Search results

He repeats Kit Walsh's position that if the license doesn't say the magic word "irrevocable," it's revocable.

I don't think this has anything to do with "using the fans for unpaid creative labor," but I'm not #surprised that Doctorow is not a #fan. The graphic is #inspired, though. :D

Could you elaborate on this? It's a question I had after reading Kit Walsh's piece. Are there jurisdictions that would strictly (or primarily) look at whether the license states that it's "irrevocable" or not in granting an injunction?

Thanks very much for the response. (y)

That's exactly what you're going to get, though. :D Despite there being literally hundreds (probably thousands) of fantasy RPGs out there, as soon as D&D's coattails are taken away, everyone wants to publish their own fantasy RPG. Welcome to the late 90s. Agent Smith said it was the peak of...

I don't think you're being entirely fair to Kit Walsh. She says: and

They own Asmodee.

Actually, that's the only way the backlash breaks out of our Very Online, Highly Engaged fan bubble. Millions of voices crying out in ignorance is a terrific sign if we want the public outcry to alter Wizards' calculus.

Obviously, by the time they were released, the OGL and d20 STL were two separate licenses. But they were originally conceived as a single license, according to Ryan. Perhaps he can confirm if he returns to answer my follow-up question.

“That orc stabbed me through my armor!” “Take off your armor—problem solved!”

I don’t think the lawyers gloss over the intricacies, uncertainties, and practical difficulties. It’s the never-ending stream of laymen that do that. [emoji6]

All well and good, but my question was about Pathfinder and whether they anticipated something like it that would directly compete with D&D.

This is and always has been true and is also of almost no value to a publisher in the real world.

I don’t feel like Pathfinder redirected support to the D&D game, quite the opposite, but it would be really interesting to me if I’m wrong. That’s why I asked the follow-up question.

Thank you. If you don't mind a follow up, how did you reconcile this anticipation of something like Pathfinder with the stated business goal, as you articulated it here in this blog post:

I think so too, but if it’s revocable “on its face,” does that make it more likely for Hasbro to get an injunction? Does it make it more expensive and time-consuming for beneficiaries to argue the other “statements and promises” should prevail? It’s definitely not an encouraging opinion.

So a senior staff attorney for EFF believes that, since the license doesn’t say it’s irrevocable, it “seems on its face” that it’s revocable. Awesome. 🤨

No, they can only use it under the same terms as you.

Yeah, true, but we also know they were originally consolidated in one license. I guess I’ll just always wonder if they ever anticipated something like Pathfinder.

Hmm...