Does WOTC have the right?

[Orcus]

didnt sound hostile to me. As a layman, looking at precidents (like the monopoloy case) I have always thought you didnt need their permission, except in the cases of trademarks and patents, since you cannot copyright a system.

I agree. My comments werent hostile at all.

I just want to make sure that no one *interprets* them as hostile. This is a touchy time right now and I dont want the finger pointed at me for messing stuff up.

My goal in this has been to discuss and bring attention to things related to the licenses. I am pro-GSL. You have no idea how pro-GSL I am.

Clark

 

[Flynn]

I'd rather not, if you dont mind. And I appreciate your professionalism in honoring my requests.

I just want to say this: lets all remember that EVERYONE (Wizards included) benefits by us all staying in the "safe harbor."

Clark

This all seems to have come after my last post here, and if my thoughts above sparked it, I apologize. I agree that we all benefit if we stay in the "safe harbor". I simply recalled the "Great Consolidation" after v3.5 came out, where a number of smaller publishers came under larger umbrella organizations, and then had a thought about the "Clearinghouse" thing and voiced it. Think of it as simply that creative problem-solving thing that programmers do. Mentioning it here allows for that second stage of discussion, where we look at an idea that may be possible and decide if it's something that could or should be done. Apparently, it's at least an ethical "grey area", if not a legal one, and so wouldn't be worth discussing further.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Paralaize]

EDIT: taken to email and resolved. All is well. ~ Piratecat

 

[Goobermunch]

I think you knew the answer to this before you asked No, I cant do that. Sorry.

I kind of figured as much. It just makes evaluating that individual's level of familiarity with the terms of the GSL, and comprehension of the same, difficult.

I suppose that's why out of court statements aren't admissible for the truth of the matter asserted, huh?

--G

 

[Angellis_ater]

I agree. My comments werent hostile at all.

I just want to make sure that no one *interprets* them as hostile. This is a touchy time right now and I dont want the finger pointed at me for messing stuff up.

My goal in this has been to discuss and bring attention to things related to the licenses. I am pro-GSL. You have no idea how pro-GSL I am.

Clark

Hehe, I think we all know how pro-GSL you are! I'm personally looking forward to the APG for what it'll bring to MY gaming table when we do a trial-run for 4E.

But I do understand that you'd be wary of making enemies of Wizards in these times, especially since Necromancer Games has a much tighter connection to Wizards than most other companies have.

 

[Piratecat]

EDIT: problem resolved.

 

[Elephant]

Edit: Removed comments similar to those of angelis

 

[abelan]

I'm not sure if WOTC has the right idea with the new GSL, but its their choice. They have tightened up the restrictions, and you can argue it doesn't help the game flourish. 4e will sell well out of the gate, but its the 3rd party support that gets new ideas into the game. Their new rules are interesting, but do they fear 3rd party developments? I happen to believe some of the best material for 3/3.5 came after a few years, and they alone will have a hard time providing the quality and volume of material that the previous edition did. Volume doesn't mean quality, but WOTC wanted to be in the driver's seat for as long as possible in the new edition. My fear is that they will stifle the creative juices of game designers, and the game will stagnate.

 

[Delta]

Wow, I seriously can't follow this thread at all anymore.

 

[Oldtimer]

Wow, I seriously can't follow this thread at all anymore.

I agree. It feels like walking blind in a mine field.

There's obviously something we're not allowed to post, but I can't, for the life of me, realize what it can be.