Search results

I don't even know if it's "illegal" at this point, and I rather doubt Wizards is going to come out and give us a detailed explainer on their legal strategy. I'm just looking at it from the perspective of possible outcomes, and for me, an outcome which preserves the TTRPG creative commons is a...

Yeah, criminal lawyer. I don't know if they consulted a commercial firm. I kind of assume someone must have. In any case, I can say with near certainty that everyone's understanding of the license at the time (including representatives at Wizards of the Coast) was not that the offer could be...

No open licenses of which I'm aware. And I agree with you that a company generally shouldn't issue an open license that includes branding rights, but of course, Wizards of the Coast didn't do that. And that's why Lamentations of the Flame Princess and the like can be in circulation for years...

Well, I was a brand manager for a Fortune 200 company for more than a decade after leaving the game industry, so I'm going to say "yes." If I had defined and "protected" the brand the way you say Wizards is, I wouldn't have kept that job very long. Still flabbergasted. You're a smart guy. As...

As I said, I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone accepts this is why they're saying, "Okay, nothing." They want to get rid of 1.0a to protect their $146 million (and counting) investment. That simple. I'm sympathetic to it, for some meaning of "sympathetic." I just don't think this...

Let GAMA do it. What could go wrong...

I know you think this is something we just have to accept based on what they've been willing to surrender, but I don't believe it for a minute. Some corners of the OSR have been producing highly visible material for years under the OGL that WotC would no doubt consider "obscene" or "offensive,"...

thatsthejoke.gif ;)

Don't be surprised--those were the days when I literally had to sleep with my boss when we went to conventions. We were cheap. :D

I appreciate the clarification, but could you apply what you're saying to the actual case, rather than using a hypothetical? That's not meant as a criticism--I simply can't follow it. Are you saying that Wizards can withdraw the offer at any time, but as soon as a publisher has published...

In the 1.2 legal thread, @pemerton writes: Which seems to answer my question. And what a banger. It makes me wonder if any publisher actually consulted a lawyer before publishing under this license! I know FFG didn't, but we only published OGL stuff during the bubble period. It was more of a...

@pemerton has an argument that it wouldn't, based purely on a textual analysis of 1.0a, though he characterizes it as "not particularly strong, but not absurd either." To a nonlawyer like myself, it certainly would explain the lack of any provision for sublicensing in 1.2.

So is there any way to make an offer in this kind of license irrevocable? I feel like a lot of us have been asking for a kind or irrevocability that really isn't possible in contract law. And I understand there is always risk in business, but I don't see how a publisher could build a business on...

Yeah. When Wizards says, "...irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license)," does that mean that the offer is irrevocable? I hope that's what it means...but I'm not sure.

Bumping this question for an answer!

Am I correct that if Wizards can always withdraw their offer w/r/t to Licensed Content under OGL 1.2, that means they can always say "no new material," regardless of the terms of the license?

I found this to be a super-helpful post. Could you please define "derivative material" in this context? I'm trying to get a handle on what would count as "new" and what would count as "derivative."

The "safe harbor" makes sense for microscopic TTRPG publishers. Sony Pictures certainly doesn't need it.

The most D&D thing ever produced is The Legend of Vox Machina. Amazon didn't need the freaking OGL to produce it. This entire line of discussion is absurd.

I promise you those things are not usable by a major motion picture studio "only through the OGL."