Company Identity and licensing...

[FoolishFrost]

You know, something just occurred to me.

You should make a new company to run the 4th edition licence, and keep the old company identity pure OGL.

In fact, reading the GSL... I see nothing right off that prevents the rights to a 4th edition setting being sold off to a 3.5 edition design company, and have them backward convert it.

Mind you, I'm not a lawyer, and just an evil minded person, but what's other's take on this?

 

[Morrus]

It's not a new idea; people have been suggesting it for months.

My take?

1) WotC can terminate your license for any reason; while I imagine they'll be fairly lenient, and many companies could fly under the radar, one should remember that using clever tricks to try and weasel around things can always result in WotC saying "we don't like the way you're playing, so we're taking our ball and going home".

2) The only reason to do this is if you want a product line with OGL and 4E versions; you can still happily produce OGL and 4E products as long as they're different product lines. Having different versions of the same product line published and sold by two different companies would be confusing to the customer and possibly counter-productive, being the antithesis of effective branding.

 

[FoolishFrost]

It's not a new idea; people have been suggesting it for months.

My take?

1) WotC can terminate your license for any reason; while I imagine they'll be fairly lenient, and many companies could fly under the radar, one should remember that using clever tricks to try and weasel around things can always result in WotC saying "we don't like the way you're playing, so we're taking our ball and going home".

2) The only reason to do this is if you want a product line with OGL and 4E versions; you can still happily produce OGL and 4E products as long as they're different product lines. Having different versions of the same product line published and sold by two different companies would be confusing to the customer and possibly counter-productive, being the antithesis of effective branding.

Actually, I was thinking more in the line of "You're not allowed to go back to OGL even if we recend the GSL to you." court. A way back from the edge of oblivion if such a situation developed?

 

[Yair]

I think WotC wouldn't mind if a publishing company was constructed to publish GSL-compliant materials AS LONG AS the parent company didn't publish the corresponding material as OGL at the same time. As an escape strategy for the time when the GSL is rescinded, I think that's a reasonable approach. Of course, only Wizards can say if they really won't mind; you'd be wagering that they won't.

 

[catsclaw]

Actually, I was thinking more in the line of "You're not allowed to go back to OGL even if we recend the GSL to you." court. A way back from the edge of oblivion if such a situation developed?

The suggestion would be, I guess, the owner of "Company A" creates a "Company B" and licenses their material to B. Company B enters into the GSL with Wizards, and publishes 4e material, until Wizards demands they stop and yanks the license. But the contractual obligations of B don't apply to A, and A can start publishing those products under OGL. Is this correct?

 

[jmucchiello]

The suggestion would be, I guess, the owner of "Company A" creates a "Company B" and licenses their material to B.

This only works because S.3 does not require you to own the work you are turning into a Licensed Product........ yet. Enough people start making that end run around of the license and the yet becomes reality.

 

[jmucchiello]

The suggestion would be, I guess, the owner of "Company A" creates a "Company B" and licenses their material to B.

This only works because S.3 does not require you to own the work you are turning into a Licensed Product........ yet. Enough people start making that end run around of the license and the yet becomes reality.

 

[tomBitonti]

IMO:

Even if two companies were formed ... if they were operated in a coordinated fashion ... and if it was clear that the reason for creating the second company was to sidestep the restrictions of the license ... couldn't a judge basically say "no dice ... that isn't an independent company ... that other company only exists as a means for you to attempt to break your license agreements".

 

[Brown Jenkin]

IMO:

Even if two companies were formed ... if they were operated in a coordinated fashion ... and if it was clear that the reason for creating the second company was to sidestep the restrictions of the license ... couldn't a judge basically say "no dice ... that isn't an independent company ... that other company only exists as a means for you to attempt to break your license agreements".

And yet that happens all the time in business.

 

[tomBitonti]

And yet that happens all the time in business.

If the intent was to avoid the terms of the license ... wouldn't that be a problem? If second company was formed to enable a contract violation. My understanding (layman's) is that, for example, forming a second company to enable financial trickery is not legal. Or rather, that the court may disallow the separation and treat the second company as being a part of the first.

I am wondering, too, how much the terms of the license "adhere" to the material that is the subject of the license.