d20STL So has the D20 STL been officially revoked?

[Angellis_ater]

We all know that the only source of information that the D20 STL was going to be revoked January 1st, 2009 was a single forumpost by Scott Rouse. I'm curious to whether or not there actually HAS been any revokations of the licenses today?

[freyar]

Even more interesting: what PDFs are still left for sale? I see Necromancer's and (your) Dreamscarred's stuff is still at the ENWorld storefront...

[Angellis_ater]

We will continue to sell our OGL material ad infinitum and we're working on updating away from the restrictive D20 STL. Expect new 3.5 and Pathfinder material during 2009.

So nothing official yet huh?

[Knight Otu]

I don't recall an official official announcement, but the d20 archive no longer holds the d20STL, only the SRD and the OGL and related FAQs.

[Angellis_ater]

Yes, no NEW licenses are opened, but the old one haven't been revoked and thus you can continue to sell D20-licensed material after Jan 1.

[Nylanfs]

Well the d20stl is no longer availible at Wizards SRD archive. But they might have pulled it when they put up the 4e stuff.

[Angellis_ater]

Yup, it went away as the GSL went live.

[kenmarable]

Originally Posted by Angellis_ater

Yes, no NEW licenses are opened, but the old one haven't been revoked and thus you can continue to sell D20-licensed material after Jan 1.

I'd be interested to see if they even can unilaterally revoke the license, technically.

The d20 STL has terms for revoking a license for a particular publisher for breach, and it has terms for unilaterally updating the license, but I don't see anything about unilaterally revoking it. Unless there's something in trademark law outside of the d20 STL that says the licensing party can just walk away whenever they want, I don't think WotC can revoke it.

So until there is a d20 STL version 7 that says "You can't use the logo anymore", I don't see any reason to stop selling d20-logo'ed material (well, except for GSL compliance like Goodman's DCC line, but that's a separate issue and only per product line).

[Ranger REG]

Originally Posted by kenmarable

I'd be interested to see if they even can unilaterally revoke the license, technically.

The d20 STL has terms for revoking a license for a particular publisher for breach, and it has terms for unilaterally updating the license, but I don't see anything about unilaterally revoking it. Unless there's something in trademark law outside of the d20 STL that says the licensing party can just walk away whenever they want, I don't think WotC can revoke it.

So until there is a d20 STL version 7 that says "You can't use the logo anymore", I don't see any reason to stop selling d20-logo'ed material (well, except for GSL compliance like Goodman's DCC line, but that's a separate issue and only per product line).

They can, if they exercise their right of ownership to their trademarks. After all, by accepting the d20STL, you acknowledge WotC's ownership of the listed trademarks and not contest nor challenge them.

You could always bring the argument to court.

[kenmarable]

Originally Posted by Ranger REG

They can, if they exercise their right of ownership to their trademarks. After all, by accepting the d20STL, you acknowledge WotC's ownership of the listed trademarks and not contest nor challenge them.

You could always bring the argument to court.

If company A continues to sell products with the d20 logo on them isn't a challenge to WotC's trademark. Company A is operating under a license to use that trademark, and the terms of the license do not address revocation without a breach. So there is no challenge to the ownership since Company A is operating under a legitimate license.

But I think it'd be dumb to force the issue, especially considering how little that logo means now. I'm just saying that a forum post by a WotC employee isn't technically enough to end the license. On its face, in fact, it appears that WotC needs to update the license rather than revoke it.

But of course I'm not a lawyer, so there may be something in trademark law in general that allows WotC to unilaterally cancel a trademark license. But, it is not a challenge to the ownership of the trademark. It would be a challenge to whether or not WotC can revoke the license rather than update it. Within the STL, there is nothing addressing that. In U.S. trademark law, I have no clue and don't claim to have one.

All I'm saying is that within the d20 STL itself, anything short of a d20 STL version 7 doesn't prevent currently licensed publishers from continuing to use the d20 logo. Plus, I'm mostly pointing it out for the sake of theoretical argument. I don't plan to publish any d20 logo material (although I did "download the enclosed graphics" back when they had the graphics on the site, so technically, I'm still licensed to distribute d20 material). It's just that if you read the fine print of the d20 STL, there isn't anything in the license that allows WotC to unilaterally revoke it and therefore prevents publishers from continuing to sell d20 material.

Plus if I were a publisher that doesn't visit EN World, I would have no notice at all yet (I would be bad at my business if I didn't visit the top fan site, but that's a different matter.)

If nothing else, if I were a publisher I wouldn't pulp any books without consulting a lawyer first.

