Goodman is clearly going to the GSL.

[CountPopeula]

Just because no one paid for it right away doesn't mean no one paid for it.

This is true. But the fact that Wizards didn't offer the interested parties a chance to pay for it means this.

It's my understanding, though I'm an outsider, that it generally happened like this. Wizards introduced tiered license. X number of companies signed on to pay $5K fee when product was ready, no money actually changes hands at this point. Wizards faces delays, cancels tiered license. No one actually ever paid wizards, some companies just expressed interest.

Had Wizards taken money, the agreement would not have changed, as if it did, Wizards would be in breach of contract with said companies.

Just because conventional wisdom is no one can afford a legal battle with wizards, it doesn't mean they can change a contract after it's changed.

 

[Emryys]

If they are taking the 3.5 DCC's down after the sale (End Date?), are they gonna redo the old ones and re-release them in a 4E format....?

 

[Ydars]

Dragonbait; feel free as you are not quoting me really. This is one of my favourite quips, but I can't remember where I got it.

 

[amethal]

As convincing as your emphatic statement is, I think I'll trust my memory (as bad as it is) until I see something otherwise.

While I did not have sufficient evidence to convince someone by my memory of who bought it, I think the fact that Goodman has so many products already available makes it clear in itself that they saw the GSL early.

How early?

According to Scott Rouse it was only (mostly) finalised on 13 June.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=230941

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

That's my point, essentially. If they are releasing product in August, they are not using the GSL for these products. They can't have August release dates unless they ignore the GSL and are not publishing under it.

Unless they have special permission, of course.

I find it hard to believe that GG would have special permission and NG would not. I have not personally seen any announcements from Orcus that he's intending to release anything at GenCon (ergo, outside the GSL). Did I miss it?

I think catsclaw and Treebore are both right. GG is releasing at GenCon, outside the GSL and without special permission, but then GG intends to convert the DCC over to 4e as soon as they can.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I find it hard to believe that GG would have special permission and NG would not. I have not personally seen any announcements from Orcus that he's intending to release anything at GenCon (ergo, outside the GSL). Did I miss it?

I seem to recall a post where Orcus indicated he was planning on Oct. 1, and didn't have anything he could have ready for Gencon because of that. Other than that, I agree with you; it seems odd the GG would be in early and not Necromancer.

 

[jgerman]

That's my point, essentially. If they are releasing product in August, they are not using the GSL for these products. They can't have August release dates unless they ignore the GSL and are not publishing under it.

Unless they have special permission, of course.

If they have permission it's no longer the GSL. It's a separate licensing agreement.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Not to mention that it was $5000. Still doesn't change the fact that no-one paid. WotC removed the clause as they were delayed.

Here's the real question though, would anyone have paid the $5K had they seen the license early? Remember, the order of operations was NDA, License, $5K, and rules/SRD.

 

[Treebore]

If they have permission it's no longer the GSL. It's a separate licensing agreement.

Well, it is very possible that WOTC altered the 4E GSL "at will" for Goodman because he asked nicely and at the right time.

OR he could be doing it under copyright laws before October 1, and then going GSL by October 1. It isn't like Goodman would be violating the GSL by doing that. Plus I doubt it would upset WOTC. They would applaud his savvy and take note of it for their next license. Then welcome him to the GSL family.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Oh and the idea that Goodman are first flouting WoTC copyright and then going via GSL after GENCON is, frankly, ridiculous. Do we real;y expect that WoTC will enter into a licensing arrangment with a company that has done such a thing! Wouldn't there be legal ramifications to NOT challenging a copyright infringement?

Just remember; anything is possible when you don't know what you are talking about (and we DON'T)! I am also hearing alot of static from ORCUS as well; this is a sign of impending developments I think.

If they go the copyright route Goodman would be releasing things under the fair use provisions and general copyright laws and would therefore not be flouting WotC copyright or in any way be doing something illegal. GG is smart enough that if they go the copyright route, not to do so in violation of the law. WotC of course can choose to do business with them later or not, but producing legal products is not necessarily a reason to avoid doing business with them later if it is in their financial interests to do so. Having the DCC line under the GSL and not supporting Pathfinder would be in their financial interests.

As for not challenging a copyright infringement (if there is even one in the first place), there are no legal ramifications for not challenging. Copyright and Trademark laws are very different things. A copyright owner can ignore blatant violations for dozens of years and still have full legal authority to assert his rights later. Trademarks are what need to be vigorously protected to be maintained, and there are very few Trademarks in D&D that have to be worried about and are easy to avoid.