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: 4415264" data-attributes="member: 52839">Read my post again. I was explaining that your view as thoroughly expressed here is not a concern. Yes, they protect their IP. To explain IP, their IP is different than "content" but content expresses their IP. But it is also different than an "idea". A game mechanic is an "idea" and is not covered as a "concept". Their IP is the expression of a fictional world, and is therefore "authored" and covered under copyright. A "concept" is a "story concept."If a licensee is trying to rip the D&D world for their own game, they deserve what they get. What "D&D world" means, and therefore their IP, is places and beings identical to places and beings in the D&D (or other WOTC product) world within their product.  Now, this would include someone else's IP allowed by WOTC under contract (usually OGL or GSL). WOTC has full right to protect their IP, and are also protecting the IP of those who sign the GSL. They could have chosen not to include these statements and still have the protection of their IP under copyright, but there might be confusion on the part of the licensee as to what rights they have toward WOTC's IP and the IP of other licensees. All 10.1 is asking people to do is sign a separate contract for use of IP. The fact that this survives the contract is meaningless, because people would still have to do the same under copyright.The real concern is that anything they create under GSL is forever bound to the GSL. If the GSL is terminated per 11.1 and 11.3, then they can never produce anything using the IP they connected to the GSL. An added snaffu is that they would not be able to convert the line over to D&D 5.0 without WOTC's written consent.That isn't the problem of 10.1. That's the problem of 11.1 and 11.3.Incorrect. Yes, the GSL screws you over. But to say it's not worth going over the finer points is what is incorrect. As I've said, there's a lot of good points in the GSL. Yes, there are a few points in the GSL that make the GSL too dangerous to sign. But if those points weren't in the GSL, or rather, were re-written to be agreeable, then the other points would be good to have. You have to consider the good points to know where the line is drawn about what needs to be changed in the GSL. The whole GSL does not need rewriting. Only the deal breakers need rewriting.Once again, FALSE! If you want to hang the GSL, hang it for the truth. YOU ONLY PAY COURT COSTS IF YOU LOSE AT THE CASE. This claim that keeps getting repeated is as reprehensible as if making a false claim against a politician. The politician has other things to attack. You don't need to make crap up about him.That's the gist of a deal breaker.Yes and no. The OGL was careless and handed out ALL WOTC's rights on their product and IP. The GSL is far too strict in 6.1, 11.1, and 11.3 (I will even toss in the licensee's inability to use their own IP after the termination of the GSL in 10.1) for making it costly for anyone to trust WOTC's control of the GSL. The good points of the GSL are not the concern of this thread. If you wish to discuss the good points of the GSL, then you can fork it or start a new thread.Again, a standard part of most licenses. It's meaningless to argue this, unless you want to argue thousands of other contracts that already use this. Check your appliance licenses. Heck, most web sites have the same clause. When the license is changed, you can opt out of it, but the problem here is the termination text. If you opt out, you have to destroy your stock. Since the termination text is the problem, don't sign it in the first place.Please, people, focus on what really matters in this contract, and not frivolous points that aren't actually deal breakers.</blockquote>

Verification