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.
What was the language for the licenses for things like Dragonlance, or Ravenloft, or Dragon and Dungeon magazines?
Anyone in the know care to share? (if not, obviously I'll understand.)
Language for the license?
I'm going to take a random guess and say English.
But to use them in 3PP, there is no such thing or term in any of the royalty-free licenses (GSL, d20STL, or OGL). To use those IPs commercially in your 3PP, one need to negoatiate with WotC for a separate exclusive licensing agreement.
But forgive me for saying, I want no one but Margaret Weis Production to handle Dragonlance.
__________________ Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
My philosophy is "you don't need me to tell you how to play -- I'll just provide some rules and ideas to use and get out of your way." --Monte Cook
I think the question was for the text of the licenses.
I was presuming that the goal was to know what specific licenses were had for Dungeon and Dragon, the magazines, and for the other products, since these seemed to be under a specific license that was not the public license.
But to use them in 3PP, there is no such thing or term in any of the royalty-free licenses (GSL, d20STL, or OGL). To use those IPs commercially in your 3PP, one need to negoatiate with WotC for a separate exclusive licensing agreement.[/i]
I don't think he's asking about the GSL, d20 STL or OGL. He certainly didn't mention them. I think he's asking what the licenses for various licensed products have looked like in the past.
Scribble, I'll be amazed if they weren't under NDAs. I doubt you'll get an answer, I'm afraid.
I don't think he's asking about the GSL, d20 STL or OGL. He certainly didn't mention them. I think he's asking what the licenses for various licensed products have looked like in the past.
This is correct.
Quote:
Scribble, I'll be amazed if they weren't under NDAs. I doubt you'll get an answer, I'm afraid.
Yeah, I suspect you're correct, and suspected the same when I posted... But it never hurts to ask right? (aside from possibly wasting some of your bandwith... )
I don't think he's asking about the GSL, d20 STL or OGL. He certainly didn't mention them. I think he's asking what the licenses for various licensed products have looked like in the past.
You'll have to ask former licensees, but I doubt they'll disclose the intimate details of their exclusive agreements with WotC.
When it comes to exclusive licensing agreement, the terms must be discussed between the two parties, the Licensor and Licensee.
__________________ Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
My philosophy is "you don't need me to tell you how to play -- I'll just provide some rules and ideas to use and get out of your way." --Monte Cook
Then why mention WotC's IP? Exactly what IP are you trying to get a license from his or her owner?
Huh? I just said I'm not trying to actually get a license from WoTC or anyone... I just want to see what some of the licenses WoTC has done (outside of the publicly available OGL) in the past look like.
Thats all.
No hidden agenda, or anything just curriosity- plain and simple.
Huh? I just said I'm not trying to actually get a license from WoTC or anyone... I just want to see what some of the licenses WoTC has done (outside of the publicly available OGL) in the past look like.
Thats all.
No hidden agenda, or anything just curriosity- plain and simple.
*lowers his footman's dragonlance*
Alright. As I said before, the royalty-based licensing agreements are exclusive. I don't know if one party can fully disclose the actual agreement without the other party's permission. I'm sure there are standard guidelines that lawyers are taught in order to draft such an agreement.
__________________ Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
My philosophy is "you don't need me to tell you how to play -- I'll just provide some rules and ideas to use and get out of your way." --Monte Cook
Alright. As I said before, the royalty-based licensing agreements are exclusive. I don't know if one party can fully disclose the actual agreement without the other party's permission. I'm sure there are standard guidelines that lawyers are taught in order to draft such an agreement.
Well I guess what I'm wondering is how different those licenses are/were from the GSL.
Is the wording of the GSL pretty par the course for licenses obtained from WoTC outside of the OGL?
Or is it way different from anything people have seen from WoTC before?
There was probably a clause stating exactly when the license would expire (as opposed to "whenever we feel like it").
Renew clause (some way to say that it can be renewed should both parties desire it to be). This guess is reasonable considering that MWP said that Wizards had 0 interest in renewing the license around the time their license was set to expire.
Sell off period (we know there was one in Dragonlance's considering that Wizards said so when they announced an extension to that license)
EDITTED in:
Uses for the name Dragonlance and symbol. MWP had the dragonlance.com domain so their license had to have allowed that. I believe they used they used the dragonlance logo in their advertising so that is also reasonable.
