the rights to a 4th edition setting being sold off to a 3.5 edition design company, and have them backward convert it.
Mind you, I'm not a lawyer, and just an evil minded person, but what's other's take on this?
__________________ The Fool
Mr. Oberon
John Bowden
It's not a new idea; people have been suggesting it for months.
My take?
1) WotC can terminate your license for any reason; while I imagine they'll be fairly lenient, and many companies could fly under the radar, one should remember that using clever tricks to try and weasel around things can always result in WotC saying "we don't like the way you're playing, so we're taking our ball and going home".
2) The only reason to do this is if you want a product line with OGL and 4E versions; you can still happily produce OGL and 4E products as long as they're different product lines. Having different versions of the same product line published and sold by two different companies would be confusing to the customer and possibly counter-productive, being the antithesis of effective branding.
It's not a new idea; people have been suggesting it for months.
My take?
1) WotC can terminate your license for any reason; while I imagine they'll be fairly lenient, and many companies could fly under the radar, one should remember that using clever tricks to try and weasel around things can always result in WotC saying "we don't like the way you're playing, so we're taking our ball and going home".
2) The only reason to do this is if you want a product line with OGL and 4E versions; you can still happily produce OGL and 4E products as long as they're different product lines. Having different versions of the same product line published and sold by two different companies would be confusing to the customer and possibly counter-productive, being the antithesis of effective branding.
Actually, I was thinking more in the line of "You're not allowed to go back to OGL even if we recend the GSL to you." court. A way back from the edge of oblivion if such a situation developed?
__________________ The Fool
Mr. Oberon
John Bowden
I think WotC wouldn't mind if a publishing company was constructed to publish GSL-compliant materials AS LONG AS the parent company didn't publish the corresponding material as OGL at the same time. As an escape strategy for the time when the GSL is rescinded, I think that's a reasonable approach. Of course, only Wizards can say if they really won't mind; you'd be wagering that they won't.
__________________ Want to see some interesting spells? A great magic system in action?
Visit The Net Wizard's Grimoire wiki for a host of great Ars Magica spells!
Actually, I was thinking more in the line of "You're not allowed to go back to OGL even if we recend the GSL to you." court. A way back from the edge of oblivion if such a situation developed?
The suggestion would be, I guess, the owner of "Company A" creates a "Company B" and licenses their material to B. Company B enters into the GSL with Wizards, and publishes 4e material, until Wizards demands they stop and yanks the license. But the contractual obligations of B don't apply to A, and A can start publishing those products under OGL. Is this correct?
The suggestion would be, I guess, the owner of "Company A" creates a "Company B" and licenses their material to B.
This only works because S.3 does not require you to own the work you are turning into a Licensed Product........ yet. Enough people start making that end run around of the license and the yet becomes reality.
__________________ Joe Mucchiello, Head Honcho at Throwing Dice Games
Priority One: Fatherhood.
Priority Two: Sanity.
Down on the list: seemingly real close to releasing a notebook essential. It's in layout! Has been for months now. (Just nod politely so I won't cry about this.)
"I've never heard of the term Flavor lawyer..." -- Scribble
The suggestion would be, I guess, the owner of "Company A" creates a "Company B" and licenses their material to B.
This only works because S.3 does not require you to own the work you are turning into a Licensed Product........ yet. Enough people start making that end run around of the license and the yet becomes reality.
__________________ Joe Mucchiello, Head Honcho at Throwing Dice Games
Priority One: Fatherhood.
Priority Two: Sanity.
Down on the list: seemingly real close to releasing a notebook essential. It's in layout! Has been for months now. (Just nod politely so I won't cry about this.)
"I've never heard of the term Flavor lawyer..." -- Scribble
Even if two companies were formed ... if they were operated in a coordinated fashion ... and if it was clear that the reason for creating the second company was to sidestep the restrictions of the license ... couldn't a judge basically say "no dice ... that isn't an independent company ... that other company only exists as a means for you to attempt to break your license agreements".
Even if two companies were formed ... if they were operated in a coordinated fashion ... and if it was clear that the reason for creating the second company was to sidestep the restrictions of the license ... couldn't a judge basically say "no dice ... that isn't an independent company ... that other company only exists as a means for you to attempt to break your license agreements".
And yet that happens all the time in business.
__________________ Brain: Come Pinky! We must prepare for tomorrow night.
Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?
Brain: The same thing we do every night....TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
If the intent was to avoid the terms of the license ... wouldn't that be a problem? If second company was formed to enable a contract violation. My understanding (layman's) is that, for example, forming a second company to enable financial trickery is not legal. Or rather, that the court may disallow the separation and treat the second company as being a part of the first.
I am wondering, too, how much the terms of the license "adhere" to the material that is the subject of the license.
It doesn't work because Wizards basically says in the GSL that they can shut your company out any time they want, for no reason, and that you have to immediately destroy all your unsold backstock, and you can't republish your material under the OGL, and that if you sue them, or they sue you, you have to pay their legal costs regardless of whether or not they're totally in the wrong.
In essence, the GSL says, 'you can come along for the 4E ride, but if you do, and we decide later for any reason to destroy your company, you're toast'.
So it's a really bad idea to piss off Hasbro if you're doing 4E.
Let's pretend I don't work for WotC and that I'm just Joe Average for a moment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrus
Having different versions of the same product line published and sold by two different companies would be confusing to the customer and possibly counter-productive, being the antithesis of effective branding.
This is a great point. One of the major rules of marketing is: A Confused Customer is a Non-Buying Customer.
Granted, folks who play RPGs are generally very intelligent (I'm not saying that to kiss up. I say it b/c it's my strong belief) and can figure out the differences fairly quickly. However, a noob would be confused and walk on down the aisle. Your existing audience will understand, but this approach does not work for acquisition. You don't have to do extensive market research to know that in this industry acquistion is KEY.
If I was running my own third party shop (again, consider I'm not a WotC person talking right now) I'd go with one route or another, not both.
What is so different about RPGs from multi-platform supported versions of computer software? Or video games? Heck, you frequently have different distributors for different global regions on a lot of game software. Users don't seem to get too confused.
Linear Mode
