Necromancer Games NOT going with current GSL.

[pemerton]

I never "suggested" that he would want changes - he flat-out said he wants changes.

<snip quote>

Emphasis mine. I did, however, say that I didn't think clarifications would be enough.

Clark said he wants changes or clarifications. You asserted that clarifications would not be enough, and that "he'd want some changes, and not just clarifications, before he'd sign the License."

Given that Clark himself said clarifications might be enough (presumably depending on what they were), I wondered why you thought that he would in fact only be satisfied with changes.

That's what I said when expressing my own opinion, something you seem to be quite miffed over.

<snip>

I'm not a lawyer, not that it has anything to do what we're talking about. By your logic, anyone who isn't a lawyer apparently has no right to discuss what they think about the GSL, which is tragically misguided of you.

I'm not that fussed by your opinion of the OGL. I wanted to know why you thought that Clark would want changes, given that he said that clarification might be enough. In particular, I was wondering what legal issue you thought he had missed in suggesting that clarification might be enough. I also answered your question as to which terms I thought he wanted clarified, and gave some legal reasons as to why I think those clarifications could well be enough.

Legal expertise is relevant to the question of whether or not my legal reasons are any good. It's also relevant to the question of whether Clark is wrong to think that the right sort of clarifications might be adequate. Hence my question about it.

 

[Alzrius]

Clark said he wants changes or clarifications. You asserted that clarifications would not be enough, and that "he'd want some changes, and not just clarifications, before he'd sign the License."

You're selectively quoting me here. I said that was what I thought...which, again, seems to have offended you somehow.

Given that Clark himself said clarifications might be enough (presumably depending on what they were), I wondered why you thought that he would in fact only be satisfied with changes.

No, actually that's not what you wondered. What you actually wondered was if I was a lawyer or not, since my opinion didn't count for anything if I wasn't. Likewise, I did later explain why I thought what I did, and you were quick to tell me why what I thought was wrong.

I'm not that fussed by your opinion of the OGL.

Maybe not, but my opinion of the GSL apparently has kept you going for several posts now.

I wanted to know why you thought that Clark would want changes, given that he said that clarification might be enough.

And I deigned to share my reasoning with you.

In particular, I was wondering what legal issue you thought he had missed in suggesting that clarification might be enough.

And again, you're putting words in my mouth. Please quote me on where I said I thought Clark had missed something. Just because you thought I somehow implied that doesn't actually mean that I did.

I also answered your question as to which terms I thought he wanted clarified, and gave some legal reasons as to why I think those clarifications could well be enough.

First of all, I don't recall asking you for what terms you thought he wanted clarified. Secondly, to paraphrase you, "if you're not a lawyer, why would I care what you think?"

Legal expertise is relevant to the question of whether or not my legal reasons are any good.

Not for a qualitative judgment it's not. Legal expertise can't define the subjective state of "good."

It's also relevant to the question of whether Clark is wrong to think that the right sort of clarifications might be adequate. Hence my question about it.

Whether or not Clark is wrong is something that only you are discussing.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Not surprised at all.

I like Clark and Necromancer Games and believe that his early enthusiastic support for 4e and WoTC was due to the fact that he had more faith in WoTC than they deserved. The guy obviously loves D&D and really wanted to support 4e but even he, a very enthusiastic early supporter, now sees what many have seen early on...

WoTC is attempting to destroy Open Gaming by getting major 3pps to sign up onto the GSL denying themselves the opportunity to go back to the OGL effectively making them all pawns of WoTC's corporate decisions. Anyone hitching their wagon to that abomination is just setting themselves up for a world of hurt when WoTC decides to remove even the carrot that the GSL is leaving only the stick.

WoTC had to know the reaction that many would have to the GSL. I forsaw it as soon as I heard that it was going to be more restrictive. Certainly, WoTC foresaw that companies like Green Ronin and Paizo would balk at handing over unique/successful IP to WoTC control.

IMO WoTC doesn't really want 3pp support for D&D and the GSL was offered merely to prevent a storm of nerd rage and outright rebellion. The GSL is a PR move, nothing more. When 5e comes around even the GSL will be gone. Call me a cynic, but IMO every company that builds their IP around 4e will be doomed with the coming of 5e. Unlike those who stuck with the OGL to begin with, these folks will have to shelve their IP permanently or create entirely new game systems to support it.

