Search results

CC is pretty much out as far as using it as a drop-in replacement for the OGL. That much has been made evident in the ORC licensing discussions - CC just doesn't have the mechanism needed to seperate Product Identity from Open Game Content. CC-BY is fine for publishing your work under, if...

I don't think anyone expected they would. The only difference was where people had their red lines for "making a deal", and that's mostly based on where people could draw them. Many 3PPs just wouldn't be able to continue, and certainly couldn't trust the deal wouldn't be changed again, so had...

It's complicated. ;) Combined licenses are okay in theory - I can create a work under both OGL and ORC (assuming ORC comes out the way we're expecting), using some OGL sources and some ORC sources, and can then (in fact, must then) license my work out under both. That works because I'd have to...

I think that it could do that, yes. Anything that alters the license mechanics in that way seems like it should be possible in a license amendment under Section 9, especially if its purely the license creator putting extra restrictions upon themselves.

There's probably a practical limit to what a "license update" under Section 9 can actually do (hopefully someone with legal knowledge will chime in.) Most likely it can only change the way the license itself works, such as amending how various clauses operate or adding an additional...

It's complicated. Simply importing the SRD content under CC, attributing Wizards, and publishing "ToH 2.0" as a copyrighted work, sure. If they wanted to make that work reusable by others, it gets messy, because while they have permission via CC to use WotC's copyrighted SRD text, they don't...

It doesn't even need that, there's a clause in 1.0/1.0a that allows the use of any authorized version of the license for content made under any other version. So yes, a 1.0(b) with "irrevocable and cannot be deauthorized" is all that's really needed, at that point any content from earlier...

It's certainly a huge thing that we stopped a giant corporation dead in its tracks, and I'll be the first to admit I was not expecting that. I'm happy. I've even allowed myself some celebratory time. So, okay, in the spirit of that celebration and being thankful for everyone who helped -...

It's a "successful defence". It's not a guarantee the dragon will not decide to attack again in a few years. The reason I don't want to call it "victory" is that we have not secured OGL 1.0(a), we've just stopped this attack on it. IMO, actually securing OGL 1.0(a) is unlikely to happen...

The classic nine, but seen as an overlay on a graph where actions make incremental changes over time, and certainly not as a restrictive method on RP. Actions affect alignment, not the other way around.

A few thoughts. First and most importantly thank you to everyone that held corporate feet to the fire over this. Personally, I'm relieved that there's no longer an imminent threat to my main source of income, am understandably relieved, can put my feet up, celebrate, get back to what I was...

Ugh, I missed one of the obvious Capitalized Definitions! (Wait, no, that's a good thing, we don't want my argument to be right :D) And yes, the argument I've been making myself through all of this is that once I create my Work (even if it's, as you say, a verbatim cut+paste), I'm licencing...

Playing Devil's Advocate, or in this case Devil's Layman. As much as I hate the bad taste it leaves in my mouth to bring this argument: The initial licensee (one working directly off the SRD) creates a derivative work from the Open Game Content within the SRD. This can be anything from writing...

This. I see no way to fight. I only see a new route ahead for myself, to rebuild, away from the mess of OGLs of any version. I do not have the power to force them to change their mind on the things that are necessary for me to keep working under the OGL. They do, or they don't. I do not...

Indeed. Someone, somewhere in management is going to ask, at some point, for a report that shows the number of users they actually have and how many were lost during "the great OGL storm of 2023" and never came back. Then they'll be asking why the extra income they could have had from those...

d'oh. Post edited - thanks :) I was making the assumption the only permission granted was via the OGL, which wouldn't have allowed it.

(edit: removed after seeing there was express permission to redistribute that file)

4. is the bit that might not go their way in this hypothetical. Especially because I know some 3PPs quite happily saying they intend to use ORC+Black Flag SRD, along with "for 5e" on the cover (and potentially even with "Compatible with the Dungeons and Dragons[tm] game" or some variant thereof...

I don't think it's fair either. I'm just saying currently I would absolutely not agree to 1.2 without more major changes, and would rather use ORC than that if it comes down to it and walk away from WotC altogether rather than hand them more control on a plate. My first preference is still...

Yes. Until I see a clear example from WotC explaining how they would expect this to look in a covered work including both SRD content from them and OGC that a 3PP released under 1.0a, I'm very uncomfortable trying to do it solely from stepping through their legal language and trying to avoid the...