Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgbrowning" data-source="post: 1115202" data-attributes="member: 5724">[/b]My point is that, regardless of what speach is or is not marketing, the end result is marketing and compatiblity. This is a letter of the license vrs. spirit of the license debate.I'm not sure how putting out d20 material, that you knew WotC was changing the liscense explicitly prevent, is promotional of D&D. It could be argued that it is, but with your foreknowldge of the change, you most definitely knew that your promotion/association of D&D is not the type of promotion they wanted.It's "thumbing the nose" because the care you're showing here is only to your product, not WotC's trademark. However misplaced their decision is, and I think it is a terrible terrible decision, I respect their rights to use their property as they see fit. And even when it is legal to do something, that respect prevents certain things from being done. WotC did not want some material your book covers under the d20 license, and you knew this, but you hoped to squeek your book by before they legally forbid you.I don't think I stated my point sufficiently. Your responses have all been reasonable, but the point I was trying to make was this: You knew the license was going to change, and then you did everything you could under the existing license with the knowledge that what you were doing (ie. associating D&D with elements WotC doesn't want them associated with) is counter to what WotC wants for their trademark.What you did is completely legally defensible, but I don't like the fact that, with your prior knowledge, you deliberately made a product which falls into a category of "things WotC doesn't like enough to change the license to prohibit them." You tried to deliberately use WotC trademark to increase your personal benefits even when you knew that what you were doing was not what they wanted.It's not illegal. I just find it questionable behavior and I'm wondering if such behavior will result in further restrictions in the license.joe b.</blockquote>

Verification