Search results

Yes, I think everyone knows CC can't be backtracked at this point. The problem is the two decades worth of material under OGL licence that can't be used under CC, but also can't be safely used under OGL. This issue isn't just about being free to use the SRD (only 5.1 for now; this is something...

Sure, it's really unlikely that a court battle will ever take place over this. But the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) around the possibility of a court case is enough to dissuade any small publisher from trying to use the OGL as is. WotC doesn't need to take it to court; they just have to...

CC has some limitations relative to 1.0a in terms of how to use it conveniently for 3PPs. The OGL integrated a mechanism in which content was almost automatically re-licenced for use by other 3PPs, whereas CC requires the material to be re-licenced out to be noted in a separate document; it's...

tbh, I'd make exceptional beauty/ugliness into a feat/flaw pair. It would modify your effective Charisma for people who would generally find a person of your gender and species desirable. For everyone else, a really easy Wisdom check (if anything at all) would tell them that you have that feat...

I checked for yuan-ti, beholder, and Strahd. All three are name-dropped in both the OGL SRD and the CC SRD documents, although none of them are stated out. Item 7 of the OGL denies permission to use product identity except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner...

Obviously, IANAL, so I am probably completely wrong on this. The latest 5.1 SRD (the one that mentions certain NPCs and monsters previously withheld from the SRDs) has been released under CC, but not, afaik, under OGL. It's well-established that a 3pp or indy can take an SRD, make absolutely...

A small concern about the CC licence, which makes me suspect it might not be the gift it appears to be... That's part of the requirements to use the CC-BY licence. I'm not quite sure how this would work in the context of RPG products, which often adapt fragments here and there from the source...

I addressed this point upthread. Generally speaking, their heirs can't be counted on to be interested in resolving an esoteric piece of IP law regarding a potential dispute between two companies their late relative never had direct involvement in, for the benefit of people they've never met...

Under the recent unpleasantness, it had been widely understood across the industry that the 1.0 and 1.0a licences were, in modern legal terms, "irrevocable". Recent commentary by Darcy indicates that the only reason those licences didn't have that particular wording is because at the time the...

Another thought. Suppose there's a dead publisher book whose OGL 1.0 content I really want to use. I simply can't use it under CC, no matter what. There's just no option. At present I can take that OGL content, use it in my book, and publish that under OGL 1.0a. I could even make a book that...

That's pretty much what I've been saying. Having a 1.0b available gives active and moribund publishers the option of updating. Dead publishers obviously don't have the option (being dead), but the existence of a 1.0b would help demonstrate a continuity of intent in the terms of the licence...

Of course not. You're missing my point. Not deliberately, I would hope. For a dead legacy publisher, we're basically stuck with 1.0a (or 1.0 for the really old stuff; depending on which it was published under). Nothing can really protect their old content absolutely, but if a 1.0b exists, even...

Sure, that's what happens with new books (though whether it gets wikified by in-house or by fans possibly varies by publisher; switching to CC would force it to be done in-house). Updating the OGL to 1.0b is about future-proofing the legacy content, at least as much as enabling new content...

This is part what I've been saying. The workaround is that any publisher wanting to release some of their book's content to CC has to create a separate and freely available document with the CC content and nothing but the CC content. You can't just include a statement in your paid-for book...

It certainly shouldn't change the legal operation. However, what the last month has shown is that WotC's understanding of what that document says and the 3PP community's understanding of what it said differed in quite significant ways on those two items. Rewording to remove the ambiguity on the...

It totally can. In order to use CC material, you have to credit it as CC material by using that licence in your book. All the old books use OGL licencing. So all the old material will need to be re-written to be safe. There's a replacement for the OGL 1.0a foundation stone that everyone...

(emphasis mine) So what you are saying is that their ODR SRD relies on the WotC SRD as a foundation stone? If the foundation on which your structure is built can be removed, then then there's still a problem. Those products and documents using that foundation stone are still vulnerable to...

I think I saw this in GURPS, but I like Community - Destruction - Nature - Squid - Food.

In the case of one-man bands, that would typically mean the rights pass to their widow or a child. And for many such people, resolving somewhat esoteric legal rights for third parties to use that material, with no financial compensation, is a rather low priority.

The cakes were lies? I don't thnk I can ever trust der waffel haus again. Next you'll be telling me that the eggs don' even come from chickens!