Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Positronica" data-source="post: 4318409" data-attributes="member: 70471">Well, that's the thing.  How do we know that wizards doesn't "own" the rights to the concept of dragons in a fantasy based rpg?  Sure, common sense tells us that they don't, but as of right now, that's all we've got to go on.  But let's look at some cases that are a little more vague...Does Wizards own the rights to the concept of presenting Bahamut as a dragon?Does Wizards own the rights to the word "halfling" as it pertains to hobbit type creatures?Does Wizards own the rights to the cocept of elemental planes connected to an astral sea?Does Wizards own the rights to the cocept of elves meditating instead of sleeping?Obviously, it would be possible to keep going on and on like this.  The risk I see in section 10 is that the licensee agrees that all "content" in the core rules books is Wizards IP, and the licensee agrees to never violate that IP in perpetuity.  Granted, the word "content" is nebulous, but it still gives Wizards a shaky foundation to base a suit on.  I can understand why they put section 10 in the GSL, and I'd be very surprised if it was there for any sort of nefarious reasons, however I think it would have been better if the part of section 10 in question wasn't included in section 11.2 Survival.Keep in mind, section 19 never expires, either.  Coupled with section 10, this would give Wizards a backdoor to demand that you comply with section 19 even in an IP suit concerning a future, non-GSL product.I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that section 10, due to its survivability, could potentially give Wizards a slight leg-up in any sort of IP dispute you have with them in the future, even concerning something that you might feel is far removed from any GSL products.</blockquote>

Verification