Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4407910" data-attributes="member: 42582">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 &quot;going copyright&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4407910, member: 42582"] 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". [/QUOTE]

Verification