Search results

Not a lawyer either, but the license says it's their property and they reserve all rights, so I'm gonna rule against Morrus' reauthorization. ;)

How do you make sense of the six-month "grace period" for products developed under 1.0a and currently in production? ETA: Or am I confusing the other leak with the press release? Now I gotta go read it again. :D ETA2: Ayup.

Goodman's statement seemed consistent with "Yeah, whatever, we're going to continue exercising our contractual rights under OGL 1.0a." Which is a version of "okay with everything," I suppose, but it would be markedly different from being cool with the new OGL or getting a sweet deal.

On the one hand, I think this is plausible as far as conspiracy theories go. On the other hand, while Paizo would have plenty of incentive to leak, I'm not sure why they'd leak to one of their publishing partners. I'd like to think their tradecraft is better than that.

Why are we doing the Socratic thing? It's an inference. From the statement that "existing content will be unaffected," people are inferring that future content will be affected. We don't know for sure what will be affected or what the actual effects will be.

I've said this myself, but we should keep in mind we're working off a press release at this point. Maybe this will prove to be untrue.

If I'm a publisher, I don't care about "their" behavior, good or bad, because there could be a new "they" in place tomorrow. I care about license language I can read and evaluate, as well as the certainty that explicit irrevocability would provide.

For the sake of discussion. If these are their goals, they should have no objection to making OGL 2.0 explicitly irrevocable.

If we allow that the three stated goals are actually Wizards' goals, and if we allow that they are willing to back away from the royalty demands, here's a possible way forward. A carrot, if you will. Make OGL 2.0 explicitly irrevocable. Now, maybe, if you write an attractive enough license for...

Dude, no it hasn't. Here's their goal -- one of the three reasons they felt they had to make this change. Your approach most certainly does not prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. If it did, Wizards would not need to claim some right to...

So NuTSR comes along and publishes hateful, racist, sexist content using OGL 1.0a and SRD 5.1. How has your approach accomplished Wizards' goals?

It's worse, though, so forgive me for hammering on this. They can add all the carrots to OGL 2.0, and a bad actor can still come along and publish their hateful, sexist, racist content using 1.0a and a previously licensed SRD. They cannot achieve any of their goals--even if we absolutely trust...

Make 1.0a irrevocable and the rest becomes irrelevant. That's the fundamental problem for Wizards of the Coast. Nothing they want to accomplish with OGL 2.0 actually matters if publishers can simply choose to use 1.0a instead.

They can always add them back later since they maintain their claim to revocability of the license.

Like I said, people literally always take it that way, but that language is still always going to be there in some form.

Yes, absolutely. Wizards doesn't want or need to steal your freaking ideas. They can find other boilerplate* to do the job, but this kind of language is always used to protect a business from bogus lawsuits. * And honestly, no matter what boilerplate they use, people will howl about how they're...

Then they definitely get Pathfiver...and I suspect that's what you're secretly hoping for. And while I deeply respect the commitment to Jokerism, and I would join you in eating all the popcorn, I'm not sure we can expect Wizards to be that dumb. Again. :D

No, they can't use "D&D" if they accept the terms of the OGL.

Literally none of it makes any sense or difference unless they can revoke OGL 1.0a.

Fair enough -- I don't really see what work ORC is doing here, but no matter. I agree that a publisher can use OGL 1.0a to release Pathfiver using SRD 5.1.