Search results

In some cases this is true. But in others the original licensor can't or won't update the license. Here are some examples. The Action System was published under the OGL in 2003-2004. It has nothing to do with D&D. The core rules do not rely upon anything from the 3.5 SRD The company which...

Back in the 3.5 days, WotC had community decency standards linked to the d20 licence rather than the OGL. You weren't allowed to put the d20 trademark on your product if you were a nazi back then either. WoTC could do something similar here. Honour their commitments to the OGL but only allow...

The statement still doesn't address the use of the OGL v.1.0 by games completely unrelated to D&D (e.g. FATE, Cepheus Engine, Legend, OpenD6, etc). It still sounds like WotC want to kill these games off. Sure, existing products made under v.1.0a can still be sold. But new products are impossible...

As I posted in another thread, it looks like mainstream media are picking up the story. Here's the Guardian: ‘People are leaving the game’: Dungeons & Dragons fans revolt against new restrictions

It looks like mainstream media are picking up the story. Here's the Guardian: ‘People are leaving the game’: Dungeons & Dragons fans revolt against new restrictions

I don't consider this outcome likely, but I feel the community should state it's position clearly. This gives WoTC a way to back down without losing too much face. It also draws a line under the OGL and makes it clear that everything beyond the 5.1 SRD is out of bounds.

I suspect WoTC could redeem themselves in the eyes of the community by signing up to this new independent licence. Especially if they agree to re-licence existing Open Game Content under an irrevocable licence held by an independent foundation. This would cover material in the v3.5 and 5.1 SRDs...

I have concerns about a potential proliferation of licensing schemes. At the moment, many creators are leaning towards Creative Commons. But some are working towards their own open licenses. I don't doubt everyone's sincerity. But this makes it hard to reference or combine open content from...

This looks like it is a gold mine of information about the intentions and public representations of the founders of the OGL. It may be invaluable for some arguments.

FATE has been dual licenced for a while under both the OGL and a Creative Commons licence. I suspect that the owner of the IP has the power to make two offers to licence their IP and let the licensee select which one they prefer. Or does this fall afoul of the restriction in the OGL about adding...

Every use of the OGL v1.0a contains a Section 15 copyright notice. And the first entry must be "Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc." Does this imply every use of the OGL is a licensing agreement with WotC? Does this mean it is part of a valid chain of...

I bet you confused the heck out of somebody in the company with that note!

Agreed. This thread is very interesting apart from the implications for the RPG industry.

Don't sections 2 and 8 of the OGL v1.0a convey a right to reproduce the text of the licence when using the licence? It would have been impossible for anyone to comply with the terms of that licence if that were not the case.

I was amused by the person who commented "never let anyone named Williams anywhere near DnD".

This is my position too. I have little interest in OneDnD, but have an interest in a number of independent games published under the OGL. This move potentially has implications far beyond the D&D / d20 / OSR ecosystem. This might be an honest oversight on the part of WotC, but the level of...

My only concern with the interpretation the licence operates on an opt-in basis is the mention of pantomimes in the covered works. Could this be construed to include private games? In other words, is there a chance that using OGL v1.1 materials in a game could equal acceptance by performance...

This is probably a correct reading, but I feel WoTC go out of their way to obfuscate this fact. Or there may be a disconnect between what the company's executives think the license does and what it actually does.

This is probably true. The leaked document was given to various publishers in licensing negotiations with WotC. I think it was designed to scare them into submission. But it has escaped "into the wild" and is now causing PR issues for them. It is pretty much the only story I'm the entire...

I think it would be wise to reach out to WoTC for clarification of this point. Or maybe they do see this as an opportunity to kill all competing game systems within the hobby?