Search results

According to the original intent of the OGL, a licensee could take something released under 1.1 and use it under the terms of 1.0a. That was the whole point of section 9. It was an attempt to make sure they could not make things more restrictive, because you would have permission to use the...

This is true for your original content that you own the copyright to. You can offer your stuff under any license you like. However, I was talking about derivative works where you were including content that other people had released under the OGL or CC-BY. I apologize if that was unclear.

No, the OGL has "share-alike" clauses that require you to also publish under the OGL. Other terms for licenses like this are "copyleft" and "viral".

That's what section 9 of the OGL 1.0a does. By releasing content under OGL 1.0a, you would be agreeing that anyone could also license your content under 1.0b, or whatever. Which is kind of funny, because this is the section that WotC seized on to try to kill the 1.0a because of the word...

I think this is a much smaller problem than you make it out to be. Anything that is published under CC-BY could be taken and republished by anyone as OGC under the OGL 1.0a. So, if there is CC-BY content that you want to mix with OGL 1.0a content, you would release your product under OGL 1.0a...

I said that one way they could start to build trust again would be to release the entire SRD under CC-BY. I never actually expected them to do it. It was mostly a way to underscore how deeply everyone now distrusts WotC. But they called my bluff, and I'm thrilled. I seriously thought killing OGL...

Just because I can... Owlbear Large monstrosity, unaligned Armor Class 13 (natural armor) Hit Points 59 (7d10 + 21) Speed 40 ft. STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA 20(+5) 12(+1) 17(+3) 3(−4) 12(+1) 7(−2) Skills Perception +3 Senses darkvision 60 ft., passive Perception 13 Languages — Challenge 3 (700 XP)...

They've already done it. The 5e SRD CC-BY is here. https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/SRD5.1-CCBY4.0License.pdf

DND Beyond post with more information. https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons

I disagree that they are right (from a shareholder perspective) to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a. Look at the blow back they've received because of it. So far, it's been an absolute fiasco for them. If I were Chris Cao, and I wanted to achieve his goals, I'd probably take the approach of boiling a...

Given that a lawyer is telling you this is the correct interpretation of the situation, why do you keep pushing back against it?

Hopefully I can summarize. WotC publishes the D&D SRD, and offers to license the work to anyone out there under the OGL. Alice publishes her own game based on the D&D SRD, Elves and Elementals. By doing so, she accepts WotC's offer, and this forms a contract between WotC and Alice, where WotC...

Actually, no, not yet. I added an edit that you may have missed, and I'd like to know your specific response.

It certainly means the conversation is over.

How about the idea that these clauses (edit: these clauses being ones that limit access to the courts, for example) being in tens of millions of contracts as being a problem in and of itself? It being in this contract (OGL 1.2) is just a single instance of that problem.

The problem is that clauses that limit consumer rights have become standard. The fact that it has become standard is the problem. It's fine if you don't agree, but can you see where I'm coming from?

I have no idea. I'm not a lawyer. You say it's not a big issue in this contract, so I'll just assume you're correct. My objection is to this kind of clause being so common that it's considered boilerplate. That means it's in all sorts of other contracts where it actually does matter. That's...

I'm not talking about severance clauses. I'm talking about the clause that limits class actions, et. al. I'd imagine severance clauses are there to keep the contract intact, perhaps across jurisdictions where contract law can differ. For example, consumer protections are much stronger in many...

I'm perfectly happy to accept this. That term is there because it's a lawyer's job to further their client's goals and protect their client's assets. But do you understand the objection to it? Not only to the objection to it being in this contract, but being so ubiquitous that it would be...

Not really. The gist seems to be, don't worry about it, it's boilerplate. It's boilerplate, because it's common and in every contract. Just because it's common and everywhere doesn't mean it's not something we shouldn't push back against. I rankle at any contract that requires me to waive my...