<<You ever try to negotiate a contract with WotC? It takes a LOT of patience and a LOT of time. EVEN with presenting them a specific list of items. They created the OGL, they have the lawyers that drafted it, therefor they ARE the final arbitrators on it.>>
Actually, just because I draft a contract and you sign it doesn't mean that I'm the final arbiter on it. At least de jure. De facto, if I have deeper pockets than you then my interpretation may hold, but that's not even clear.
I agree they are likely to be really dreadful to deal with. But have you ever approached them with something signed on to by 50 or so other companies? Or have you just argued from the perspective of your own team? That's the difference.
A giant need not notice a gnat, but it may be more difficult to ignore a swarm.
Even if WotC is not moved, however, then the safe harbor is still enhanced between any smaller publishers who rely on a single interpretive addendum.
<<
That said, I am most certainly not opposed to getting together a list of items to address/clarify to hand over to WotC, I think I offered to do this before and only 2 people responded in the positive. >>
I'm talking about something more than a list of vague points. I'm talking about a document that will take compromise to produce. An interpretive document that would say effectively through mutual use "if Veritas Games and Code Monkey goes to court, we agree in advance on all the following interpretations"...
That would likely avoid disputes altogether, because people often go to court over contracts to resolve disputes about things they do NOT agree upon, not the things they DO agree upon.
<<
WotC created the license, they're only going to change it if it's in their best interests to do so (i.e. allocate resources to do so). I'm not trying to be negative or slam WotC, but think about it a minute, what possible incentive does WotC have in redoing the OGL? >>
If a large number of others reach an interpretive accord that disagrees with their position, then they have the choice of pursuing lots of lawsuits on things that aren't worth much money to them at all in some cases, or else in considering the alternative perspective and joining in on the interpretation to shape it.
And again, even if WotC doesn't buy into a solution there are other vendors who might. The safe harbor is enhanced between vendors reaching mutual accord.
<<
So stop debating, just put a list together, then clean it up, then pass it about. Get as many people's input as possible, then submit it. worst that happens is it gets ignored and at best, the OGL gets clarified.
>>
That may be the way to go -- to draft an interpretive document and try to seek edits instead of to design by committee. I have some time in October, so I may try to do it then if not before.
Thanks for the feedback.
Lee
