So has the D20 STL been officially revoked?

[CapnZapp]

An informal casual post on an unofficial message board like ENWorld hardly counts anyway, so the only reasonable course of action is to act as if was revoked even though there has not been anything official whatsoever on the issue.

 

[dmccoy1693]

An informal casual post on an unofficial message board like ENWorld hardly counts anyway, so the only reasonable course of action is to act as if was revoked even though there has not been anything official whatsoever on the issue.

Hence the reason why this thread exists. But net result is net result.

 

[Morrus]

An informal casual post on an unofficial message board like ENWorld hardly counts anyway, so the only reasonable course of action is to act as if was revoked even though there has not been anything official whatsoever on the issue.

Notification is notification. If WotC (in the person of Scott Rouse) has said that the license is revoked, then it's revoked. You don't get to say "yeah, but you have to say it in the manner I want you to say it".

I'd have to check to see exactly what he said, though. I don't recall.

 

[DaveMage]

The official termination was probably turned over to WotC legal to do something with...


...but no one checked on it, so it's likely still there.

 

[kenmarable]

Notification is notification. If WotC (in the person of Scott Rouse) has said that the license is revoked, then it's revoked. You don't get to say "yeah, but you have to say it in the manner I want you to say it".

I'd have to check to see exactly what he said, though. I don't recall.

I think the debate isn't that Scott Rouse didn't say it how WE wanted it said. The debate is whether WotC said it how the LICENSE said they had to say it (which was vague anyway). Your phrasing is just gunning for the straw man.

But as many others have pointed out, minute legal technicalities and the real pragmatic world of business rarely meet, and the d20 STL is dead, no matter whether it was officially revoked in accord with the terms specified in the license itself or not.

Just don't confuse the issue to think that it's just some publishers wanting to cause trouble. The d20 STL was a license that both WotC and 3rd party publishers entered into, and BOTH sides were bound by its terms. Although WotC did have the advantage of being able to change the terms at any time - but that is decidedly different from them not being bound by those terms at all.

 

[Ranger REG]

I think the debate isn't that Scott Rouse didn't say it how WE wanted it said. The debate is whether WotC said it how the LICENSE said they had to say it (which was vague anyway). Your phrasing is just gunning for the straw man.

But as many others have pointed out, minute legal technicalities and the real pragmatic world of business rarely meet, and the d20 STL is dead, no matter whether it was officially revoked in accord with the terms specified in the license itself or not.

Just don't confuse the issue to think that it's just some publishers wanting to cause trouble. The d20 STL was a license that both WotC and 3rd party publishers entered into, and BOTH sides were bound by its terms. Although WotC did have the advantage of being able to change the terms at any time - but that is decidedly different from them not being bound by those terms at all.

So, what? You want WotC to invest time and money to correct this license technicality? How about we petition our lawmakers to correct all the obscure laws no longer enforce yet techically still valid.

Move on. The d20STL is dead.

 

[kenmarable]

So, what? You want WotC to invest time and money to correct this license technicality? How about we petition our lawmakers to correct all the obscure laws no longer enforce yet techically still valid.

Move on. The d20STL is dead.

Uh, I'm confused. Are you referring to another post somewhere? I don't recall stating anything that you are arguing against. I have moved on. Re-read the 2nd paragraph that you quoted.

Are you surprised when people in this industry rules lawyer anything they can - even legal documents? Here's a fun one for ya – “Is PI OGC?” I suffered through literally dozens if not hundreds of messages where many of the top businessmen in RPGs seriously debated that pointless little license minutia.

I could counter you with saying - What do you expect us to do? Just let WotC interpret these licenses however they like and we should just gloss over any details? We might as well let them publish a GSL that is in its entirety just “You can use some D&D stuff, but not other stuff, and only for some period of time. Don’t worry, WotC will sweat the details so that you don’t have to.”

But, really, arguing against that extreme and absurd of a position is silly and doesn’t address anything you say.

To actually address you:

1 - So nothing. It’s just an interesting discussion looking at the minute details of these licenses, and it could be handy in understanding other licenses. Or it might not be. I have a degree and a half in philosophy, so I’m used to long debates on minute details that may or may not eventually prove to be pointless.

2 - No, I don’t want WotC to do anything more about the d20 STL. I see this as just a “Hey, did you hear the one about WotC not following their own license to the letter?” “Oh yeah, I wonder if general contract law address this?” *shrug* “So anyways, I’m glad there’s a revised GSL, oh and look they thought to actually include a termination clause this time…”

3 - And, no, I think there are some more important matters for our lawmakers to address.

I think we disagree less than you think we do.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

. . . the d20 STL is dead . . .

The d20STL is dead.

Looks like agreement!

 

[Ranger REG]

I think we disagree less than you think we do.

Then the matter is closed. If someone wish to dispute the license expiration, just let WotC and their lawyers handle it. I could care less.

 

[Orcus]

“Is PI OGC?” I suffered through literally dozens if not hundreds of messages where many of the top businessmen in RPGs seriously debated that pointless little license minutia.

Gonna have to respectfully disagree with you on that one. Whether or not PI is OGC is not little license minutia. Which, of course, is why "many of the top businessmen" were debating it. Because it matters.