Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rules.mechanic" data-source="post: 8882421" data-attributes="member: 7025773">I think the ideas you've listed look reasonable.WotC is under no obligation to keep doing an Open License for their IP but they really have to honor the previous licence for prior content for 3PPs to keep any faith with them. For new, OneDnD, content, it's disingenuous for them to call their new license &quot;Open&quot; if it includes the Commercial component - just call it the OneDnD License. Butm again, if they want to reserve the right to change the terms of, or cease issuing, this new license. it must not affect the terms and license for products notified before the change of date.And 20-25% of gross income / revenue is cartoonishly greedy (even if it's just a starting position for negotiation and even if they've been getting away with 50% on DMs Guild because of the wider content and infrastructure that comes with DMs Guild). Nobody would have batted an eyelid at 5% (starting at a lower level) and they would get valuable data about a wider spectrum of content and its popularity and, most importantly, who to buy out or bring in-house. Maybe even somewhere 5-10%, although big 3PPs have already pointed out 10% is above their profit margin. Can only be higher if it avoids other headline costs for the publisher: e.g. by coming with a distribution platform like DMs Guild, DnD Beyond, etc. Digital content, games, movies could require a separate negotiated license (with a commitment to encourage these and to negotiate in good faith).They do need that bit about a non-exclusive, lifelong, royalty-free license to IP. It protects them from being sued if they independently come up with something that's similar to something a 3PP has produced (e.g. some of the OneDnD playtest changes are houserules seen in 3PPs) but they have to limit its scope (i.e. not be allowed to directly reproduce).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rules.mechanic, post: 8882421, member: 7025773"] I think the ideas you've listed look reasonable. WotC is under no obligation to keep doing an Open License for their IP but they really have to honor the previous licence for prior content for 3PPs to keep any faith with them. For new, OneDnD, content, it's disingenuous for them to call their new license "Open" if it includes the Commercial component - just call it the OneDnD License. Butm again, if they want to reserve the right to change the terms of, or cease issuing, this new license. it must not affect the terms and license for products notified before the change of date. And 20-25% of gross income / revenue is cartoonishly greedy (even if it's just a starting position for negotiation and even if they've been getting away with 50% on DMs Guild because of the wider content and infrastructure that comes with DMs Guild). Nobody would have batted an eyelid at 5% (starting at a lower level) and they would get valuable data about a wider spectrum of content and its popularity and, most importantly, who to buy out or bring in-house. Maybe even somewhere 5-10%, although big 3PPs have already pointed out 10% is above their profit margin. Can only be higher if it avoids other headline costs for the publisher: e.g. by coming with a distribution platform like DMs Guild, DnD Beyond, etc. Digital content, games, movies could require a separate negotiated license (with a commitment to encourage these and to negotiate in good faith). They do need that bit about a non-exclusive, lifelong, royalty-free license to IP. It protects them from being sued if they independently come up with something that's similar to something a 3PP has produced (e.g. some of the OneDnD playtest changes are houserules seen in 3PPs) but they have to limit its scope (i.e. not be allowed to directly reproduce). [/QUOTE]

Verification