Search results

That can't be the case. No single party owns all the OGC, and you certainly don't have to use all the OGC. There might exist the possibility that the Contributors are acting collectively in respect to granting you the right to Use the OGC that you're actually Using, but I'm not sure if that's...

They appear to be exiting the industry entirely, according to this Matt Colville. And I might be inclined to agree with him.

Under the doctrine of first sale, I'm obviously allowed to take you up on your brownie offer and then resell it. Can you contort your metaphor into being about something like the right to copy your specific expression of a brownie recipe instead? ;) The only real question here is whether or not...

It's pretty clear that they can unilaterally cease to distribute (small D) their OGC though.

I'm absolutely willing to contribute money to the poor, unfortunate company that faces their wrath and is willing to take it to court. It won't be me though. I'm nobody, and I'm in a bad jurisdiction for them. Actually, I'd wager that a lot of people would be willing to contribute to such an...

This could still mean that I'm allowed to license my Derivative Material of their Open Game Content to anyone else though. And as I've understood it, Derivative Material does include verbatim copies of their Open Game Content.

The third point in my post here is erroneous.

Every edition change has brought at least some interest in other systems. But more importantly, if you're willing to recruit players outside of the realm of TTRPGs, they don't usually give a hoot about what system you're using. Why would they?

Yes. And so my argument falls apart about them Using the content. Thank you for your patience in clarifying.

In the legal sense? Lots of things, most of it in the public domain though. In the context of this being Derivative Material in the context of this contract, it isn't. It's just Open Game Content.

I've re-read your post to make sure this isn't a reading comprehension issue on my part. I still don't get it. It appears to me that Open Game Content becomes Derivative Material of Open Game Content when it's effectively "plagiarized" under these terms, but it doesn't stop being OGC by virtue...

My more general point is this: You can still play D&D if you don't give WizBro a single penny.

I might've considered buying movie tickets to their upcoming film. Now I'm definitely not. My behavior over the last decade or so isn't really predictive of my future actions. I could have bought a Player's Handbook tomorrow, but now I really, really don't want to. Are you sure you want to start...

I just don't see how something can't be both at the same time under those definitions. If you could enlighten me as to why I might be mistaken in that regard, I would be very grateful.

I haven't bought anything from this company in about a decade. Why do you think I'm hurting myself by doing so?

WotC has clearly licensed their SRDs to me as OGC. Are you saying that the contents of said SRDs cannot be Derivative Material as well? Both terms are capitalized and so their meaning is defined in our contract, they have nothing to do with any dictionary definitions of any superficially similar...

Capital D in "Distribute", so it's not the same as the dictionary definition. Section 1(d) defines "Distribute" to be to "reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute". Neither is "Derivative Material" the same as the dictionary...

I think you might be able to reason as follows: 1. WotC is free to license their original works to anyone under whatever license. 2. They chose to do so as OGC under the terms of the OGL 1.0(a). 3. They did so, so they're now Using said OGC as per the OGL, since Using includes licensing...

Use includes "licensing", however. Does contributing OGC not include licensing it for others to use?

Oh, I'm not at all sure that it's an intelligent plan. It just makes sense to the extent that it's comprehensible and not unprecedented.