How about a deadline to WotC?

[Cadfan]

For the record, you actually CAN contract to completely and totally give up, in every possible context, the ability to use things which are part of the public domain.

I could write a contract in which I gave you $100 in exchange for you promising to never, ever use the word "sardine" again. Not in writing, not in published work, not verbally, not ever. That word would be denied to you, permanently, forever. And I could put in that contract that, if you DO use the word "sardine," you have to, I dunno, give me back the $100 plus some extra penalty.

That would be legal. Because, see, you don't have to take the $100.

Not that WOTC is doing this or anything. But I felt I should add this for the record- if they WERE doing this, it would be legal. I gave you a promise ($100), you gave me a promise (never to utter "sardine"), we have a contract.

 

[Cadfan]

the question is not whether it is legal or not, it is whether it is legally binding. and that has nothing to do with criminal acts in this context.

Hah, I saw what you did there.

 

[El Mahdi]

Whether people agree that the current GSL is good or bad, or whether people agree on percieved entitlement or not because of the OGL, the idea of a deadline demand to WoTC is just a silly, futile, and empty gesture.

This would be like telling WoTC back when 4E was just coming out, that a June release just wasn't acceptable, and then demanded an April release or else. Or else what!? You can't demand or coerce when you have absolutely NO LEVERAGE. All that making a demand like this is going to do is piss off some people at WoTC, and probably the very people that are on the side of releasing a new GSL as soon as possible. There are some people at WoTC that are trying to do this the right way, and release a GSL that works both for WoTC and 3pp purposes. Making unrealistic and unenforcable demands, at best resolves nothing, at worst slows things down even more. I believe Scott is doing everything he can to make this happen. Leave the man alone and let him work. The more he has to deal with silliness like this, the longer it will probably take.

 

[xechnao]

For the record, you actually CAN contract to completely and totally give up, in every possible context, the ability to use things which are part of the public domain.

I could write a contract in which I gave you $100 in exchange for you promising to never, ever use the word "sardine" again. Not in writing, not in published work, not verbally, not ever. That word would be denied to you, permanently, forever. And I could put in that contract that, if you DO use the word "sardine," you have to, I dunno, give me back the $100 plus some extra penalty.

That would be legal. Because, see, you don't have to take the $100.

Not that WOTC is doing this or anything. But I felt I should add this for the record- if they WERE doing this, it would be legal. I gave you a promise ($100), you gave me a promise (never to utter "sardine"), we have a contract.

I doupt this is legal. Freedom of speech and all that. I want to believe you can't contract people to give up their fundamental rights.

 

[Fifth Element]

I doupt this is legal. Freedom of speech and all that. I want to believe you can't contract people to give up their fundamental rights.

Freedom of speech doesn't enter into it. We're talking about people willingly giving up a right in return for something, not having your rights taken away without recompense. There's rather a large difference there.

 

[Morrus]

I doupt this is legal. Freedom of speech and all that. I want to believe you can't contract people to give up their fundamental rights.

You can. Your "Freedom of Speech" is related to the government not abridging your right to speak; it has nothing to do with you voluntarily agreeing not to speak.

For example - if you appear in a stage show, your contract will not aloow you to suddenly say, halfway through "I want a pie!" That does not infringe on your freedom of speech; it is a private agreement between you and the production company whereby you agree to say/not say things, in exchange for money.

Or, more famously, you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. You can't use a trademarked term in publicity without permission. There are LOTS of limits on what you can say.

Freedom of Speech - you Americans should really understand your own rights; the right is to not have your goverment make laws that restrict your freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with private agreements.

You don't have freedom of speech here on EN World, for example. You agreed, when signing up, that that was the case. EN World is not [your] government, so you can make that agreement with the site.

 

[justanobody]

That is the problem. People have been spoiled by the OGL, and they want their cake and being able to eat it too.

No you are quite wrong. For decades I have been waiting for osmething that would allow me to do this:

-Use the logo
-Include any name of something within the game
-create anything I want to add to it to interact with (skill, NWP, feat, item, town, new creature)

That is it. I don't want to make a new game, just be able to make the things I would use and a chance to share it with other people as a fan, and recoup some[all] of the cost to physically produce it.

The logo only states that it was made to be used with a specific game. Oddly enough the game I like, not every Tom, Harry, and Dick RPG out there.

That means needing to be able to specifically make my own elf description, background, history, physiology, etc; same as orc, goblin, etc from the public domain; and be able to call then just an ELF, ORC, GOBLIN. etc.

OGL went too far and that is how they ended up with other people able to print the SRD completely and sell it as a new game.

 

[El Mahdi]

. . . Or, more famously, you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. . .

100% true. This is illegal. At best you can be charged with Reckless Endangerment, at worst, if someone is hurt or worse, add on a charge (or charges) of Assault or Manslaugther.

 

[Morrus]

No you are quite wrong. For decades I have been waiting for osmething that would allow me to do this:

-Use the logo
-Include any name of something within the game
-create anything I want to add to it to interact with (skill, NWP, feat, item, town, new creature)

And why should WotC give you that? What do you offer in exchange?

For them, the value they want is keeping those defined terms defined. You, clearly, are not prepared to pay that. What are you prepared to pay?

The question the is: is it worth it to WotC to let people loose with their brand name in exchange for the price you suggest.

You're just haggling here over a trade. It's only a question of determining the price; and that price is not going to be zero.

 

[xechnao]

Freedom of Speech - you Americans should really understand your own rights; the right is to not have your goverment make laws that restrict your freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with private agreements.

But I am not american
So could you legally make a contract with somebody physically abusing him? asking him not to eat? telling him what to vote in the elections?
Asking to understand how law works (I guess in Anglo-saxon (anglican?) states)