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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Setanta" data-source="post: 1493614" data-attributes="member: 2183">@barsoomcore Right, but with if the imaginary closed 4E is good? Then I would have to choose. That's all true, but I believe there are ethics and courtesy beyond the law. As a quick example, would you consider every frivolous lawsuit filed to be ethical? I don't, but if you do, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I'm mainly concerned with #2. No publisher has gone on record claiming #1, but that's partly because they'd look lame given the lack of a legal leg to stand on, so it would be hard to come up with evidence to support #1. I believe there are publishers who feel that way though. You could consider Chris Pramas' request referenced by Bendris to be evidence, or not. It doesn't really matter. We're not going to have enough there for 'proof' one way or another. As for #2, sure, it's speculation that this behaviour will hurt the industry, but I haven't seen anything to make me think it's illogical speculation. We've seen one publisher speculate that it might hurt his sales. If he perceives it might, chances are others do as well. If a publisher perceives something as being a threat to sales, isn't it logical to assume they might look for ways to avoid it? What if that publisher is WotC, clearly the publisher in the best position to avoid releasing OGC, and clearly the one that would hurt the D20 world the most if they stopped supporting the OGL. It just happens to be a WotC product that started this whole discussion. Thus, I'm concerned.</blockquote>

Verification