Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 4654794" data-attributes="member: 5">I hate doing this but you are kinda all over the place in your post so I am going to break it up to respond to separate issues more precisely.&nbsp; Please forgive this tactic.Not quite.&nbsp; Technically, if someone claims compatibility with a trademark without permission they are in violation of the license and it automatically terminates.&nbsp; WotC does not actually get to terminate it by their choice.&nbsp; WotC can, however, go after someone using their trademark wituout permission whether or not that same someone was doing so while claiming some sort of compatibility.Again, not quite.&nbsp; If the OGL was not in use in the first place then would more precisely be an issue of copyright infringement since (in almost all cases) the copyright is retained by the contributor of the OGC.(Leaving aside the suspected oxymoron status of &quot;mutually exlusive with&quot; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />) Perhaps not in practice.&nbsp; It may well be that even an individual could have two separate companies that individually produced materials for each format, or that a person might be a 3PP in the case of producing material for one but hold the status of freelancer while producing materials for the other.&nbsp; There are some rather big holes in the concept of only allowing 4E support by persons willing to rescind ever support other D&amp;D branded materials.&nbsp; I am guessing we will see this crop up again and also feel that ultimately the fact that WotC can simply disallow anyone from supporting 4E trumps any loopholes that exist.&nbsp; Time will tell.I don't disagree.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mark, post: 4654794, member: 5"] I hate doing this but you are kinda all over the place in your post so I am going to break it up to respond to separate issues more precisely. Please forgive this tactic. Not quite. Technically, if someone claims compatibility with a trademark without permission they are in violation of the license and it automatically terminates. WotC does not actually get to terminate it by their choice. WotC can, however, go after someone using their trademark wituout permission whether or not that same someone was doing so while claiming some sort of compatibility. Again, not quite. If the OGL was not in use in the first place then would more precisely be an issue of copyright infringement since (in almost all cases) the copyright is retained by the contributor of the OGC. (Leaving aside the suspected oxymoron status of "mutually exlusive with" :D) Perhaps not in practice. It may well be that even an individual could have two separate companies that individually produced materials for each format, or that a person might be a 3PP in the case of producing material for one but hold the status of freelancer while producing materials for the other. There are some rather big holes in the concept of only allowing 4E support by persons willing to rescind ever support other D&D branded materials. I am guessing we will see this crop up again and also feel that ultimately the fact that WotC can simply disallow anyone from supporting 4E trumps any loopholes that exist. Time will tell. I don't disagree. [/QUOTE]

Verification