Thank God Ryan Dancy was a man of vision.

This whole thing is sad.

That about sums up my feelings on the matter.

And I had hoped I was wrong.

 

[pemerton]

I don't recall asking you for what terms you thought he wanted clarified.

You didn't ask me particularly, but:

I'm curious about what "clarifications" Clark wants, and what difference they could make in regards to his decision not to use the GSL. Some of the legalese is rather opaque, I agree, but I'd think he'd want some changes, and not just clarifications, before he'd sign the License.

I tried to satisfy your curiosity, and to explain what differences the clarifications Clark has talked about in the past and in his recent announcement could make in regards to his decision whether or not to use the GSL.

Whether or not Clark is wrong is something that only you are discussing.

Well, you said you'd thought he'd want some changes. I took that to imply you thought he was wrong to think that clarifications would do the job.

Secondly, to paraphrase you, "if you're not a lawyer, why would I care what you think?"

I am a lawyer. You may still not care what I think. But I did say what I thought the relevant clarifications might be, and I did give reasons as to why I think they could do the job that Clark wants done (namely, to prevent Necromancer from being unduly exposed if it were to go with the GSL).

 

[Alzrius]

I tried to satisfy your curiosity,

That's rather presumptuous of you, unless you're Clark Peterson in disguise.

and to explain what differences the clarifications Clark has talked about in the past and in his recent announcement could make in regards to his decision whether or not to use the GSL.

You're again very conveniently omitting your rude and disrespectful posts where you make comments to the effect of my opinion being less than yours because I'm not a lawyer. That's not explaining the differences of anything - that's being condescending.

Well, you said you'd thought he'd want some changes. I took that to imply you thought he was wrong to think that clarifications would do the job.

He said he'd want some changes, actually. You seem to keep forgetting about that part.

I am a lawyer. You may still not care what I think.

Quite right. Since my point has been that legal training has no relevance at all in regards to people's opinion about the worth (or lack thereof) of something. My paraphrasing you was an attempt to drive that point home.

But I did say what I thought the relevant clarifications might be, and I did give reasons as to why I think they could do the job that Clark wants done (namely, to prevent Necromancer from being unduly exposed if it were to go with the GSL).

Bully for you. You think what you think. Is it okay with you that I think what I think if I don't have a law degree?

I think the GSL is a bad license. I personally don't think that any amount of clarification will make it into a better license. Hence, I'm curious about what clarification Clark is seeking, and if he sees fit to expound upon that, that's nice. Unless you have spoken to him personally, or can link to posts where he's spoken about that, you're not in the least qualified to actually speak to what I was wondering about. You're just speculating - like I was - and a legal degree doesn't make your guesses about Clark's motives any more or less right than mine. Please stop acting otherwise.

 

[pemerton]

I personally don't think that any amount of clarification will make it into a better license. Hence, I'm curious about what clarification Clark is seeking, and if he sees fit to expound upon that, that's nice. Unless you have spoken to him personally, or can link to posts where he's spoken about that, you're not in the least qualified to actually speak to what I was wondering about.

I'm not going to link - I don't have search and I don't have time to manually trawl back. They're there in the threads from around the time the GSL was announced, in which he posted fairly extensively. They're also inferable from his recent announcement.

They pertain particularly to the meaning of product line and related notions in clause 6, and to the interaction of those notions with backwards conversion. It's obvious that he's especially concerned about tying up JG's IP under the GSL. As I pointed out in my reply to Joe Kushner, there is also the troubling implication that the Advanced Players Guide might make nearly everything of Necro's that uses the OGL count as a converted product which can't then be distributed under the OGL.

He stated flat out that he's not worried by the references to meeting WoTC's costs, which were also part of the d20 STL under which he was happy to publish.

