Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-9435571-20130603130040/@comment-188432-20130603145427

The difference is the statement of the copyright holders. With Vienna they stated — in a way firmer than almost any other firmer than we've had from a copyright holder — that it's not a part of the DWU.

Has such a statement been made? I dunno for sure. You've mentioned a vague statement from Lisa Bowerman, but we'd need something a little more precise before we could investigate it. If you can provide more details about where or when you heard Bowerman opine, it'd be a helpful starting point.

[Iris Wildthyme and Benny have been discussed in other threads, and the reasons why they're included given there, so let's just keep this thread to Graceless alone. But I will say that your rationale isn't the one we use. It's not just cause they're a spin-off. We're cool with spin-offs. The issue is when a producer/creator/copyright holder makes a statement to suggest that their work is somehow narratively set apart from the DWU.]