Approval process. Paizo talked about having to go to Wizards to have their stuff approved. Its a reasonable guess that MWP had similar.
__________________
Jon Brazer Enterprises- Bringing You the Future
Players, put faith in your Pathfinder character with Book of the Faithful: Power of Prayer available at DriveThruRPG.com.
D. McCoy 1693
Last edited by dmccoy1693; 8th August 2008 at 08:38 PM..
Reason: additional
But forgive me for saying, I want no one but Margaret Weis Production to handle Dragonlance.
Forgiven.
For the record I agree with you. I think what Wizards has done to them (allowing the license to produce Dragonlance material to lapse and effectively barring them (MWP) from putting out material for the world that they created) to be downright shameful, arrogant, and petty. They (WotC/Hasbro) have little to no interest in the world, but they are so scared of competition (and that is my opinion and belief as to their motivation behind many of these kinds of actions they've been doing ever since shortly after 3.5 was released (when they started working on 4e and started to turn away from the gaming community in general - incidentally I think this is around the time that Hasbro bought WotC and made it a part of a corporate machine and they lost that "small company of gamer-geeks" mindset)) and the risk of having to do business in a market with it that they'd essentially pull a coup against her/them much the way that certain parties did to Gygax years ago to kill off Greyhawk to ensure Forgotten Realms wouldn't have to compete with new products for it.
Truly sad that Dragonlance is effectively dead in the water now...
Maybe MWB will be able to get some sort of license deal worked out (if they've even got an interest in doing that - since it'd likely require them to make everything for 4e) and we'll see more material for the world come out. It'd be a shame if they couldn't do something for their fans. I've got some friends that are HUGE DL fans and they're heartbroken over how this has been done. They've said it's enough to make them not move to 4e... I don't know if that'll last or or not... They're pretty big RPGA (well, were until Living City and Living Death ended, anyhow) gamers.
For the record I agree with you. I think what Wizards has done to them (allowing the license to produce Dragonlance material to lapse and effectively barring them (MWP) from putting out material for the world that they created) to be downright shameful, arrogant, and petty.
Hmm. Lets not forget that Wizards of the Coast was never obliged to hand out the Dragonlance licence in the first place. I wish there had been more 3.5 Dragonlance soucebooks, but if WotC hadn't given out the licence in the first place we would just have had DLCS.
It is obvious (in hindsight) that they were planning 4th edition for years. It might not be so obvious from the RPG stuff, but they have been setting up the Spellplague plot in novels knowing it is a 4e thing. I don't think it was a co-incidence the DL licence expired shortly before 4e - I think it was planned to run out before 4e.
Actually, I'm more disapointed in EN World than Hasbro, because I was hoping that the Adlatum Campaign Setting (from the Dragonlance community) would be up for a ENnie this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonPixie
They (WotC/Hasbro) have little to no interest in the world, but they are so scared of competition (and that is my opinion and belief as to their motivation behind many of these kinds of actions they've been doing ever since shortly after 3.5 was released (when they started working on 4e and started to turn away from the gaming community in general - incidentally I think this is around the time that Hasbro bought WotC and made it a part of a corporate machine and they lost that "small company of gamer-geeks" mindset)) and the risk of having to do business in a market with it that they'd essentially pull a coup against her/them much the way that certain parties did to Gygax years ago to kill off Greyhawk to ensure Forgotten Realms wouldn't have to compete with new products for it.
I've seen other people trying to blame the lack of a renewal of the DL licence on Hasbro. You can't blame Hasbro for this (if anyone is to blame). Hasbro bought Wizards of the Coast in 1999, before 3rd edition was published. They were in charge before DLCS came out and they were already in charge of D&D when the DL licence came into operation. They were even in charge of D&D before MWP existed.
If I blame anything, it is the 4e plan for campaign settings. Back during 3rd edition WotC couldn't be bothered with campaign setting support. People complained, and they seem to have listened. Now they are saing they will bring back lots of settings. We have been told "one setting per year" is the plan.
The problem with that plan is that it would be undermined if Dragonlance carried on coming out. So to back up their plan, WotC need to get Dragonlance to "shut up" while they churn out Forgotten Realms (and almost certainly Eberron). Once they are out of the way, and WotC can publish its "three magic Dragonlance books" it will be able to consider a new licence (or other options). But the way things are now, if anything other than Forgotten Realms comes out in 2008, it will make WotC loose face.
