Search results

If class actions don't apply to a license like this, then why is that clause necessary? The OGL 1.0a doesn't include a clause about class actions, and everything has been fine for two decades. Why now? What makes this "boilerplate"? Is it just because it's a common clause included in many...

I think the first five minutes or so of this video really cover it well. We want to keep the 5e SRD under the OGL 1.0a. The OGL 1.0a isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed.

Question about the following phrase. I've seen different lawyers give different interpretations of this, depending what "content licensed under this license" means. Does that refer to Our Licensed Content or Your Content or both? Or would we need clarification?

Well, I am happy to say I only partially fell for the trap. I did leave a detailed response about what I didn't like about 1.2, but only after a straightforward "All we want is 5e under 1.0a. Keep that and all this goes away. Do whatever you want with 6e." I also stressed how much trust WotC has...

In one D&D game I was in, we used a VTT at the dining room table, so any VTT would exactly replicate my dining room table experience. (Edit: Technically it was a coffee table. Is there a legal distinction there? :p )

That was my intended question. That may not have been clear from the way I worded it.

IIRC, earlier in the thread someone brought up a Harry Potter encyclopedia, or similar. The book contained facts about the Harry Potter universe, but was not a novel continuing the Harry Potter story. Would that be at all relevant to the idea that monster stats are just facts about the monsters?

You mean the core rules they're going to release under CC-BY? That's an obvious ruse. We already had that, as it was released under the OGL 1.0a. They're trying to lock down the rest of the 5e SRD under a much more restrictive licensing agreement that gives them leverage over competitors. The...

I'm completely baffled by this. What exactly has WotC "given" us here? WotC is actively trying to take things away from us. That's what has everyone so upset.

May I suggest "harmful conduct" as a short hand. It's what is stated in the license itself, and is a good catch-all term.

The new license is still revocable at a whim by WotC. WotC is still going to try to "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a, whatever that actually means. Is the 1.2 draft better than the leaked 1.1 draft? I suppose it is, strictly speaking, but I don't think that's the metric we should be using. Is the...

If we complain now, WotC has a chance to listen and change course. If WotC goes ahead and builds the Death Star anyway, then we have to stick to our guns by not doing business with them. Their Death Star only becomes fully armed and operational if publishers accept the terms of the OGL 1.2 and...

I have a question about the VTT angle of all this. Let's say that OGL 1.0a is "deauthorized" and VTTs can no longer rely on it. Source code is a form of expression that is protected under copyright. If a developer programs support for D&D 5e into their VTT, that seems like the purest form of a...

I expect clawing back the 5e SRD is the main thing they really care about right now. If a 3.5 derived game becomes the next hot thing, they may try to flex their legal muscles there, but that's not the current landscape. Any truly third party content released under 1.0a WotC likely doesn't give...

Why let them have a nuke in the first place? If they insist on building a nuke, we do the only thing that can defuse it, which is go elsewhere.

... which only WotC gets to define... ... and only WotC gets to decide what fits that definition... ... and you are given no notice to change your content... ... and you can't contest it... ... and WotC doesn't even have to tell you what you did wrong. At any point, you could get an email...

But that's also how you deplatform speech you happen to not like or find inconvenient, for example, if it competes too heavily with your own books. People have been talking about putting together a committee to determine what should and should not be available. If you leave it to store fronts...

Two answers. Yes, and these are apples and oranges. My trust of WotC is about as low as it can get right now. I have no specific reason to place a lot of trust in listed companies, but it's certainly more than WotC. Also, if DriveThru doesn't like your book, you lose access to that one store...

But if that clause is found to be not legitimate, you've just given them another way to cancel your license under 9(d).

I don't think I've seen this mentioned yet. It looks like the VTT policy is not actually part of the license, it is only referenced by the license. Would this allow WotC to change the VTT policy any time they like?