Okayyy. I don't know what you're trying to get at. Yeah, okay, they admit they're in the wrong, and therefore have to pay. They still don't have to pay if they're not in the wrong. So if they don't settle out of court and court proves they're not in the wrong, then they don't have to pay WOTC's court fees. You're not proving the point.
What is it about the GSL that is really a deal breaker?
- Thread starter cdrcjsn
- Start date
Scribble
First Post
1. Don't publish under the ammended GSL that says you can't use any other license.
This is prediction, and assumption, and should probably factor into a business's decision, but has nothing to do with the wording of the license.
Corjay:
The GSL said:
That seems to be saying that the penalty for republishing into the OGL is termination of your right to use the GSL.
So if I agree not to publish to the OGL, but then decide to reinstate my OGL line, wouldn't that simply mean that I was breaking the terms of the contract, and therefore it will be termed, and I cannot use it going forward?
I know the contract states that the no ogl parts survive, but the penalty for breaking them is clearly spelled out.
dmccoy1693
Adventurer
You're saying that you believe Wizards will ever allow the situation get to the end of the trial. I am saying that that is not a likely strategy for Wizards, no matter how solid Wizard's case it. The harder a licensee fights, the more Wizards would probably want to put them under.
Last edited:
dmccoy1693
Adventurer
Wizards can it so that all licensees automatically accept the new GSL.
Today. It might be in the GSL later. The potential to abuse the "we can change this at any time" clause is limitless. It is not prediction or assumption. It is recognition of potential future, which must be taken into account if it can be changed with no notice. That potential for abuse is a dealbreaker.
Scribble
First Post
Can they?
You've accepted the terms of the license, one of those terms being that if they change the license, use of the changed license implies you accept the change.
If they remove that part, then there is nothing implying you accept the new license, and it would stand to reason that they would have to have you re-issue the acceptance letter.
Corjay seems like he would know better.
You are predicting and assuming they will use the license vindictively.
No, it is assumption. You are assuming that it is limitless, that the law does not protect the licensee against an unlimited statement. That assumption is not true. The law defines the limits of contracts. Contracts do not define the limits of law.
This is where my knowledge of contracts becomes limited. I haven't taken the time to research how such changes work. I know there are definite limits to the liability of the licensee in a contract change, but I can't be sure regarding what other changes are allowed. What you say is certainly reasonable.
Correct. But 11.1 gives WOTC the right to terminate for any reason, which can cost a company significant losses as they have to destroy their GSL product. I doubt that a court would enforce that, but in this case, I wouldn't put it past a court to do so.
I believe you're running with my words (taking them out of context) instead of trying to understand the context of my words. My point was, unless it is proved or they admit fault, the licensee has no obligation contractually or otherwise to pay WOTC's legal fees.
Don't take my word as gospel. Yes, I am confident I know a lot more about contract law than some posting here based on personal experience and learning, but I am not a lawyer. No one in this thread should base their business decisions upon my word. My statements can't be defined as anything more than my own arrogance, but I will stand by my words regarding contracts 100%, but that doesn't mean every statement I make is flawless. While most of my words might be essentially correct, there could be caveats in law that I'm not familiar with. I don't discount that possibility. Until someone mentions such a caveat, I will continue to post as certain of my words.
Last edited:
Scribble
First Post
What I'm saying is:
You accept the GSL, and stop publishing your converted OGL product.
You already know that republishing into the OGL is considered breaking contract. If you decide to re-publish into the OGL, you would have already determined that you are ok with breaking contract.
The penalty for doing so seems to be simply, that you cannot again publish into the GSL.
Or can WoTC also have a court force you to cease publishing the OGL material. (Depite the fact that tehy clearly outlined a penalty for going back to OGL.)
I don't, but you seem to be generally level headed, and knowledgeable.
First, I re-evaluated 6.1, and I see my claims to no cushion was bad memory. It's manufacturing, publication, and the electronic document (.pdf) that has to be removed the moment the new product goes to publication. They can still sell off their remaining physical product.
As for your question, no, they could not go back to OGL with that product line, as 6.1 clearly states "Licensee explicitly agrees that it will not thereafter manufacture or publish any portion of the Converted OGL Product Line, or any products that would be considered part of a Converted OGL Product Line (as reasonably determined by Wizards) pursuant to the OGL." Then it says in clause (b) that "this Section 6.1 will survive termination of this Agreement." That means that once signed on to the GSL, they can not produce the product under OGL ever again.
Thank you. It's easy when no one is attacking me with unfounded accusations. Record shows I get heated up when I'm being personally attacked. As long as everyone keeps things on point, it's easy for me to remain on point as well, as it's not my modus operandi to attack anyone if they're staying on point.
Is this a professional legal opinion?
Contract law is a fairly sophisticated area of law. The terms in the GSL will be ones which have been litigated multiple times in many cases, I imagine (eg variation and termination rights). What do those cases tell us is the meaning and effect of those terms?
