Search results

The new executives in charge of D&D are primarily e-commerce folks.

D&D's entire senior leadership team has been replaced in the past six months with people who have no relevant experience with, or connection to, D&D's history and place within the TRPG industry. Anyone who might raise a concern is either invested in the success of this new approach or focused on...

Deleted.

I think I follow you. But the definition of Use relates to Derivative Material of Open Game Content, not Open Game Content itself. This is where I mostly lose my footing, in the definitions of "Derivative Material" and "Open Game Content". If the OGL's leaning in part on the U.S. Copyright...

Agreed.

I don't think you read my exchanges with Alzrius very closely.

You're going to snark on me to illustrate the point that we shouldn't snark before all the facts are in? I'll pass on that wisdom.

Maybe you posted this before reading the rest of the thread to see that Alzrius and I made peace about this?

Look, I genuinely don't know what law governs the OGL. So my questions weren't traps, exactly. If you know the answer, share with the group.

Your reply struck me as snarky, so that's how I responded. If you didn't intend it that way, then let's chalk it up to misunderstanding tone on the Internet and move on.

Yes, I know that. Congratulations on spotting my clever, Socratic traps.

You could have done this additional Google search before you pulled the trigger on Black's.

I asked for a legally-controlling source. From your own Wikipedia link: Black's is published by a private company, not any particular state government or the federal government. It finds its definitions by examining case law and publishing what they find. They are a secondary source, not a...

I'm pretty sure that's now how U.S. contract law works. One of the most amusing things about the OGL is how hard it's trying to fit on a couple of sheets of paper. "Sublicensee" isn't a defined term that the parties to the OGL have agreed upon and I don't know what authoritative...

Also not being dismissive. Just trying to puzzle it out. I think the missing link in your argument is that "Use" includes the ability to "Distribute", a defined term that contains the word "license". So, to rewrite your sentence a bit, Hypertext has the authority to license others to Use the...

Isn't the claim made by Ondath, and supported by me, grounded in contract law, not IP law? And could you explain how you think "Use" as a defined term interacts with Section 4 of the OGL 1.0a to create in the licensee a right to sublicense?

From the reddit thread: Unlike the other credible legal analysis I've seen, I'm not as confident with this bit. OGL 1.0a licensees are exactly that: licensees, not sub-licensees. The word "sublicensees" doesn't appear anywhere else in the OGL 1.0a except Section 13, which reads: That's it...

People keep getting hung up on the common wisdom about revocability and the OGL - which this website has perpetuated - while missing the fact that WotC's not going to revoke OGL 1.0. They're going to deauthorize it. This comment earlier in the thread spells it out.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

I don't think they're evil or greedy, but I do think they're twits with the typical swagger of MBA-types. Think about it. They agreed to take control over D&D (more Rawson, less Williams) at a time when most people who've been around D&D for a while recognize as the most fraught point in any...