Search results

(I'm software, not hardware) I have often had to make design and operational decisions based on insufficient information; risk management was a big part of my job. Identifying what can go wrong and a sense, if not an actual percentage likelihood, of a thing happening is totally an engineering...

That sounds painful, and makes me glad I was not interested in going into law. I would find that maddening.

heh, and now things get confusing for me again (but not really), in that this actually is very close to how I was reading the words. 'Terminate' is a consequence ("if this happens, contract ends" -- possibly with consequences), "revoke" is a decision (which might have preconditions or...

Tag me much? :) If it means anything, @bmcdaniel, I found that post illuminating and very helpful for my understanding. You answered the questions I was trying to ask in a way I followed, even sleepy as I was. I'm trying to feel this out based on logic, because I have something of an interest...

That is what I would expect, but I'm not familiar enough to CC (which one?) to know they can't be used compatibly. If you can comply with both I would expect you could mix content licensed under both models. It gets a little gnarlier, I imagine, if both require you to sublicense and the rules...

Right, I was seeing a distinction between 'revoked' and 'terminated'. To my mind 'revoked' is like being withdrawn or backed out of, while 'terminated' means 'ended'... I see a distinction between those words that might not exist in law.

The expression 'any port in a storm' comes to mind. Just because Cyprus is far from great doesn't mean it's not better.

[...] Thank you. It appears I am a victim of imprecise application of language. I found those situations, though I made my own examples to try to describe them, in a search on reasons an 'irrevocable agreement' could be terminated. In many cases it looks like 'terminate' has many synonymish...

In the scenario you described, if I understand it, v1.0b and v1.0b are compatible (both authorized), and because of that you can choose which one to follow (I'm assuming Section 9 applies in both, that's part of what makes them compatible). If you can pick one, you don't need to comply with...

I had not considered that possibility. As you say it seems unlikely because it goes weird places. It's not cut and paste? I'd have it in notepad or something.

Separate licenses. If I'm using Fate content via CC then I don't need to follow OGL v1.0a rules, and if I'm using Fate content under OGL v1.0a rules I don't need to follow CC rules. Evil Hat owns the original text and can license it either way. Or another way entirely. Now, if I want to...

Does 'irrevocable' mean 'cannot be terminated'? Or does it mean 'committed until terminated'? The reason I ask, I understand there are events that can terminate an irrevocable contract. For instance, if we had an irrevocable contract: I pay you to paint my house by the end of January. (not...

Not in all cases of the OGL v1.0a being used. Fate, for example, uses OGL v1.0a as one of their licensing options (to make it easier to use with other open content licensed via OGL v1.0a) but includes no open content from WotC. Though yes, in the majority of cases an open content product...

I would think, if both are authorized you can pick the one you like. You'd have to comply with all terms of the one you pick. Thus, if OGL v1.0a says 'put a copy of OGL v1.0a in the product' and OGL v1.0b says 'put a copy of OGL v1.0b in the product', then whichever license you're working under...

I just put up a couple bundles like that myself, for a similar reason. If you play Pathfinder, I hope you scoop 'em.

I understand from social media that Paizo is a tad incensed by this. I saw a post along the lines of "Erik Mona was absolutely on fire at an all-staff meeting today... news to follow". I suspect Paizo could sell out, but it would have to be a very attractive offer... and I sense that if they...

(IANAL either) However, if I'm not mistaken if I want to use other open content I've licensed via OGL v1.0a (for instance, a monster from Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary) I must do so under auspice of OGL v1.0a (because v1.1 can't license me to use it unless GRR licenses it themselves via v1.1)...

As quoted elsewhere, "Use" doesn't mean something as simple as playing the game or whatnot, but actually copy or create derivative works.

Which is what I'd really be looking for, I suppose, since WotC already delivered the text I'm using and I just want them to leave me alone.

I don't believe they should be able to, unless they received license for the other content under v1.1. The obligations under v1.0a cannot be met under v1.1. That is, if you wanted to take content my Draconic Bloodlines and publish for 5e under v1.1, v1.1 requires you to fail to meet your...