Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Corjay" data-source="post: 4410070" data-attributes="member: 52839">Well said. But there is also a difference between a promise and a contract. A promise is a statement of intent. It's nothing more than a stated goal. A contract (in this case, a license) is legally enforceable and is understood by both parties to be a contract. Politicians break hundreds of promises and we elect them to the highest positions of authority knowing that they will barely fulfill half their promises, even, and especially, the Presidency. Promises mean little in today's world. So a broken promise is in no way the same as a terminated contract. They also serve two different purposes. If you can provide an example of where WOTC has terminated a contract to the detriment of anyone, then I concede that they have indeed broken trust in the business community.I will, however, concede the point that it is a deal breaker for some for the 3-fold reason that 1) top tier upheavals, 2) broken promises, and 3) the lack of notification, together, leave question regarding the reliability of WOTC's decision-making. But I still believe it to be an unfounded fear all the same, as a committee, not just a single person, is responsible for deciding the fate of the GSL or its licensees.So, then, the deal breakers we have:1) Subsection 6.1.2) Termination of license without warning.I'm with cdrcjsn in reply to Nadaka.I'm not sure what you mean about this. Are you referring to Subsection 6.1? If so, then I suppose we're in agreement. But if you're referring to section 10, I don't think it really hinders anyone in the way you suggest. It merely protects WOTC from the licensee's infringement of another's product and from imitators infringing on WOTC's IP. If you could spell it out more, I could understand better.</blockquote>

Verification