Well he's also claiming to be an authority on the matter.
He's apparently an IP lawyer. His website doesn't present him as some sort of leader in the field. We have IP lawyers here, too. WotC had IP lawyers when the OGL was created.
Well he's also claiming to be an authority on the matter.
If, and I say if it turns out that the OGL is unenforceable, it will be in a way that doesn't allow WotC to restrict how you use the licensed material
It's allowing the use of copyrighted material, in exchange for not doing other things that you would normally have the right to do, such as referring to a monster as a "Beholder".With respect, the OGL is not restricting use. It is allowing use of material that would otherwise be restricted by copyright.
It's allowing the use of copyrighted material, in exchange for not doing other things that you would normally have the right to do, such as referring to a monster as a "Beholder".
The exact boundaries between Trademarks, Copyrights and Fair Use are kinda muddled when it comes to such cases, which is why WotC decided to make obeying their PI restrictions a condition for the OGL, instead of leaving it up to some unpredictable future court decision.I don't see how you;d have that right. You could call a dragon a dragon. And a zombie a zombie, because those terms existed before the game - there is prior art. But a beholder isn't a thing out of a prior mythology. It was created by people at TSR, out of whole cloth. You don't get to take that as your own.
I don't see how you;d have that right. You could call a dragon a dragon. And a zombie a zombie, because those terms existed before the game - there is prior art. But a beholder isn't a thing out of a prior mythology. It was created by people at TSR, out of whole cloth. You don't get to take that as your own.