Search results

I mean, I was somewhat disappointed in Spelljammer's relative low amount of content for the price, but I knew how many pages it was when I ordered it. I'm not ecstatic about Planescape duplicating that format, but I'm still looking forward to the product on net.

No. Judges care a lot about court precedents and long-hallowed legal authorities, and may be convinced by theory arguments from law professors and legal journals. "Everybody in the business does it this way!" not so much.

So, something mildly interesting: Under the OGL 1.0a you are not allowed to use Product Identity "except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity." The CC BY 4.0 is an independent agreement to license the 5.1 SRD content...

I mean, this is pretty much the same issue people on Slashdot were discussing a quarter-century ago. Was the GPL better because it stopped people from taking software in the commons and building proprietary products on it? Or was BSD licensing better because it attracted people who wanted to...

However, those of us who were involved in the licensing discussions back in 2000 did consider it, among a whole lot of other scenarios for what WotC could do with the update provision. General consensus was simply that people should be careful about what they released under the OGL if they were...

I mean, yes, but . . . it's still a victory. There's a limit to how much contract terms can bind things going forward. I've suggested some language for an OGL 1.0b to plug some holes, but if (say) someday Hasbro went into bankruptcy liquidation, the bankruptcy judge could clear that contractual...

Yeah, that's pretty much my bit of crow, too. I stand by my view that WotC/Hasbro did not have the right to take the OGL 1.0a away, but I was completely wrong about my belief that WotC/Hasbro would be too smart to even try, and thus I was completely wrong when I said that the earliest raising...

I've got my movie plans made out. Even if the advance reviews declare that it's awful. I might actually finish that half-finished DM's Guild thing I have sitting on my hard drive. I might at some point actually pursue my "Retrofive" idea, roughly "1978 PHB races and classes expressed in 5th...

They still could, theoretically, try to kill the OGL 1.0a in the future the same way. However, killing the OGL 1.0a would not stop people from using the CC BY-released SRD5 to make 5e-compatible material -- including VTTs, software, and the like -- that they could even legally advertise as...

Yep. I mean, they could still theoretically try to deauth the 1.0a in the future to kill off the "community" of Open Game Content built up over the last 20-odd years, and I still would like a 1.0b that shuts that down entirely. But what would be the business point in such gratuitous nastiness...

When it comes to triple-classing, there's just one word: Sorlockadin®. Accept no substitutes.

If that were true, it would already be true of D&D Online, and nobody at Hasbro would be paying any attention to the TTRPG. Making money from MMOs is trickier than the big successes make it look. (Similarly, having the first graphical MMO -- predating WoW by thirteen years, and the release of...

Look at the Section 15 on Orcus. Hundreds of sources from dozens of publishers. There's a huge commons out there, and as long as the holder of the copyrights on the SRDs is not bindingly prohibited from killing the use of that material, Wizbro's talk of "de-authorization" has created a standing...

That doesn't address the actual problem of using existing OGL 1.0a-licensed Open Game Content, because most existing Open Game Content regardless of edition wasn't created by WotC, and thus is beyond WotC's ability to add to the Creative Commons.

Your inference that I'm saying he should have known about it is incorrect and unwarranted. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to have missed any mention of Orcus over the last more-than-a-year. I simply, and specifically, pointed out its existence, and then pointed out when it was released...

January 5th 2022 is a year more than a week and a half ago.

Sure I have, it's called Orcus. It's true that the "4th Edition System Reference Document" was not remotely enough to build a retroclone on, on its own. However, if that SRD were to be released under the OGL 1.0a, that would actually help the Orcus people a lot, since they could attach their...

I wish I actually knew what the terms of the license Clark Peterson/Necromancer Games agreed to with WotC for the Tome of Horrors were. I suspect, but do not know, that there's no way for Peterson/Necromancer/Frog God Games to get that content out under a non-OGL license.

Maybe. Or maybe it's just a subtle lie. If you read the license, you'll notice that there is not a single mention of "Open Game Content". Which means that there is no way to use Open Game Content in accordance with this"OGL 1.2", which means you cannot move such content forward despite Section...

Fundamentally, the OGL and CC BY-SA are pretty similar, sure. By my understanding, the key issues are: The OGL actively facilitates designating part but not all of your document "Open Game Content". In theory, you might be able to do your own ad-hoc designation of part but not all of a...