Does WOTC have the right?

[Orcus]

Stickers that cover up a small logo on a book cover this issue entirely. The BoEF proved this. There's no reason to destroy perfectly good (and sellable) product.

I agree with this, too, provided that the GSL does not prohibit sale of backstock.,

 

[Greylock]

Actually, strangely enough, the d20 STL itself DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY PROVISION THAT ALLOWS WIZARDS TO UNILATERALLY TERMINATE THE LICENSE. The only termination provision for the d20 STL on its face is for breach.

Arguably, the STL can ONLY be terminated by breach. There is no provision in the STL itself for Wizards to simply cancel the license.



Since I am not in breach, they cant terminate it

Clark

Very nice that my caveman brain came to the exact same conclusion as a big city lawyer man. I'm going to lord over my fellow apes in the jungle tomorrow!

 

[Orcus]

Actually, you're conflating the two separate provisions. One section, section 5, deals with termination for breach. The other section, section 6 deals with the effect of termination. Section 6 does not limit itself to termination for breach.

But the only way to terminate the license, on its face, is by breach. Of course, you could argue that a license also by implication is always revocable by the issuer of the license. BUT if that is true, then revocation and termination could be considered differen things. And if so, it could be argued that the only situation requiring destruction of stock is when you have termination for breach.

I have thought about this for a long time. This is not new to me.

In fact, I advised WotC on it several years ago. I'll see if I have the analysis letter I did for them.

[Edit: My mistake, I didnt advise them of that issue re termination, I advised them re the conflict between the termination provision in the STL and the Guide. My memo, I was told, was used internally by Wizards.]

Clark

 

[Tazawa]

I happen to agree with this 100%.

Thanks. My main concern for is for publishers who have produced recent d20 labelled material (such as Green Ronin's d20 Guide to Freeport) that could easily have stock left over at the end of the year. I recently bought some 2-year old Freeport books, and it would be easy to see the shelf life of the d20 Guide be longer than a year.

Green Ronin has been a good liscensee of the STL and it would be foolish to punish them for being one of the last companies to still put the d20 logo on their products.

It also seems to be an unnecessary burden to force companies to remove the logo from back-catalogue pdfs. Sure it can be done, but some companies have hundreds of pdfs and it would be significant effort to modify all of the files.

I can understand Wizard's desire to have no new material with the old d20 logo, but material should be treated under the version of the license that it was created under and not have its license terminated without breach of the terms.

You should go to law school. That is good interpretation.

Its too late for that. Besides, I deal with contracts enough at work as it is. I don't want to do it full time.

 

[Treebore]

I agree the license is poorly worded and is very ambiguous, and therefore open to lawsuit.

In fact, you may go the gutsy route and force WOTC to take you to court and prove their case.

Plus I bet their is plenty of precedence in licensing where canceling a license has never also meant the destruction of all inventories of goods legally produced while that license was in effect.

So I would first research any such precedence in licensing laws. If no such precedence exists, and in fact, I suspect the precedence is that inventories manufactured while the license existed have never had to be destroyed, WOTC will be hard pressed to make people destroy any remaining inventory.

It was, after all, legally created goods, and the termination of the license only makes it illegal to create more such goods, not sell what was already made.

I would suspect that this license could be ruled overly proprietory and invalid.

So I hope WOTC takes a step back and carefully considers if they really want to do this.

I would hope they would lose if any such questions are brought to court. It may be good business for WOTC, but it is a bad precedence to have for any "industry" that is ruled by licenses. That is the biggest reason I think they would lose any court battle.

 

[Orcus]

I have no intent to go to court over a d20 logo. My hope is that they'll let us put stickers on the logo and black out d20 STL text if any in the product. If not, I'll simply sell them as revised pdfs under the OGL only. That is easy enough. Presuming, of course, they permit those sales of backstock (in otherwords, creating new OGL stuff is bad but simply selling OGL backstock is fine).

 

[Dire Bare]

I have no intent to go to court over a d20 logo. My hope is that they'll let us put stickers on the logo and black out d20 STL text if any in the product. If not, I'll simply sell them as revised pdfs under the OGL only. That is easy enough. Presuming, of course, they permit those sales of backstock (in otherwords, creating new OGL stuff is bad but simply selling OGL backstock is fine).

This is what potentially worries me about the GSL. We know WotC doesn't want companies using the GSL to sell both 3.0/3.5 and 4.0 products concurrently, but will they have a problem with PDF sales of older d20/OGL titles? I hope not, and while I'm not a publisher, such a move would not make me a happy D&D/WotC customer!

 

[Treebore]

This is what potentially worries me about the GSL. We know WotC doesn't want companies using the GSL to sell both 3.0/3.5 and 4.0 products concurrently, but will they have a problem with PDF sales of older d20/OGL titles? I hope not, and while I'm not a publisher, such a move would not make me a happy D&D/WotC customer!

Well, like Clark/Orcus said, its easy to remove the license marks from a PDF, its the people with print inventory that are going to feel the pain, if any.

 

[pedr]

Of course there are differing considerations based on whether a particular publisher is entering into an agreement with WotC under the terms of the GSL.

Even if the right for WotC to terminate the d20STL, or to issue a new version which allows them to terminate it and then terminate it, is ambiguous, there is absolutely no reason why WotC cannot say that if you want to use the GSL you have to agree to the termination of the d20STL contract which exists between you and WotC.

The position of companies which do not intend to make use of WotC's offer to enter into the GSL is less clear - it may well vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in some places, as mentioned above, courts may have the power to consider that unfair and unenforceable.

 

[Treebore]

Am I missing something? I am under the impression that the d20 STL is cancelled, period, on June 6th, 8th, whatever. The GSL and participation in it, or not, have no bearing on the STL being cancelled and the effects of part 6 on unsold inventory of print products.

Is there a relation between the STL being cancelled and participating in the new GSL that I am missing?