+ Log in or register to post
Results 211 to 220 of 265
Thread: Revised GSL TODAY!
Wednesday, 4th March, 2009, 07:59 PM #211
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
Could be coincidence.
And was he really in charge of D&D, or was he in charge of the d20STL? I can't really remember anymore.
/MDownload an interactive map of Altdorf, the capital of the Empire in WFRP! Download today! Can be used in any fantasy campaign!
"All editions of D&D are awesome." - Fifth Element (EN World Forums, 2008)
”The tendency to confuse personal taste with objective quality is nearly universal.” - Robin D. Laws – Robin’s Laws of Good Gamemastering (Steve Jackson Games, 2002)
- EN World
- has no influence
- on adverts that
- are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Wednesday, 4th March, 2009, 08:55 PM #212
Without some connection between the two WotC could claim deniability. Without the SOA, WotC is not directly connected to the 3PP materials. With the SOA, is where they open themselves up because they are bound to a 3PP. So just like they could claim a portion of the 3PP product, they must also take the bad with the good they want.
Likewise a 3PP cannot be held responsible for WotCs debts just because they are using their IP.
The GSL could simply contain, and should, that any 3PP is the sole responsibility of its creator, and WotC is only liable for its material in its published products, and not the misuse thereof in any 3PP product.
So if a BoEF came out of 4h, WotC would have it known in the license that it isn't their fault. Likewise someone could write the "Book of Goblin Porn" and have it compatible with 4th edition, without using the GSL. So they really didn't solve anything.
Kingdoms of Kalamir still says compatible with 4th edition without using the GSL. So no reason the "Book of Goblin Porn" can't turn up and say the same thing, and without the GSL, WotC has nothing really they could do to stop the book without going to court and try to fight over it.
So that clause has really done nothing except waste a lot of lawyers and Scott's time probably. You cannot control the minds of other people.
Wednesday, 4th March, 2009, 09:14 PM #213
where is the delete option?
Last edited by justanobody; Wednesday, 4th March, 2009 at 11:16 PM. Reason: double post due to database error
Wednesday, 4th March, 2009, 11:33 PM #214
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)
Wednesday, 4th March, 2009, 11:45 PM #215
Scout (Lvl 6)
No need to feel bad man. I don't take it personally. Like I said, and I think you would agree, my take on the legal provisions was accurate. My take on what MAY logically happen based on those provisions is accurate. No lawyer would disagree with me there, I don't think. Where we differ is in our opinions of the business decisions to make based on that reading of the contractual provisions.
The bottom line is, as I stated, you have a working knowledge of the industry and I do not. Also, most importantly, I have no skin in the game. You do. And green skin at that. How you or anyone else chooses to weigh the risks vs. rewards of the contractual terms is a business decision, not a legal one. I only pointed out the legal terms and gave a plain language interpretation of the powers it gives WOTC. We differ in our business analysis.
If lawyers didn't have different opinions on things there would be no need for lawyers.
edit--I just wanted to add that I am glad you feel comfortable enough to publish material for 4e. While don't play or like 4e, I think the D&D brand brings more people into the hobby than probably all other brands combined. While I don't have much need for new players in my game, based on my brother and sister-in-law's insane reproductive abilities, I do love the tabletop RPG hobby. So I wish 4e all the success it can get. Your support can only help that.
Last edited by joethelawyer; Wednesday, 4th March, 2009 at 11:49 PM.
Thursday, 5th March, 2009, 12:04 AM #216
Cutpurse (Lvl 5)
(And to address someone else's qustion, Anthony Valerra was the brand manager of D&D and the person behind the BOEF if I'm remembering correctly. He had Scott Rouse's job, basically).
"I hurt Firewing." is not something a huge number of people can say. "He dropped a parking garage on me," on the other hand, a lot of people can say. -Kazan, my Champions GM.
Thursday, 5th March, 2009, 12:11 AM #217
Scout (Lvl 6)
The bottom line is that Clark made the decision to go for it. He did the legal and business analysis and decided to publish under the GSL.
Everyone should make their own legal and business analysis and make their own decision. Everyone has different needs and issues to consider. Everyone who is deciding whether they should publish under the GSL should go talk to a lawyer, someone who deals in these types of matters, not your brother's divorce lawyer or the guy who did your mother's Will. Then talk to other publishers in this business. Then examine your own particular unique situation and your vision of where you want to take your publishing business. Then make a decision. Your own decision. To do something just because someone else is doing it is just, to put it bluntly, stupid.
I'd bet a dollar Clark doesn't want to be perceived a giving legal advice on these boards in any way, shape, or form. I doubt he is saying that just because he is doing it that everyone should do it.
He is just telling everyone what he is doing, and how he views the matter for him personally. Since everyone's situation is unique, do the same thing he did and evaluate the opportunity for yourself. Then decide.
/ass coverage on/ Again, don't ever take a word of anything I say here as legal advice. /ass coverage off/
Last edited by joethelawyer; Thursday, 5th March, 2009 at 12:37 AM.
Thursday, 5th March, 2009, 12:14 AM #218
Clark is putting things in perspective. Most licensing arrangements work like this for IP.
You pay a license fee and/or royalties.
You submit all work for approval.
You have a limited time to hold it, expiring after a certain point.
Most licenses by nature tend to favor the owner of the property, at least slightly.
The OGL was a very unusual license, and in some ways it kind of spoiled the publishers. I think Clark is just reminding people that the current revised GSL is what could be considered a reasonable license from a publisher. You're not likely going to get the OGL back for 4e or future editions of D&D.
Most businesses consider licenses on this point, and they are aware there are tradeoffs--most licenses are a tradeoff. The key value of the license is the tie to D&D--is it worth giving up some control for the benefit. That's a question every licensee asks.
Now, I can understand why some publishers don't want to support the 4e rule set, or believe their existing systems are a better business model, that's reasonable.
I don't feel like having a sig right now
Thursday, 5th March, 2009, 12:17 AM #219
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
Thursday, 5th March, 2009, 12:21 AM #220
Put it this way. A license is a sign of trust between two partners. You're basically agreeing to act in good faith. 98% of the licensees will do nothing to upset that balance. The other 2% might try to push the envelop or try to find loopholes in things or exercise very poor judgment--the reason you have restrictions on a contract is to prevent "worst case scenarios".
These "slippery slope" arguments don't really hold water to WoTC behavior. Heck, they may still want to release a BoVD or the like. But because it's their reputation and their product on the line, the clause is their to prevent the "line-steppers" from hurting them.
I don't feel like having a sig right now