What is it about the GSL that is really a deal breaker?

[dmccoy1693]

So the publisher wouldn't be able to dump the 4e GSL and then reprint converted content without the GSL. In other words, once printed with the 4e GSL, the product's content is bound to the GSL forever.

Bingo. I'd call that a poison pill. Take Goodman for example. Everyone knows the DCC line. If Jan 1, 09, Wizards terminates the GSL. Goodman, because they made DCCs with the GSL, will not be able to use the DCC name again. All that time, energy, and money developing the DCC brand goes up in smoke. And Goodman gets no say in that. None. They freely signed the license. That's their fault.

Another poison pill. The "we can change this whenever we want to part". It was no secret in the run up to 4E's launch that Wizards was going to make the GSL company-by-company and not product line-by-product line as it now stands. Say Jan 1, 09 they change it company-by-company. Now lets look at Mongoose for example. Should Mongoose sell even a single book after Wizards changes this (like on drivethrurpg, where someone can download a book any time of the day, 365 days a year, esp if they just got the 4E books for christmas). This would mean that Mongoose would have to drop their Conan and Babylon 5 lines, take down their Traveller and RuneQuest SRDs and maybe even withdraw their logo licenses.

 

[dmccoy1693]

The key word in the text you pointed out is "required". If WOTC can't prove their case, then they can't prove that they were required to bring the case.

Wizards is going to let it goto court?!? If they know their case doesn't hold much water, they can drown the company in their own legal fees (and the worry of maybe having to pay for Wizards legal fees should they lose) and drag it out for years before seeing a court room that most companies would just settle and then be forced to pay Wizards' legal fees.

Not to mention while the legal action is going on, Wizards can terminate the license for the one company (denying that company income with which to fight Wizards), and add in a section to the GSL that says that all companies that had the license terminated due to legal action being taken cannot use the OGL, and this survives termination of the license. So then they can effectively put the company out of business while they're sapping money from them through their lawyers.

 

[Corjay]

1. Wouldn't the cushion period be the time between when you decide to update a product line, and the time when you publish the update since:

A: You already know you can't do both.
B: You've already decided being able to do the 4e version is more lucrative?

In effect is this a " contract deal breaker" or just a "which avenue is more lucrative decision point" for a company?

A: What I meant was more of a cushion period in which to fade out the previous product. In other words, sell your stores while simultaneously selling 4e product. Currently 6.1 requires you to get rid of your stores before selling 4e product.

B: The problem is that a potential licensee can't/won't sell 4e product sooner than later if they see they have to get rid of their old stores first. It may be WOTC's intention to make time for themselves to establish their product while at the same time getting 3e to phase out more quickly. The problem is that it causes financial dilemmas for the licensees. It's not really a problem for people coming into the licenses cold, as it only affects license conversion.

2 & 3: This might be out of the scope of what you're doing here but how would WoTC rewrite this part without opening it to abuse? Such as:

A: People who know WoTC will require it to be changed, but want to use the "See WoTC hates us because we're rebels!" angle to sell as much as they can in the "cushion" period?

B: Damage done by product allowed to be printed/sold in the cushion period?

(In my opinion a lot could be done to fix 2&3 by adding another section differentiating effects of termination because of abuse, and termination because WoTC termed all..)

Those are points for a separate discussion as the scope is too broad. Feel free to fork it or start a new discussion.

 

[Corjay]

Wizards is going to let it goto court?!? If they know their case doesn't hold much water, they can drown the company in their own legal fees (and the worry of maybe having to pay for Wizards legal fees should they loose) that most companies would just settle and then be forced to pay Wizards' legal fees.

No, they cannot.

 

[Corjay]

Bingo. I'd call that a poison pill. Take Goodman for example. Everyone knows the DCC line. If Jan 1, 09, Wizards terminates the GSL. Goodman, because they made DCCs with the GSL, will not be able to use the DCC name again. All that time, energy, and money developing the DCC brand goes up in smoke. And Goodman gets no say in that. None. They freely signed the license. That's their fault.

That's why I turned it into a concession. Let's call it a fourth deal breaker for some.

Another poison pill. The "we can change this whenever we want to part". It was no secret in the run up to 4E's launch that Wizards was going to make the GSL company-by-company and not product line-by-product line as it now stands. Say Jan 1, 09 they change it company-by-company. Now lets look at Mongoose for example. Should Mongoose sell even a single book after Wizards changes this (like on drivethrurpg, where someone can download a book any time of the day, 365 days a year, esp if they just got the 4E books for christmas). This would mean that Mongoose would have to drop their Conan and Babylon 5 lines, take down their Traveller and RuneQuest SRDs and maybe even withdraw their logo licenses.

As I mentioned above, there are contract law provisions that protect the licensee. Yes, there could be changes in a similar vein, but as I said on the previous page, if such changes cause significant financial harm to the licensee, then it will be shot down by the courts, guaranteed. Of course, what constitutes "significant financial harm" is at the discretion of the courts.

 

[dmccoy1693]

No, they cannot.

They can't what? They can't keep filing motions to drag the case on and on and on? They can't do that?

 

[Scribble]

Bingo. I'd call that a poison pill. Take Goodman for example. Everyone knows the DCC line. If Jan 1, 09, Wizards terminates the GSL. Goodman, because they made DCCs with the GSL, will not be able to use the DCC name again. All that time, energy, and money developing the DCC brand goes up in smoke. And Goodman gets no say in that. None. They freely signed the license. That's their fault.

In the OGL.

They can't use the DCC line in the OGL.

 

[dmccoy1693]

In the OGL.

They can't use the DCC line in the OGL.

As things stand right now. They can change it so that way you can't it for anything. Imagine how much less competition Wizards' adventure line will have with in 5E if Goodman can't use their DCC line under any circumstances? We already know that Wizards is happy with less competition. Exactly how little competition do they feel is good?

 

[Corjay]

They can't what? They can't keep filing motions to drag the case on and on and on? They can't do that?

Sure, they could do that, but they aren't going to get any money until they go to court and win their case. Actual "action" must take place. Just retaining a lawyer is not "action", and drawing up a summons is not "required" unless the reason for the summons is proven, which can only be proven by winning the case.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Sure, they could do that, but they aren't going to get any money until they go to court and win their case. Actual "action" must take place. Just retaining a lawyer is not "action", and drawing up a summons is not "required" unless the reason for the summons is proven, which can only be proven by winning the case.

So they could settle out of court and part of the settlement is that the licensee acknowledges that they were in the wrong and thus action would be required and thus they would have to pay Wizards' lawyers.

The point of that part isn't so Wizards doesn't have to pay their laywers. Its to scare companies to not leave their place. Its to keep the little companies down. Its a matter of control. I'd call that a reason not to sign it.