Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8899498" data-attributes="member: 82106">OK, I mean, I am not sure I completely disagree with you, if WotC wrote in a clause about sacrificing your firstborn child, or plucking out your left eye, well we're in the US, not the Feywild! To be less silly about it, if they wrote a highly exploitative revision there would certainly be questions on the basis of things like unjust enrichment and generally if it was conscionable or not. However, its hard to say where those lines might be drawn, and its quite possible they could EFFECTIVELY do what they will and take back what they no longer want to give (an example of a way of doing that was posted above WRT Goodman Games, though that specific technique wouldn't work for WotC in the situation envisaged). I just don't think its wise to ever give the other party the right to change the terms unilaterally. I have written and signed a LOT of contracts, and several times rejected deals with some similar aspect. Its just not wise.Well, remember, not even CC licenses prevent you from doing other deals with someone, they simply state a certain offer is on the table. Of course WotC is always free to say "well, here's this OTHER (or additional) deal we'd like to do with you, how about it?" I haven't a problem with that, I just want to be on even terms with them in respect to what I get and what they get in an open license. I might be happy to do other additional side deals.Well, that's a way of looking at it, sure. The other way would be to say if it was all governed by a CC license then all this nonsense wouldn't even be at issue. WotC would have no power to issue a revised license, they would have to simply stop using CC and it is ENTIRELY CLEAR in CC that you cannot withdraw your issue of a license (aside from the other party violating the terms). I mean, they could litigate the CC license, but good luck with that! The point is, this controversy wouldn't exist if a neutral third party was in charge of the license. WotC could do a 4e and take its candy elsewhere in that case, and that might raise a stinky amongst those who feel overly entitled.Of course, there is even ANOTHER way to look at it, which is that D&D is not really, to any great degree, the sole creation of one small group of people. While WotC certainly believes in its ownership, is it really possible to own D&D? I helped make it, you helped make it, we all helped make it. I mean, really, it is us, with our money and our time and our endless playing of and working on our D&D games that made, and makes, D&D what it is. Heck, that's REALLY what is now constraining WotC!WE ARE D&D AND IT IS US! Copyright over some particular verbiage, and over some names of things that were invented by people who are now mostly dead, is kind of a fiction. Heck, if Congress wasn't corrupt enough to pass laws to the advantage of the powerful Gygax and Arneson's original copyright in 1974 D&D would be very close to over! That includes beholders! lol. I'm not sure I feel that inclined to respect the spoils of looting our government in any case. This all may not scan too well for you as an Australian, but like I said in a previous posting, we over here are starting to seriously question whether the current state of things is one we wish to perpetuate. lol.</blockquote>

Verification