Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FormerlyDickensC" data-source="post: 4692219" data-attributes="member: 53954">I would like to respond to this question.  As some have said, using a different obscure name may be easier and cause less friction.  But why would you want to do that? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Well, that may be solution with the least friction. However, in the end, if such a problem reaches litigation (which it won't and I will explain why) the issue boils down how the judge or jury interprets the meaning of the language of the license, ie. via rule of contract construction and interpretation.   Such a case would have parol evidence out the wazoo. But, in my humble non-laywer opinion, and the reason it would never go to actual litigaiton, is that the party who first published material will get copyright of that material (and then if the court decides that WOTC violated the 3PP's copyright by publishing it's own assassin class, which is doubtful, then WOTC would have to pay damages to the 3PP). But, the 3PP has no liability to WOTC.  If there is any liability it would be to the 3PP from WOTC. Lets cut to the chase...WOTC did NOT hire a "good lawyer" to write the GSL.  They left a huge back door for anyone to lay claim to whatever intellectual property he or she can create.  Now, the GSL would be something if ALL of the 4E material that was ever going to be created by WOTC had been published when the first licensee signed the contract.  But it wasn't. I would love to see a 3PP publish an assasin class for 4E and THEN have the 3PP sue WOTC for copyright infringement if WOTC published an asssasin class.  I don't think the 3PP would ultimately win in such a case, but there is almost no way WOTC could prevail against the 3PP in reverse.What I would advise WOTC to do IMMEDIATELY, is to revoke (I'm not sure to what extent WOTC can unilaterally revoke the license, depends on the terms, I need to read that) all existing GSL licensee's license.  Then rewrite the GSL referencing a list of non-usable terms/language that contains any other material WOTC intends to "reserve" for itself for future use.  Then have WOTC re-license their content under such newer and revised GSL referencing the list of restricted language. Basially, it becomse a provision of the license contract that the the licensee agree to not use these restricted terms in its own material published under the GSL. But as it stands now, WOTC has reserved no material not already published (at least that I know of, and I'm sure I could be wrong). And, as such, any licensed 3PP can publish whatever they want as long as it does not presently (ie. on the date of publicaiton for the 3PP material) violate the GSL.  And, agian, if you're not a licensee, then you must only worry about copyright infringment.  Which is quite hard to prove, really.If there was more money in RPGs there would be better lawyers, but there isn't so there's not.EDIT: and I just now see that the revised GSL has been published.  I will check it out now.EDIT 2: looks like this problem has been answered somewhat sufficiently now by WOTC.  so disregard most of my above post.</blockquote>

Verification