Search results

From the preamble? Not a lawyer, but that's not... really true. It's just nonsense gobbledygook: NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD...

Everyone here needs to read this: 22 Years Ago I Saved D&D, Today I Want to Save the Open Gaming License

This isn't a good faith negotiation in any way. It's a "playtest", which is to say a smokescreen for their illegal schemes. I don't get why we should even bother. It seems designed to funnel the outrage away from public forums and to divide and conquer.

I think this is actually what's moving their stock prices now.

Someone should seek injunctive relief. Their behavior is causing ongoing, irreparable harm in my honest opinion.

That was a purposeful ploy on their part. Some of it (the "deauthorization" stuff they keep skirting) is likely illegal misrepresentation too, if my admittedly restricted knowledge of common law gleaned from Wikipedia is anything to go by. From where I live, it's looking more like straight...

I haven't trusted WotC ever. I trust that the OGL 1.0a will hold up in court if they decide to sue me for copyright infringement. It's a perpetual, worldwide license. It's also designed to be viral, i.e. self-replicating. To the extent that the license agreement is somehow ambiguous or shoddy...

In fact, the OGL 1.0a license actually restricts your right to use trademarks further than the law would otherwise. From section 7: "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content...

I'm not talking about OSRIC. I'm talking about old OOP books from the 2000s and not having to scrub them of any Owlbear™'s because Hasbro decided to illegally violate a contract in order to reclaim IP that they've already put out under a CC-like license.

Access to legacy stuff and being able to create derivative works from said legacy stuff. It's 20+ years of accumulated OGC under that license, some of it straight up abandoned.

Only thing that matters, whether it's decided in court or by any other means. But at this point, I'd like them to transfer the copyright and their right to "update" that license to a 3rd party too, ideally a foundation set up for that express purpose. I don't want to have to go through this ever...

My statement was hyperbolic and not literally true. But those shows, they’ve all gone out of their way not to infringe on Disney’s IP. And now I would have to go out of my way to avoid theirs, and so on and so forth. It’s all chipping away at the public commons somewhat disproportionate to the...

My argument is that Disney's exploitation of the work creates a chilling effect that makes subsequent exploitation more risky than it's actually supposed to be. See my point about making Cinderella dresses. Following their film, I need to consciously avoid the more distinctive elements of their...

What do you actually gain from this new license as proposed, in your estimation? That you didn’t have before, I mean?

Why? If we're all milking from the same cow in the village, I can't just take it and claim it for just myself. That's theft.

Depending on the specifics of it, that compatibility mark is the only real sweetener here (not interesting to me personally), but I'd say you're giving up way much for that right now.

Your reaction here kind of looks like this to me, to be honest: Hasbro: "Give up your family, or else...!". You: "No." Hasbro: "Give us your house then?" You: "Okay." You didn't have to accept anything from them at all, as far as I can tell.

Specifically this trap, or "compliance technique" as it's called. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique

That's not how the law works where I live.

They're exposing themselves to a potentially very costly lawsuit here though.