Search results

But remember that OGL 1.0a is a separate agreement with "Us".

However I maintain that a reference to section 9 of 1.0a, simply stating that you cannot cross publish from 1.1 to 1.0a. I have yet to see a single argument that this isn't a valid interpretation beyond something like "the entire formulation is totally nonsensical", in which case also the no...

(IANAL) That ambiguity is in the faq trying to explain the legalese. In order to disambiguate you would have to look at the legal text. The 13th of january obviously refers to the date the agreement takes effect. A main line interpretation is that this faq claim is supposed to be a convoluted...

Yes, I can really understand it feels that way. But how much of that feeling do you think is caused by what wizards actually has said, vs what others have claimed or speculated about wizards and what they claim wizards are saying?

I present to you commercial term IX J : "You will not try to circumvent or go around this agreement in any way, (...)" ;)

If wizards had claimed to "revoke" 1.0a they would have used that word. What they have claimed is that it is "no longer authorized". The attempt at equating these two concepts are so legaly shaky, that I struggle to see this quote as anything but a strawman.

Someone sugggested it would be nice with a "safehaven". You replied that PF2 couldn't be that haven because it is too complex. I argued the beginner box was not complex. You seemed to dismiss this notion because the beginner box isn't popular. I point out that this do not support your original...

Good, then they only are mising the audience. It is a bit hard to get someone to play a game, if anotber game already fills that niche for everyone interested. But the hypotetical here was that a lot of causel gamers suddenly started looking around to play something else than D&D. How can you...

The critical hit really is a big deal. But I think the -10 limit can actually have killed more due to a false sense of security. There seem to be a buffer that can make people miscalculate. I have had 2 characters in games I have been running die due to actively stepping in the way (attracting...

But from memory he also explained that he had been in contact with several sources able to confirm that this was indeed the genuine document. And those sources should have been able to access the links and should have been easily able to confirm if there at least was critically important...

It actually think not that hard to make a "pf2 basic" that is as accessible as 5ed. My impression is that the most complicating factor of that game is the shere number of uncurrated options available, and the tables for 3 each skill what they can do. Release a curated starter set with the skill...

(IANAL) Well, with the new ogl, they seem to make that simpler for themselves, if we assume 1.0a survives. As far as I can see the commercial version do not as far as I can see require a copy of the license to be included (that provision is in the non commercial section V C) so given 1.0a...

None of that kind of text is in their existing undisputed legal documents either, like the OGL 1.0a, or their fan content policy. The kind of writing you are looking for make sense if the party really want the contract to be indesputable. However in this case there appear to be strong suspicions...

Yes, make sense. Or maybe more to the point that very clearly distinguishes it from the clicking OK - case: This would be performing an action you are legally allowed to do, and would be highly "inconvenient" to not do.

On second thought, the offer is unreasonable given the current situation. As far as I can see the only thing they offer, that the offeree didn't already have the rights to was the creator badge - which might be hard to argue reasonably could be worth the amount of rights they would be giving away..

In that case I think the situation might be bad here. It seem like the basic offer is considered somewhat draconic, but not completely unreasonable. If Wizards actively contact you and ask you to agree or terminate, then you can't claim lack of knowledge. Hence continuing commercial use would...

Deleted due to irrelevance with regard to larger topic

I guess it is not quite this simple. If for instance if you press "OK" on the license notification on software installation, I guess you cannot claim "I did it despite accepting"?

(The timeing here is a bit iffy though. The agreement is said to go into effect the 13th of january, but I can't see any date for when you can agree to it.. Probably when you first are made aware of the offer?)

Not quite. From the Commercial OGL: "by making commercial use of Licensed Content, You agree to the terms of this agreement" If you use any Licenced Content commercially without including OGL 1.1 with it - you have both agreed to the OGL, and are in violation of it.