Search results

I just got the following response from @Mongoose_Matt when I asked about the Legend game system: So at least there will be a d100 variant available under an open license if the new OGL makes stuff it impossible to publish stuff derived from D&D.

I think the key question is what mechanism they are using to extinguish the rights granted by v1.0a. This is what will attract the most attention.

Eric Tenkar claims to have a complete copy of the draft licence and is making a series of YouTube videos working through it. However, his initial video does not add any new information.

There are differing opinions on this. We need to wait until the final licence is released to understand the full implications. It is possible WotC may modify their position based upon the level of community pushback.

I'm aware of this theory. But I'm not convinced it is plausible. It relies on using the update mechanism in the OGL v1.0a to terminate the licence by declaring it no longer authorised. This may not be possible given no mechanism for superseding old versions is specified and a separate...

I believe you can only designate your additions to the corpus as Product Identity. I also believe you can't designate somebody else's OGC as Product Identity. My question was focused on whether a dual.licensing scheme is feasible? If so, it might be possible to release Product Identity under a...

I suspect what you are saying is true. If WotC want to offer content associated with OneDnD under a different licence to the one used by previous editions, that is entirely their prerogative. I suspect they will ring-fence the new material, clearly labelling it as Licensed Content rather than...

Invoking Iron Maiden is always a good strategy!

Here's a question. The OGL v.1.0 prohibits licensees from adding or subtracting anything from the terms of the licence: This statement seems to apply only to Open Game Content and not Product Identity. Could a licensee designate most of a derivative work as Product Identity and then release the...

@S'mon - what's your opinion on the likely impact on third-party licensees using the OGL for game systems unrelated to any WoTC IP? Are these licensing arrangements extinguished too? I'm thinking of things like FATE, OpenD6, Cepheus Engine, Legend, OpenQuest, etc.

I'm basing this assumption on the collapse of sales after 4e came out. The market contracted for several years because WoTC lost the confidence of a portion of their fanbase. The terms of the GSL were unacceptable to most publishers. This hurt their bottom line, leading to the premature...

I suspect the latter option may be true, but there's no reason they can't combine the two motivations.

Even if it is anti-competitive behaviour, I do not think any publisher has the deep pockets necessary to fight that case through the court system. I do believe this whole debate is a public relations disaster for WoTC though. It has effectively destroyed the goodwill they accumulated through...

I suspect that WoTC may have difficulties "extinguishing" the OGL v1/0a but may simply lean on Drivethrurpg / Kickstarter to enforce the usage of v1.1 only. That will kill the legacy licensing arrangements, regardless of the legal position. I think the new licence will be offered on an opt-in...

WoTC don't need to spread FUD. They just need Drivetrhurpg and Kickstarter to refuse to carry material released under OGL v.1.0a. That renders the entire point moot, regardless of any legal technicalities. Both of these companies depend upon good relations with WoTC for a substantial portion of...

I'm not convinced we need the word irrevocable in the license. I suspect WoTC don't have the power to revoke the terms of v1.0a. I suspect they will require publishers to sign up for v1.1 if they want to publish material compatible with OneDnD. The terms of the new licence will require them to...

I suspect you are right here. If v1.1 of the OGL is like the GSL, acceptance of the license would prohibit you from using OGC licenced under v.1.0a - even if it for a game system unrelated to any WoTC intellectual property. The viral nature of this will be toxic for any publishers who work with...

The copy of the OGL available via the Open Gaming Foundation includes the following preamble: "THIS LICENSE IS APPROVED FOR GENERAL USE. PERMISSION TO DISTRIBUTE THIS LICENSE IS MADE BY WIZARDS OF THE COAST". See Open Game License v1.0a This seems to indicate an intention for third-parties to...

Section 2 of the OGL v1.0a requires licensees to attach a copy of the OGL to derivative works distributed under the license. It also binds sublicensees to the same condition. Does this amount to permission to use the text of the licence without infringing on WoTC copyrights?

Even if the terms of the OGL v1.0 cannot easily be rescinded by WoTC, could the company use their copyright over the text of the license itself to prevent future use of it by licensees?