Does WOTC have the right?

[Psion]

Is there a relation between the STL being cancelled and participating in the new GSL that I am missing?

No. The STL is being ended in June and publishers being asked to remove the D20 logo by the end of the year (per Scott Rouse in the OGF-d20-L forum).

There is the additional worry (as has been brought up in the GSL threads) that those companies electing to become a GSL licensee would be prohibited from selling any OGL product (including supposedly evergreen PDF products) regardless of whether you take steps to remove d20 branding or it if had such branding in the first place.

 

[Delta]

Is there a relation between the STL being cancelled and participating in the new GSL that I am missing?

I believe you're asking about pedr's point and it's this:

IF there was a glitch in the STL that prevented WOTC from outright terminating it,
THEN a partial solution for WOTC would be to include a clause in the GSL saying that any licensors now agree to the termination of said STL.

 

[Goobermunch]

I have no intent to go to court over a d20 logo. My hope is that they'll let us put stickers on the logo and black out d20 STL text if any in the product. If not, I'll simply sell them as revised pdfs under the OGL only. That is easy enough. Presuming, of course, they permit those sales of backstock (in otherwords, creating new OGL stuff is bad but simply selling OGL backstock is fine).

And while I cannot address the second concern (only Le Rouse can do that), I think he's already said that after the license terminates, publishers will need to remove the d20 logo.

Here's the quote:

The [old d20 STL] license ends in June 2008 so publishers will stop using it at that point. There will be a sell off period through the end of 2008 for publishers with stock in their warehouses. Product that is sold and sitting in a store or distributor is considered sold and fine. There will be no recall of product sitting in the channel.

The major downside is for publishers who have so much stock they can't move it in six months. For those who that is the case I suspect they have larger problems.

PDF sellers will be asked to update their products within that six month time and remove the logo.

Of course, that's cold comfort if you can't produce GSL content because you're still selling OGL content.

The more I look at this, the more I think someone's confused the d20STL with the OGL. Clark, can you reveal who you spoke with at WotC regarding the mutual exclusivity provision?

--G

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But the only way to terminate the license, on its face, is by breach.

I have thought about this for a long time. This is not new to me.

Clark, I am very surprised and very interested in your take on this. I am not asking for legal advice, just your opinion.

Let's say for a moment that a prior d20STL publisher (in good standing, not in breach) decides not to move to the GSL.

When the d20STL ends (in June) will those publishers be required to make any changes to any existing product bearing the d20 logo? Assume both PDF and print products exist.

I wish I had seen this yesterday to add it to the list of questions going to WotC. It's an interesting question.

 

[jgbrowning]

I have no intent to go to court over a d20 logo. My hope is that they'll let us put stickers on the logo and black out d20 STL text if any in the product. If not, I'll simply sell them as revised pdfs under the OGL only. That is easy enough. Presuming, of course, they permit those sales of backstock (in otherwords, creating new OGL stuff is bad but simply selling OGL backstock is fine).

I'm hoping they realize that back stock sales for 3PP would create additional revenue that would be used to fund 4e products. IMO, that would be a positive for them.

joe b.

 

[RangerWickett]

It's kind of back-handed, but couldn't a publisher who has OGL products but wants to make GSL products just create a splinter company.

Man-Ape Press is owned by Thugga-Khotan, and they sell grim fantasy adventures by the OGL. But he also wants to sell grim fantasy adventures with the GSL. So he creates a new company, Elephant Space Moth Press, and sells all his OGL products to them. He runs both companies, but each company is only selling under one license.

 

[Flynn]

Good Morning, All:

I wonder if we might not see a "OGL Publishers Clearinghouse" emerge that handles the OGL products for multiple other companies for a small percentage of the profits generated, like some sort of clearing house to manage the particular license officially, but paying dividends back to its investors that also supply content, based on content sold. I imagine such a scenario would work best for small publishers rather than larger, established ones, but it would be interesting to see if something akin to that emerges.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Orcus]

[decided to remove]

Clark

 

[tensen]

Actually, strangely enough, the d20 STL itself DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY PROVISION THAT ALLOWS WIZARDS TO UNILATERALLY TERMINATE THE LICENSE. The only termination provision for the d20 STL on its face is for breach.

Arguably, the STL can ONLY be terminated by breach. There is no provision in the STL itself for Wizards to simply cancel the license.



Since I am not in breach, they cant terminate it

Clark

Thats only in the version 6.0 of the d20 STL, version 7.0 (which you must upgrade to) will just state:
ALL U SUCKERS LEFT, B T3RMIN8D.
Exterminate, exterminate!!!

I figure most other publishers also pulp a good portion of backstock older than a year for tax reasons, anything left just means the folks that are staying with 3rd edition can go bonkers over the firesales that the publishers will have with any remaining backstock before pulping it.

 

[Orcus]

Clark, can you reveal who you spoke with at WotC regarding the mutual exclusivity provision?

I think you knew the answer to this before you asked No, I cant do that. Sorry.