So has the D20 STL been officially revoked?

[Angellis_ater]

I've seen it claimed multiple times that the D20 STL cannot be revoked except for cause. Yet WOTC clearly intends to do just that, if they have not already (at least one major publisher agrees with several posters in this thread that they have not). The claim is equivalent to saying that the poster is better at writing and/or interpreting a unilateral licensing agreement than WOTC's lawyers are. Who knows? They may have made a mistake. I don't think they have, but I could be wrong.

No.

You are once again mistaken. We do not dispute their RIGHT to terminate the license. We've just pointed out that there is a very distinct way to do this - and it hasn't been done.

Secondly, it would seem Clark Peterson, owner of Necromancer Press, a lawyer, is retaining the D20 logo on all their material for sale. So two of the BIGGEST third party publishers haven't cared at all. Seems to indicate it's not just us smaller companies who've understood the D20STL in the same way.

 

[Marius Delphus]

Neither do I question that they have the right. But WOTC's ability to unilaterally revoke the D20 STL absent cause has been questioned by at least three different posters in this thread. So the claim was made that they cannot.

Has anyone bought a Necromancer product in 2009 who can verify that the d20 logo is still in place? Assuming it is there, I agree that Necromancer's retention of the d20 logo on merchandise for sale online after December 31, 2008 is also telling in the matter of whether the D20 STL has been effectively revoked. I'd be very interested to see Clark Peterson's reasoning as I have seen Vic Wertz's.

So why the acid tone? I don't mean to seem antagonistic or anything, so I'm sorry if I do. And I don't have an agenda here; like I said before, I'm just seeking a story that hangs together properly. If the story turns out to be "no, WOTC hasn't actually revoked the darn thing at all," that's actually fine by me. It means less work for me scrubbing the logo from the ENP books I've done, after all.

In fact, I think it'd be great if we can all agree that the whole thing boils down to precisely this:

WOTC hasn't affirmatively stated, in any medium, that the D20 STL has in fact been revoked; therefore (and for that reason alone), it hasn't been.

Despite any indications I might have given to the contrary, I could get on board with that.

 

[Angellis_ater]

So why the acid tone? I don't mean to seem antagonistic or anything, so I'm sorry if I do. And I don't have an agenda here; like I said before, I'm just seeking a story that hangs together properly. If the story turns out to be "no, WOTC hasn't actually revoked the darn thing at all," that's actually fine by me. It means less work for me scrubbing the logo from the ENP books I've done, after all.

No acid tone here, although I can see how easily it is to "misread" the tone - an already ambigious definition on the internet - on such a topic. Although, truth be told, the acidity did start with Morrus'... less than friendly answer.

 

[Orcus]

No.

You are once again mistaken. We do not dispute their RIGHT to terminate the license. We've just pointed out that there is a very distinct way to do this - and it hasn't been done.

Secondly, it would seem Clark Peterson, owner of Necromancer Press, a lawyer, is retaining the D20 logo on all their material for sale. So two of the BIGGEST third party publishers haven't cared at all. Seems to indicate it's not just us smaller companies who've understood the D20STL in the same way.

Please dont reference me in any way in support for your position. Please dont try to infer what I care or dont care about. You dont know what you are talking about. They have the right to terminate and have terminated the d20 license. I am in the process of scrubbing logos now. The fact it may not have been done on time on my end is not any reflection of my interpretation of the license.

 

[Orcus]

Basically I think the response to both of these is that WotC doesn't care. Scott Rouse made the post, all the major publishers (and apparently even all of the small ones as far as I can tell) complied and the d20 logo is gone. I do think WotC knows what they are doing, it's just not worth their time to clarify things since their intended purpose is done. They are busy people and we can debate all we want here on this forum, but WotC wanted the d20 STL to go away, publishers followed along, end of story in WotC's eyes. No big bullies, no 3 PP's caving in, no automatic assumption that WotC is in the wrong. Just WotC wanted X to happen, and it happened.

