Search results

AIUI (IANAL), two licences are compatible if complying with the terms of one does not prevent you from complying with the terms of the other and vice versa.

It's CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA. There is no sharealike requirement. If not actually having a case does not absolutely prevent lawfare under OGL then it does not prevent it under the CC either. Although it does probably make it rather less likely. We cannot. To quote Maya Angelou once again, "When...

(Half way through the thread, but if I don't do something with the quotes I have accumulated I'll have forgotten why I quoted them by the time I get to the end...). That maybe true if all you care about is the 5e SRD. For anyone who cares about the vast library of non-5e OGC accumulated over...

...and even if all that did happen, the liquidator/receiver will sell D&D on their behalf and pass the proceeds to WotC's creditors. The only way the ownership of Hasbro's any of Hasbro's assets ends up in a mess is if 1) they are already in a mess, so selling them is not straightforward or 2)...

Obviously; the OGL does not give access to a bunch of things he would need, and specifically prevents using trademarks (like for example "Eberron"). Nonetheless, AIUI the DMsGuild licence has always had the revocability they are trying to backdoor into the OGL. Which was not unreasonable, given...

I am not sure even this much is true. The D&D brand does no good to him if the ability to sell under it is taken away from him tomorrow, which it very well could be.

I know that they are future licences. What I meant (and I thought this would have been obvious, but clearly it was not obvious enough) is that nothing has changed in practice between the "draft" 1.1 and the draft 1.2. The "improvement" is that they have hidden the poison slightly better...

They are a publicly traded for-profit company. If "Okay, nothing" costs them money, they will have to back down eventually. That is why we have to keep the pressure on! I disagree in the strongest possible terms. It is vitally important that we keep reminding anyone who needs it that WotC are...

Not exactly. You were making a similar point, but not as unequivocally as I did.

You have much more faith in WotC than I do (which is admittedly not hard right now). Although, as far as I can tell it is already pretty meaningless (largely because it is so vague).

I am afraid my mindset is so removed from an MBA that that is difficult to truly get into Hasbro's PoV. But if I in charge of a brand as stupendously successful as D&D has been for the last few years I would keep things going more or less as they were, rather than upending everything. Not sure...

They are asserting that they can deauthorise 1.0a. Let's not repeat their propaganda as if it were fact. No, it's a lie. Because if controlling that was actually the reason, they would not be also releasing anything under CC-BY which lacks such controls. Unless that bit is the lie (which is...

Not "now" AIUI; the whole document is Draft. Possibly at some point in the future, although I would not put it past WotC to claim that there was negative feedback on the CC thing and wriggle out of it. (IANAL, TINLA.)

I have a vaguely D&D-esque system that I have been tinkering for years. The recent news has not actually changed anything yet, but might bump it up a notch or two in priority. Which might (no guarantees) means it actually sees the light of day one day.

Enjoyment is idiosyncratic, and the most unlikely things can detract from it. Probably best not to get too judgemental about it.

It was a draft, in the sense that it was not formally published. It was very clearly the final draft, given that they were expecting people to sign up to specific deals on the back of it. It is what have been publish, non-draft, if the proverbial had not hit the fan.

The licence has not been written yet, but presumably.

Never said anything about closing "all" holes, just the ones we currently know about.

(IANAL, the following is not legal advice.) License as in "release"? Sure. If you own the copyright, you can license it any way(s) you want. License as in "use stuff other people have released"? Only if the licences are compatible (that is, only if it is possible to simultaneously comply with...

It is not the only issue. But if it was more explicit about what "authorized" meant, they would not be trying their current angle of attack. That doesn't mean that they could not come up with a different fig-leaf, but every angle of attack you close of make that more difficult (and therefore...