[Angellis_ater]

The idea that was put forth was that they would update the D20STL to include a revokation clause and then, since the license is immediately applicable to all licensors, would then revoke it. That is also pretty much what Scott said would happen January 1st, 2009. However, here we are, one week later - no revokations. I wonder if it was just a PR thing to get people "off the market" or an honest mistake? Perhaps such a revokation lies further down the road, after the GSL revision gets finished. Who knows? (Well, Scott does...)

[dmccoy1693]

You'd think that cancelling a license would be much easier then revising an existing license. Put out a press release on their website and several news related sites (iCv2, ENWorld, RPG.net), saying that as of this date the license is revoked. Even if they never go through the motions of actually modifying the license and they just say they are adding a termination clause and then are terminating it 5 seconds later, it would clear up so much confusion. I understand everyone at Wizards is busy, but leaving an industry in the dark (on more then one major issue*) is not a way to be an industry leader or to show respect to licensees and the licensee's/their own customers.

*Issues I am referring to:

• Cancelling of Dungeon/Dragon Magazines (it was Paizo that made the announcement when it really should have been Wizards since it is their property and they should have owned up to their actions)
• Deceiving the industry about 4E coming (I'm not going to call it lying, but they weren't fully honest either)
• Never delivering on promised draft versions of the PHB/MM/DMG/license to get 3PPs on board early on.
• etc (we all know the history).

[Ranger REG]

Originally Posted by dmccoy1693

*Issues I am referring to:

• Cancelling of Dungeon/Dragon Magazines (it was Paizo that made the announcement when it really should have been Wizards since it is their property and they should have owned up to their actions)
• Deceiving the industry about 4E coming (I'm not going to call it lying, but they weren't fully honest either)
• Never delivering on promised draft versions of the PHB/MM/DMG/license to get 3PPs on board early on.
• etc (we all know the history).

What do you want them to do about that? You have to be brain-dead not to think that 4e is coming. You have to be brain-dead that 4e is not coming before 2010. Sure, you asked that direct question directly to WotC, while they were secretly developing 4e since 2005, and you expect them to spill their secret? They're Wizards of the Coast, not Paladins of the Coast.

It's common in industry to develop secret projects before they're ready to reveal it.

[dmccoy1693]

Originally Posted by Ranger REG

What do you want them to do about that?

The general public, I don't have a problem with. That's just the way business works. And yea, I knew. I paid attenction. Every last ounce of doubt from my mind was erased the moment I saw the Rules Compendium announced. But ENWorld polls done just before GenCon 07 showed that 75% of the people here didn't believe that 4E was coming. They weren't paying attenction. But that's not my problem.


How would I do it, if I were handling the transition:

• Get the 5 major 3PPs to sign NDAs a full year before making the announcement. Tell them flat out that 4E is coming and it will be announced next year and released a year after.
• Tell them that their input is valuable and highly desired. Show them what they have completed thus far and allow them to playtest inhouse only.
• Tell them that this game isn't going to be OGL and ask them to help write the license (keep your friends close and your enemies closer), but that Wizards makes the final decision as to what is in it.
• Allow them (and only them) to release products for 4E on day 1. Everyone else gets a delay.
• Be willing to license (exclusive, not free) D&D setting to the 3PPs after Wizards did their 3 book run.

With the above, 4E would have been as much a secret as it was before, the license would have been as much under their control as it is now, their system has the confidence of the major publishers and it eliminates any serious chance of competing systems. Wizards sells more core settings books without having to invest time and money into endless splats that never produce as much money. It gives the major publishers a chance to plan/write products, properly advertise and get products into catelogs, know the terms of the license and feel they have a say in its formation, and gives them access to content they never had before. Everyone wins.

My problem isn't that they didn't tell the world that 4E is coming, but that they did not own up to their actions even when it was obvious to those that paid attenction. If they want to be a leader, they have to lead and they have to take actions that makes people want to come along. Making them feel like they matter is a way to help people come along. In short, to be a leader they must demonstrate one thing: upfront honesty.

To date, Wizards has done little to inspire a feeling of value among licensees. Yes, they allowed a free license, but it is completely 1 sided and it took everyone in the industry by surprise just how one sided it is. That does not inspire a feeling that others are valuable or their perspective matters. Infact Wizards steadfastly refused to change their license until Clark said that he wants to use it but cannot. That makes me feel that Clark is valuable to them, not anyone else.

To put it in D&D terms, to be a leader, you need levels in a leader role. What does the leader do, keeps others from falling down. It feels like Wizards has gone back to the TSR days where they said, "This is what we're going to publish and you will like it." I'm not interested in that, neither as a customer nor as a freelancer. Wizards as become as irrelavant to me as TSR was during the 2E days.

