Does WOTC have the right?

[Sunderstone]

WotC is now going all Sith on us.

Grats Lurking lidda for the great bedside manner. :up:

 

[Treebore]

I agree its a bit ambiguous, but it does look binding.

 

[Greylock]

Respectfully, I don't think that's what the license says. I'm not a lawyer, but reading the license text, the only apparent provision for termination of the license is through the breach of the license by the licensee, not due to Wizards revoking the license.

Funny, I was just reading it and that was my interpretation as well.

 

[Goobermunch]

Respectfully, I don't think that's what the license says. I'm not a lawyer, but reading the license text, the only apparent provision for termination of the license is through the breach of the license by the licensee, not due to Wizards revoking the license.

Now, of course Wizards could always revise the license to include terms that would revoke the license on a certain date and require destruction of material after a defined period, but its not in this current version of the license. Such after-the-fact revisions of the license may not be enforceable (depending on the jurisdiction).

More importantly, such bad-faith behaviour on the part of Wizards would make potential licensees of the GSL less likely to agree to it, if the GSL contains similar terms to the STL.

To work well licences such as the GSL and STL require a high degree of trust between the parties; Wizards needs to be careful not to lose the trust of third-party publishers during the transition between licenses.

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.

Now technically, the d20 STL doesn't include language indicating that it is a revocable license. However, "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." Essentially, this means that Wizards can update the license to clarify that point. The license is then terminable. At which point, the full effect of section 6 comes into effect.

In addition, because section 6 does not limit itself only to termination for breach, there's a good argument that WotC intended to retain termination powers without recourse to amendment.

I do agree with your comments regarding the better business practices WotC could follow. However, that doesn't make WotC's current actions ultra vires.

IAALJNYL

--G

 

[Tazawa]

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.

Now technically, the d20 STL doesn't include language indicating that it is a revocable license. However, "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." Essentially, this means that Wizards can update the license to clarify that point. The license is then terminable. At which point, the full effect of section 6 comes into effect.

I agree. However they haven't updated the license at this point. It may be difficult to enforce the terms of the license on material that was produced under a previous version.

See what happened with the BoEF - they didn't enforce the termination clauses. Instead they reached an alternate arrangement and then changed the version of the STL to prevent future similar occurrences.

In addition, because section 6 does not limit itself only to termination for breach, there's a good argument that WotC intended to retain termination powers without recourse to amendment.

I'm not as sure about this statement. Every contract I've worked with has had very specific clauses dealing with which party can terminate, for what reason, how much notice they have to give, and what the repercussions of termination are. Generally, if the method of termination isn't mentioned in the contract, it's not available.

I do agree with your comments regarding the better business practices WotC could follow. However, that doesn't make WotC's current actions ultra vires.

IAALJNYL

--G

Perhaps Wizards actions are not bad faith (actually they aren't anything, considering they haven't taken any actions yet), but if they do end following the courses of action they appear to be pursuing, I can't imagine any intelligent third-party publisher would be willing to enter into a contract similar to the STL or GSL with them. There's just too much risk--the best predictor of future performance is past performance.

 

[moritheil]

However suing a corporation isn't expensive if you know how to file a lawsuit. ITs expensive to keep up with all the shenanigans the expensive lawyers pull to make lawsuits go away without actually going to court.

So, in fact, it's expensive.

 

[Umbran]

We have a forum for talk about the details of the contents of licenses, to which this is being slid...

 

[roguerouge]

Put me down for believing that WotC's move is rather poor customer relations with people who buy many of their products and would, gasp, like to collect materials they hadn't yet had a chance to buy. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Orcus]

Upon entering into agreement with WotC on the d20 STL, by providing a signed confirmation card, entities agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the license, including the destruction of product upon termination of the license. This is legally binding, so the answer to your question is yes, WotC does have the right.

This is clearly stated in section 6 of the d20 STL v 6.0.

For more information, please view the license here:

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/d20stlv6.rtf

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

 

[Orcus]

Respectfully, I don't think that's what the license says. I'm not a lawyer, but reading the license text, the only apparent provision for termination of the license is through the breach of the license by the licensee, not due to Wizards revoking the license.

I happen to agree with this 100%.

Now, of course Wizards could always revise the license to include terms that would revoke the license on a certain date and require destruction of material after a defined period, but its not in this current version of the license. Such after-the-fact revisions of the license may not be enforceable (depending on the jurisdiction).

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

More importantly, such bad-faith behaviour on the part of Wizards would make potential licensees of the GSL less likely to agree to it, if the GSL contains similar terms to the STL.

To work well licences such as the GSL and STL require a high degree of trust between the parties; Wizards needs to be careful not to lose the trust of third-party publishers during the transition between licenses.

I agree with this as well.

Clark