Search results

A post-WWII fear that never manifested? It doesn't look exactly like what Orwell described, and, no it's not as extreme as all that. But it wasn't entirely unprophetic. Most of us are now monitored and tracked all the time. True, it's not directly by the government, it's mostly done for...

I think the small, creator-owned space is also pretty huge in open source software. Yeah, what we hear about all the time are the big projects like Linux, Apache, the GNU C Library, etc. But, there are 10^7 small projects out there also licensed under the BSD or GPL licenses, either that stand...

Wut? You can... do that?

um... Wizards is trying to revoke the license, and not under the terms the license itself says it can be revoked. That's what makes it "on a whim". This is reality, not tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.

People keep saying this, but it's probably wrong. Yes, OGL 1.0a doesn't say the license is "irrevocable". But, neither did the GPL v2, which was the gold standard for open licenses at the time. Nobody thinks the GPL v2 can be revoked on a whim the way Wizards is claiming they can do with the...

I'm not the one you're asking but: Everybody is biased. In that when it comes to things like morality clauses, many people are going to disagree about what's offensive and what's not offensive. This is one of the big reasons why morality clauses absolutely do not belong in open licenses...

vstamin Starfinder has Stamina, HP, and Resolve... Not quite the same thing, but pretty close to what you are saying. The implementation may well not be what you're thinking about, though.

Nothing, nor will it ever. It's a license, not a library. The right question is, what have people offered under the ORC? Answer there is also nothing, since the ORC license doesn't exist yet, but it will definitely include the SRDs if Pathfinder 2e and Starfinder, and probably Kobold's Black...

It won't. PF2, and Starfinder will be ORC. They can't do that with PF1, because PF1 depends on the 3.5 SRD, and the 3.5 SRD is neither already available under the ORC, nor owned by Paizo giving them the freedom to put it out under the ORC. For Pathfinder 1 to still be able to be used for...

Yeah... which is why calling this an "Open Game License" is totally deceptive. This is 100% a D&D system license. They're calling it the "O"GL either because they don't understand what open gaming really is, or, more likely, because they are disingenuously calling it that so that they have a...

It's sad that you say this, because it means that WotC's smokescreen is working. By releasing a very small fraction of what used to be open content under CC, they can posture about how open they're being. Don't fall for it. Until and unless they release all of the SRDs that are under the real...

All of those are walled gardens, with the company in question being responsible for policing the content within that walled garden. An open license is nothing like that. It's not something that's policed by any entity, it's an agreement about sharing content. This is why the proposed "O"GL...

Oh man. I was looking forward to that trip. Oh, well, so much for that.

That statement is ... well, it's not even wrong, it simply makes no sense, in the same way that the statement "I thought the color was blue and not standing up" makes no sense. The SRD and the OGL are not at all comparable things. OGL = a license for sharing game content. SRD = a specific...

I'm very irritated that WotC is trying the line of "We have to de-authorize the OGL 1.0a, because to not do so would be racist." They're trying to pull an inverse-Godwin thing here, by attaching their cause to the cause of being against bigotry and discrimination. As many have pointed out...

Because the OGL 1.0a is in doubt. Because you want to release something as open gaming content. But, you're right. You should use the ORC, probably (if it comes out as a real open license and doesn't have stuff like morality clauses in it), or straight-up CC. You shouldn't use this license...

...so then who gets to decide? What is obscene, offensive, harrassing, etc., is very much in the eyes of the beholder, and very much culturally dependent. It's not an absolute. So who gets to decide what's allowed and not? This kind of clause doesn't belong in an open license. It's fine in a...

It's not an open license at all. It's a license for using D&D content in other products. It's extremely disingenuous for them to call it the "O"GL, because it's not that at all. Either (a) they don't understand the OGL, and thought it was just a license for using D&D all along and nothing...

So that they could claim that they were being even more open than people asked them to be, and so that they could look like the made a major concession. Whether or not it's a major concession depends on what really is in those core mechanics. Also, for this to really be a concession, they'd...

False. For MANY reasons. Among other things, look at 1. (c) (ii) If you want to publish something under the "O"GL 1.2, it must include some of their content. In other words, this is in NO WAY an open game license. It's a D&D system license.