Does WOTC have the right?

[BryonD]

Plus, they have now publically stated that you could simply remove the logo and use the OGL to reprint the prior work. They arent trying to stop that.

Yeah, that is good.


I had guessed they couldn't do much about that anyway, but I wouldn't know. And either way the positive attitude about it is good.
And, maybe by extension we can speculate about positive changes on the poison pill front. But that would still be a stretch at this point. Honestly, if they are shooting for a real change in GSL language, I have a hard time seeing a couple weeks as enough. But, I've been wrong before. I'll continue to hold out hope.

From my POV, if they don't fix the OGL part, the the "good news" here isn't worth much. But that is just one guy's view.

 

[madelf]

I'm not sure. Here's what I think is the relevant text from the current d20 STL:

9. Changes to Terms of the License
Wizards of the Coast may issue updates and/or revisions to this License without prior notice. You will conform in all respects to the updated or revised terms of this License. Subsequent versions of this License will bear a different version number.

That's pretty clear language saying that you'll conform to updated terms.

--G

I'm not sure either.

But it really seems to me that section 9 could be construed to mean that "you'll conform to the updated terms of this license" in all new works you produce using this license. It seems to be missing language that says, "You will modify or destroy all prior work that does not comply with the revised terms", so I'm not sure how they could enforce that.

 

[Nikosandros]

I'm not sure either.

But it really seems to me that section 9 could be construed to mean that "you'll conform to the updated terms of this license" in all new works you produce using this license. It seems to be missing language that says, "You will modify or destroy all prior work that does not comply with the revised terms", so I'm not sure how they could enforce that.

I think that the real point is weather any publisher would risk litigation over this. I believe that all the publishers will comply with the six months sell-off period...

 

[JohnRTroy]

Does anyone find it ironic that section 9 of the STL allows Wizards the right to change the terms of that license but Section 9 of the OGL allows the user to pick any version of an OGL license?

 

[Nikosandros]

Does anyone find it ironic that section 9 of the STL allows Wizards the right to change the terms of that license but Section 9 of the OGL allows the user to pick any version of an OGL license?

Why is it ironic? The d20 STL was always much more restrictive than the OGL.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I was talking about the fact that they were both "section 9".

 

[Nikosandros]

I was talking about the fact that they were both "section 9".

Right... I had misread your post. Yes, it is actually ironic...

 

[madelf]

I think that the real point is weather any publisher would risk litigation over this. I believe that all the publishers will comply with the six months sell-off period...

Probably true.

But I also think it's pretty unlikely that WotC would bother with litigation over this if one didn't. Even if they can bury a smaller publisher with their greater financial resources, doing so isn't free.

Of course I'm not even in a position to put my money where my mouth is on the subject (never having used the d20 license), hence my acknowledgement that this is idle speculation on my part. I just find this stuff interesting.

 

[GAAAHHH]

I was talking about the fact that they were both "section 9".

Would it be more, or less ironic if they were both in section 8?

 

[Big Mac]

Would it be more, or less ironic if they were both in section 8?

Probably, considering that the number 9 is 3 squared.