Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="webrunner" data-source="post: 4308130" data-attributes="member: 63727">I think this contract needs to be compared with American Contract law.&nbsp; I'm not a lawyer or anything, and I'm Canadian, but there's a few clauses that just don't seem to make sense from what I understand in Law:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">How does &quot;survives the termination of the license&quot; work in the law?&nbsp; It seems to me that pretty much goes against the definition of 'termination of the license', and it seems to me that it shouldn't be enforceable. </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">I don't think free-revision clauses are enforceable- I know in Canada the law states that if a contract is changed you have to be told, and if you aren't you can terminate the license as if you never agreed to it in the first place, which is a common way of getting out of cellphone contracts</li>
</ul>To those about the 'poison pill', it's exactly what we were told it was going to be: product-by-product, possibly product-line-by-product-line depending on how product line is determined, but not company-by-company as the poison pill was supposed to be.In addition to this, there is something that really bothers me about this license: the SRD is not a list of content you can use.&nbsp; It's a list of content you can acknowledge exists.&nbsp; Your published adventure cannot include stat blocks of the monsters... which is one of the most helpful aspects of an adventure, having the stat blocks right there.&nbsp; Now a sizable amount of the work to use a published adventure is back in the hands of the DM, making the adventure have less of a point.&nbsp; And, this is an important thing, you can't even say &quot;Dungeons and Dragons has a Beholder monster&quot;, you have to pretend those pages don't exist.&nbsp; This is a significant drawback.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="webrunner, post: 4308130, member: 63727"] I think this contract needs to be compared with American Contract law. I'm not a lawyer or anything, and I'm Canadian, but there's a few clauses that just don't seem to make sense from what I understand in Law: [list] [*]How does "survives the termination of the license" work in the law? It seems to me that pretty much goes against the definition of 'termination of the license', and it seems to me that it shouldn't be enforceable. [*]I don't think free-revision clauses are enforceable- I know in Canada the law states that if a contract is changed you have to be told, and if you aren't you can terminate the license as if you never agreed to it in the first place, which is a common way of getting out of cellphone contracts [/list] To those about the 'poison pill', it's exactly what we were told it was going to be: product-by-product, possibly product-line-by-product-line depending on how product line is determined, but not company-by-company as the poison pill was supposed to be. In addition to this, there is something that really bothers me about this license: the SRD is not a list of content you can use. It's a list of content you can [i]acknowledge exists[/i]. Your published adventure cannot include stat blocks of the monsters... which is one of the most helpful aspects of an adventure, having the stat blocks right there. Now a sizable amount of the work to use a published adventure is back in the hands of the DM, making the adventure have less of a point. And, this is an important thing, you can't even say "Dungeons and Dragons has a Beholder monster", you have to pretend those pages don't exist. This is a significant drawback. [/QUOTE]

Verification