Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Corjay" data-source="post: 4409052" data-attributes="member: 52839">1. The right to terminate was also in the OGL. It's a standard part of every license.2. This is the 6.1 part. It is indeed flawed.3. Again, this is another standard part of any license.4-6. The GSL does not say WOTC can take anyone's IP. What it says at 10.3, where I think you got that, is that the licensee will not attempt to sue anyone on WOTC's behalf or in addition to WOTC's case of infringement of WOTC IP. Subsection 10.1 says that the licensee is not allowed to use any of WOTC's IP except by license or contract with WOTC.Yes, it says that the licensee must help in infringement cases when called upon by WOTC, but it says that they will be compensated so long as whatever compensation is requested is requested BEFORE the event causing the need for compensation takes place. That's perfectly reasonable. This has only to do with infringements AGAINST WOTC, not WOTC infringement against another publisher or WOTC's own activities. The final line is saying only that the BEHAVIOR of the licensee must not CAUSE any problems for WOTC.Another part you misunderstand about 10.1. The licensee cannot pursue a case against WOTC where the legal circumstances change. Since the license is in force prior to changes in law, WOTC can enforce the contract as written and cannot be held accountable for changes in contract law and that those laws are not retroactive.Subsection 10.2 is referring to if a 4e licensee were to bind it with another license like Star Trek. It is saying that any problems arising between the licensee and the third party IP is theirs and theirs alone, and WOTC is not responsible.7. I believe you're talking about subsection 11.4, but you misunderstand it. No court of law is going to enforce having the winner pay the loser's court costs. What it is saying is that the cost incurred by a rightful case, as it is referring to "injunctive relief", that is, relief that is part of the injunction imposed by WOTC's winning the case. frankthedm is also mistaken here.8. This is another standard part of a contract. It means that any products continuing to be sold that were published under the GSL remain under the GSL. In other words, the GSL continues to retroactively apply to 4e property.This is another standard part of contracts. Defining what the jurisdiction is so that they can't be challenged in 50 or even 100 different jurisdictions. Since laws are different everywhere, they can't cater to every jurisdiction, so they state what jurisdiction they do cater to and that is where you have to challenge them. Sorry guys, but you all seem to have a lot of problems not with WOTC, but with world-wide standard contract/license practice.So, seeing as 1, 3, 7, 8, and frankthedm's points are all objections to standard contract practice, and 4-6 were misunderstood, that means 2 (subsection 6.1) is still the only point of contention.P.S.: Juries are only used in capital cases, not civil suits.</blockquote>

Verification