You are not the only one who would have wanted more 3.5 DL books from MWP, but the "competition" that I think WotC is really trying to stamp out is the grognard market they have created with 3rd edition. There are people out there playing AD&D (and even OD&D) despite the fact that you really can't get hold of the books very easily. But 3rd edition has got a major presence in the market place and the d20 System licence has created a ton of compatible product lines that WotC has no power to shut down.
Things like the GSL are proof that WotC want to stop publishers from supporting their old version of D&D. IMO, it is D&D itself that WotC want to kill - the old D&D. I don't think that the Dragonlance licence is anything more than an innocent victim targeted purely because it is tied to the wrong colour of D&D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonPixie
Truly sad that Dragonlance is effectively dead in the water now...
No way is Dragonlance dead. The Dragonlance film has done so well commercially (despite complaints about animation) that the second one has got the green light and is going to get more money spent on it. The possiblity that Dragonlance will be the background of a live action motion picture is going to get closer with every animated film. As long as Dragonlance stuff sells like hot cakes, Wizards of the Coast isn't going to get rid of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonPixie
Maybe MWB will be able to get some sort of license deal worked out (if they've even got an interest in doing that - since it'd likely require them to make everything for 4e) and we'll see more material for the world come out. It'd be a shame if they couldn't do something for their fans. I've got some friends that are HUGE DL fans and they're heartbroken over how this has been done. They've said it's enough to make them not move to 4e... I don't know if that'll last or or not... They're pretty big RPGA (well, were until Living City and Living Death ended, anyhow) gamers.
I should think that the mess that is Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, should be enough to make fans of any other campaign setting think very carefully before moving to 4e. I would rather have no 4th edition version of Dragonlance (and keep the great 3.5 DL) than have a Dragonlance Campaign Guide that does for DL what FRCG did for FR.
Back with 3rd edition, Dragonlance Campaign Setting was published by WotC, but everything else was published by Soverign Press (and then Margeret Weis Productions). The same could be done with 4th edition. WotC could put out its splatbooks, get in the big cash and then farm out the little books, knowing that anyone wanting them would need to buy the big three books.
For the record I agree with you. I think what Wizards has done to them (allowing the license to produce Dragonlance material to lapse and effectively barring them (MWP) from putting out material for the world that they created) to be downright shameful, arrogant, and petty.
Meh. What WotC was trying to do is haul back their [TSR-acquired] IP assets before the launch of 4e. So, it was no surprise to me at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonPixie
They (WotC/Hasbro) have little to no interest in the world, but they are so scared of competition (and that is my opinion and belief as to their motivation behind many of these kinds of actions they've been doing ever since shortly after 3.5 was released (when they started working on 4e and started to turn away from the gaming community in general - incidentally I think this is around the time that Hasbro bought WotC and made it a part of a corporate machine and they lost that "small company of gamer-geeks" mindset)) and the risk of having to do business in a market with it that they'd essentially pull a coup against her/them much the way that certain parties did to Gygax years ago to kill off Greyhawk to ensure Forgotten Realms wouldn't have to compete with new products for it.
FYI, Hasbro acquired WotC back in December of 1999. Having Hasbro allowed WotC to get the Star Wars RPG and Miniatures license from LFL, who pulled from or no longer wish to renew with WEG.
As one previous poster stated, Hasbro is only interested in the bottom line, but WotC is fully responsible (in making business decisions) for getting the bottom line. Hasbro is not interested in micro-managing WotC. They have their own big parent company to worry about. Hasbro must be very impressed with WotC because they allowed Avalon Hill company to be absorbed under WotC's management
As I said before, it is being pulled into dry-dock for a 4e refit, when it is their time. WotC did promised one setting a year.
__________________ Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
My philosophy is "you don't need me to tell you how to play -- I'll just provide some rules and ideas to use and get out of your way." --Monte Cook
As I said before, it is being pulled into dry-dock for a 4e refit, when it is their time. WotC did promised one setting a year.
BTW: I forgot to mention that Dragonhelm says that 4th edition Dragonlance has been given the go ahead. I don't think he would say that if it wasn't in pre-production.
)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