I think it's a fun academic exercise in contract analysis to debate whether WotC legally did enough or not, but that won't put d20 logos back on the books.

I agree with this 100%. I certainly treated Scott's announcement as termination. I appreciated the sell-off period, because that was not required. I considered that a nice gesture. If we continue to sell hard stock, we will sticker over the logo. We have asked OBS to remove the d20 logo from our pdfs and that process is underway. It may take some time. As Ken said, it is perhaps an interesting academic exercise to debate whether they actually terminated the license. But that was their clear desire. And people who want to piss and moan and split hairs about that are not helping the situation of getting a revised GSL.

Come on, people, this is D&D. This is gaming. This is the OGL and d20STL. If Scott says its terminated, and we all know it, then its terminated. Dont lawyer this all up. And I say that as a lawyer.

If someone wants to take the position that the current d20STL only involves termination for breach and so WotC woudl have to issue a new version with a termination at will clause and then publish a termination, I guess that is there choice to take that position. I mean, at this point what benefit does anyone get from the d20 license?

But like Ken said, I cant imagine Wizards is that concerned (though I dont want to speak for them). I think they accomplished their goal. And I, for one, intend to voluntarily comply no matter what.

 

[Orcus]

In fact, I think it'd be great if we can all agree that the whole thing boils down to precisely this:

WOTC hasn't affirmatively stated, in any medium, that the D20 STL has in fact been revoked; therefore (and for that reason alone), it hasn't been..

There is nothing inherently wrong with that position, though I would imagine those who want to take that position also take the position that the current d20STL doesnt provide for termination except in case of breach (arguably) so not only havent they officially stated it is revoked but they also havent changed the license as is (arguably) required to permit non-breach termination.

I personally dont see what is gained by quibbling over this other than the fun of having a tangential quasi-legal discussion. WotC wants the d20 logo to end. Scott said so. That's good enough for me. Will Wizards care about the corner case pdf publisher that takes the above stance? I dont know. I cant imagine it would be that important to them. They might contact the big pdf distributors (OBS/RPGNow/etc) rather than the individual publishers.

I plan on removing d20 logos from our stuff as time permits. We are not selling hard copies of d20 logo'd products. We are removing the logo from pdfs as practicable.

People, the d20 logo is dead. If you want to hang on and insist on X or Y, that's up to you I guess. Not sure what you are getting out of it.

 

[Orcus]

Secondly, it would seem Clark Peterson, owner of Necromancer Press, a lawyer, is retaining the D20 logo on all their material for sale. So two of the BIGGEST third party publishers haven't cared at all. Seems to indicate it's not just us smaller companies who've understood the D20STL in the same way.

If I am one of the two BIGGEST third party publishers, who is this other one that you are referring to?

 

[Marius Delphus]

FWIW (and I take it you're not addressing me directly), I'm not insisting on anything. I personally happen to agree with this:

WotC wants the d20 logo to end. Scott said so. That's good enough .... the d20 logo is dead.

... but I've been trying to keep an open mind.

Thanks for offering your views, Clark.

 

[Orcus]

Thanks for offering your views, Clark.

My pleasure.

Listen, I understand that argument that the license allegedly doesnt on its face permit termination at will and it hasnt been amended to permit it (which ignores the possibility that, as a license, it is freely revocable at any time), and whether or not it is revocable, Wizards hasnt officially done what is required to revoke it.

But really, what is the point? As I can see it, there is no value in the d20 logo. So the only reason to not do it is the contrarian gamer desire to stick it to "big bad Wizards" with a "neener neener you didnt do it right, I am smarter than you, so I dont have to do it."

Scrub the logos from your pdfs. Put stickers on any backstock. Its not hard.

 

[Voadam]

Scrub the logos from your pdfs. Put stickers on any backstock. Its not hard.

Do you think the "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark." clause of the OGL means you also have to now sticker over the "Requires the use of the Dungeons & Dragons(R) Player's Handbook" language the d20 license required?

I'm not a publisher with unstickered books, just curious.