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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 4205047" data-attributes="member: 8461">I think the point he was trying to make is that a revocation clause is overkill for just protecting the D&D brand.If WotC just wanted to make sure that GSL products didn't still say "Dungeons & Dragons" on them when 5E comes out, they don't need a revocation clause for that. They can just have a line in there about reserving the right to update the GSL at any time, and anyone using the GSL must use the current version. This allows them to later go in and remove lines allowing products to display the D&D logo - in essence, giving them the same level of control that they're exercising now regarding the current d20 logo on d20 STL products.However, having a revocation clause means that they can effectively demand that any such books published under the GSL no longer be sold. To most, this probably won't seem like a big deal, since some companies might not care about lasting until 5E comes out, or are banking on a new 5E license when it does, but that does raise some issues regarding long-term sales. It's only in the last few years that PDF publishing became viable, so 4E books produced in the next few months could conceivably still be selling PDF copies of them over a decade from now. Those residual sales, for whatever they'd be worth, would have to cease once the GSL was revoked.In other words, the GSL could still have been irrevocable without WotC losing control of the D&D brand.</blockquote>

Verification