mamba
Hero
seems they forgot all of that thoughAnd WotC learned their lesson with a failed edition and a number of 3pp clones competing with them. They also figured out that working with these companies earned them a lot of good will and money.
seems they forgot all of that thoughAnd WotC learned their lesson with a failed edition and a number of 3pp clones competing with them. They also figured out that working with these companies earned them a lot of good will and money.
Looks like we’ll have to teach them again.seems they forgot all of that though
Maybe you posted this before reading the rest of the thread to see that Alzrius and I made peace about this?As a general rule, if you don’t know what Black’s is immediately, and are looking for Wikipedia help, perhaps you shouldn’t be engaging in snarky responses to posters about legal issues?
Maybe you posted this before reading the rest of the thread to see that Alzrius and I made peace about this?
You would have to be a moron...
I don't know if you're intentionally quoting G'Kar here, but I'm going to assume so.Looks like we’ll have to teach them again.
Do any of software's open licenses use similar language as the OGL does in regards to authorized. If so Tech would likely fund the fight if it's based on that argument.I do think that if Wizards tried to go after a third-party publisher by claiming to have "deauthorized" the OGL, that publisher could raise quite a lot of money to pay their legal bills via crowdfunding.
I agree that you can have monopoly power without being a monopoly; that said, the definition of a monopoly includes being the only supplier of a particular thing. WotC isn't a supplier of anything; they don't control a particular outlet or service that's squeezing out other outlets or services; just having the hottest product in a particular market doesn't mean you control that market.WotC controls 95% of the RPG market. Another 5% is OGL and older editions of D&D. All other games fit within that last 1%.