In a series of exchanges with me he discussed what remedies, if any, WoTC might get from a breach of the backwards conversion prohibition. He didn't express a definite opinion, but seemed sceptical that WoTC would want to lead the financial information necessary to get contractual damages. I can say for sure that he was nevertheless very concerned about the backwards conversion issue, even though he didn't seem concerned about having to pay damages to WoTC. I don't know what the US law is on the availability of injunctive relief for breach of a licensing contract, and don't know whether he is concerned about that in particular, or whether he is concerned about an IP suit if Necromancer were to breach the licence. It's fairly well known that Clark has more conservative views than some others about the viability of "going copyright".

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I think he wants clarifications at least on the meaning of some of the language in clause 6, such as "any portion of the Converted OGL Product Line, or any products that would be considered part of a Converted OGL Product Line (as reasonably determined by Wizards) pursuant to the OGL," "same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents".

These seem to be the issues that most need settling to understand the implications of no backwards conversion, and the implications for JG IP that he is concerned about.

From other posts he has made I also think that Clark is curious about the implicaitons of 11.1, and in particular the extent to which it permits unilateral termination against a single party without the grounds specified in clauses 1, 5.4 and 6.3 having to be made out.

I also don't understand why you think that clarifications would not be adequate. Are you a lawyer or expressing some other sort of professional opinion? If you are, then I'm happy to defer to it (though I'd like to hear more about why you think Mistwell is wrong). But my intuitions run the other way. I don't know quite where the US stands in respect of the parol evidence rule, but I would have thought that evidence of mutual understanding of key terms could be led in any suit for breach of contract, or in any attempt by NG to set up the contract as a defence against an IP suit. And depending on the nature of any clarification and NG's reliance upon it, it could also set up an estoppel against WoTC.

Depending on the details of any clarifications made, any going back on them might also have legal implications in the areas of misleading conduct or negligent mis-statement. But that is getting far more speculative, especially given that my limited knowledge of these areas of law pertains to Australia and not the US.

Bingo. How do you change 4e to feel like 3.5 without redefining anything? I said before in another thread a week ago that I wondered how Clark was going to do it, now i know...

 

[Plane Sailing]

Pemerton and Alzarius, please stop responding to one another in this thread.

Any time a post devolves into line by line rebuttles, you know it has gone too far.

By all means continue to participate in this thread, but kindly don't respond to one others points again here.

Thanks

 

[evilref]

It kind of seems like WotC is strongly interested in establishing an ersatz D&D monopoly. If this is the case, then the creativity that comes along with fair competition is not as important to WotC as gaining a financial stranglehold on D&D. This tells me that they might not the responsible stewards of the world's most popular role-playing game that they once were. WotC is eliminating or buying up all of its competition ... I don't see how that can be good for my beloved game. WotC protects their newly exclusive intellectual property, and we get mediocre gaming material? Bah. Is this the direction we want our game heading? Not me. I for one am a little worried about my lovely game, my D&D.

I don't see Wizards buying up or eliminating any competition. Until they start purchasing other companies, or aggresively bringing suits against them (which they might well have to do to defend a trademark) then that's just exaggerating on the effects/reasoning of the GSL.

I know I can play whatever I want at my own table. That's fine. What saddens me is direction these stewards are taking the game that's been with me my whole life. I will miss being able to proudly declare that I play D&D. They're losing a very old customer here, not just because I take issue with the new direction of the rules (I admit I'll miss some of those dead hefers), but more importantly with the business ethics of those at the helm. Making the best product no longer seems their utmost priority. The talented folks who create RPGs are not doing it to get rich, they do it for love of the game; as with all forms of media, this passion leads to better products. It feels like WotC has lost their way ...

Every RPG company with employees produces books to make money. To think otherwise is to have an overly idealistic view of the company. They might well not expect to make a lot of money, they might well be producing books they earnestly believe in, but they're still making them to put food on the tables of their employees.

 

[S'mon]

Legal expertise is relevant to the question of whether or not my legal reasons are any good. It's also relevant to the question of whether Clark is wrong to think that the right sort of clarifications might be adequate. Hence my question about it.

He wants legally binding 'clarifications'. The sort you can rely on in court as a shield against litigation (in UK law, per the doctrine of estoppel the claimant is 'estopped' from bringing action when the defendant made a good-faith reliance upon their assurance. I believe US law works similarly).