Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8898067" data-attributes="member: 42582">No apology required - whether for concession or contradiction!This is exactly my point, yes. I will add: I don't see how Paizo's activity now is any different from WotC's over the past 20 years. WotC's in fact in my view provides a stronger legal foundation, for the reasons [USER=20741]@Steel_Wind[/USER] has pointed out upthread (which I'm sure you've read, so I won't rehearse them in this post).This is why I am really puzzled at the moment. It seems to me that the same (or at least sympathetic/harmonious) voices are asserting the following two things:(a) WotC throwing its weight around makes it impractical to rely on legal rights against them;

(b) Going to ORC will be a solution because it gives us better legal rights.Even if (b) were true, which I doubt, it seems - in practical terms - to contradict (a). As in, what's the benefit of legal rights if you won't use them.Of course, if people judge that Paizo (or Kobold or whomever) is in fact a more reliable licensor for the next N years of business, that's their judgement and it makes sense to follow it - I express no view on that at all. I just don't understand why that is being dressed up in legal terms that seem practically meaningless if no one is prepared to actually stand on their legal rights.That's interesting, and hasn't been so prominent in those threads. Are those publishers who are licensed by WotC (and so standing on their rights against them) or who are using the OGL for licence regimes to which WotC is not a party (in which case it's still interesting but not as interesting!).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8898067, member: 42582"] No apology required - whether for concession or contradiction! This is exactly my point, yes. I will add: I don't see how Paizo's activity now is any different from WotC's over the past 20 years. WotC's in fact in my view provides a stronger legal foundation, for the reasons [USER=20741]@Steel_Wind[/USER] has pointed out upthread (which I'm sure you've read, so I won't rehearse them in this post). This is why I am really puzzled at the moment. It seems to me that the same (or at least sympathetic/harmonious) voices are asserting the following two things: [indent](a) WotC throwing its weight around makes it impractical to rely on legal rights against them; (b) Going to ORC will be a solution because it gives us better legal rights.[/indent] Even if (b) were true, which I doubt, it seems - in practical terms - to contradict (a). As in, what's the benefit of legal rights if you won't use them. Of course, if people judge that Paizo (or Kobold or whomever) is in fact a more reliable licensor for the next N years of business, that's their judgement and it makes sense to follow it - I express no view on that at all. I just don't understand why that is being dressed up in legal terms that seem practically meaningless if no one is prepared to actually stand on their legal rights. That's interesting, and hasn't been so prominent in those threads. Are those publishers who are licensed by WotC (and so standing on their rights against them) or who are using the OGL for licence regimes to which WotC is not a party (in which case it's still interesting but not as interesting!). [/QUOTE]

Verification