EDIT: I prefer to focus on the future then the past. So how can Wizards fix this. Set a meeting date with current and major potential licensees and allow them to voice input and Wizards just takes notes. After they hear their everything the 3PPs have to say, then they begin negotiating. I know Scott Rouse said that he had worked on it and it is probably beyond this point, but truthfully, unless the changes are major (and more then just a way out of the license) the license will only solidify their position of irrelavance.

I've said it before and I will said it again. I am sure that Scott Rouse and many others at Wizards genuinely want many 3pps along for the ride, but actions of the corporation do not mesh up with that. I am not attacking any person there, nor am I calling Wizards evil. I am merely stating my opinion that not all of their actions have been as community inspiring as they could be. Yes, Wizards has the right to do as they see fit. But I also have the right to no longer see them or their actions as relavant and look to others for leadership.

[MonkeyKing]

NDA's have proven very ineffective at keeping things a secert, especially in todays digital age. How many bands have had their up coming albums released illgeally on the internet well before the ship date?

Its hard enough tryng to keep things from leaking in house these days, let alone trying to police the actions of outside parties.

There is however no exuse for the GSL not being better written and ready at launch. It should have been one of WotC's top priorities.

[amethal]

Originally Posted by MonkeyKing

There is however no exuse for the GSL not being better written and ready at launch. It should have been one of WotC's top priorities.

Why?

If WotC have decided they neither need nor want 3rd party support, why should the GSL be a priority?

The lack of an acceptable GSL was the deciding factor for me when deciding whether to switch to 4th edition but :-

I imagine I'm in a very small minority of customers (as opposed to publishers) who sees the level of 3rd party support as a key factor in whether to switch to 4th edition; and

If there were fewer things I disliked about the introduction of 4th edition, even I would probably have bought it despite the lack of a decent GSL.

I'm in too small a demographic to matter to WotC.

[dmccoy1693]

Originally Posted by MonkeyKing

NDA's have proven very ineffective at keeping things a secert, especially in todays digital age. How many bands have had their up coming albums released illgeally on the internet well before the ship date?

For the music industry, where there are whole televisions shows in prime time, magazines and tv channels devoted to following the every burp, fart, and mistake and there are tons of reporters and people wanting their 15 minutes of fame by going against the NDA, sure they do not work so well.

But in an industry so small everyone knows everyone and many are close friends, NDAs are quite effective (heck, plenty of people at Paizo and Green Ronin use to work at Wizards and still play in each other's home games). Besides, if they backstab Wizards, they know full well they're not going to get another license from them again. So it works to their advantage to follow the NDA.

[dmccoy1693]

Originally Posted by amethal

Why?

If WotC have decided they neither need nor want 3rd party support, why should the GSL be a priority?

The lack of an acceptable GSL was the deciding factor for me when deciding whether to switch to 4th edition but :-

I imagine I'm in a very small minority of customers (as opposed to publishers) who sees the level of 3rd party support as a key factor in whether to switch to 4th edition; and

If there were fewer things I disliked about the introduction of 4th edition, even I would probably have bought it despite the lack of a decent GSL.

I'm in too small a demographic to matter to WotC.

I'm starting to wonder about that. A month or so ago, there were claims of less then lackluster sales of 4E books beyond the core, both in terms of 3rd party material and in Wizards sales. Yes all the info was anicdotal, but it is the best I've heard.

But my first thought is that those left behind would mostly be those with large libraries of books, those that were fans of a particular 3PP that did not switch over, or those that pre-ordered every book imaginable and had to have it on its first day of release. Those Alpha Gamers are the bread and butter of any company. This would lead to initial sales being high, but future sales being quite low. And while Wizards will undoubtedly build up a new pool of AGs, it does take time.

But this is just internet speculation.

[Ranger REG]

Originally Posted by MonkeyKing

There is however no exuse for the GSL not being better written and ready at launch. It should have been one of WotC's top priorities.

WotC's top priority is getting 4e out so they can make money.

Sorry, but when a key player of the "open gaming movement" -- namely former VP Ryan Dancey -- is no longer there, GSL is becoming less and less important. Oh, they'll get around to it, assuming their Legal Team have no more objections about "opening" up certain material for third-party use.

As Scott Rouse said, their lawyers did red-inked some of their suggestions and comments about his work on the GSL and the SRD he completed before the holiday ... IOW, he'll have to re-edit to include them.

[MonkeyKing]

The reason Ranger that the GSL should have been ready at launch is because it would have helped "kill" 3x and made the transition between editons much much smoother.

Now because Wotc has been tardy with releasing a good GSL and cannot legally revoke the OGL it has put itself in the rather unusual postion having having to compete with itself in the form of Pathfinder.

If there had been a good GSL at launch perhaps Paizo might signed it and Pathfinder would be a 4e setting and not the "Real" successor to D&D as some 3x partisans have put it.......

They factured their own brand and that is never a sound buisness practice.