Search results

Perhaps. But I'm sure you'll find someone who's willing to argue that you can't be bound by a contract that you've essentially entered into with yourself. It's not really a contract at all. Some possible interpretations of the license text appear to lead to that having been the case with those...

I don't presume to speak for anyone else, much less as to their business decisions. But with the conduct on display from WotC in general, I'd personally be wary of going into business with them under any terms going forward. My personal interests in this debate are to a much greater extent...

They've previously admitted to Section 9 meaning the exact opposite though, in their FAQs: Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like? A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed...

Indeed. If the OGL 1.0(a) isn't watertight in the way it was intended to be, that would at the very least harm the professional reputation of Brian E. Lewis, the lawyer who drafted it. He currently works at Azora Law and is involved in the ORC. I imagine that Bob Tarantino too, an IP lawyer who...

That would attest to them being under a non-disclosure agreement too. Nothing really odd about any of that.

This is what I'm getting here too. It looks like a statement of support from someone under a non-disparagement agreement. Time will tell if they want to stay in business with WotC going forward though. They started out playing Pathfinder.

I apologize for this characterization. I meant to say that @pemerton was the only one who clearly articulated that possibility in a way that I was able to understand. There might well be others who agree with it.

That would be their own, which is why the logic is somewhat circular. But would this be different for anyone else who have contributed an original "SRD" ex nihilo? Can you summarize that argument and comment on its strengths and weaknesses as compared to other interpretations?

Yes. WotC is certainly not the only licensor of OGC, no. There's a bit of a question about whether the Contributors are the licensors collectively or individually, and of course how that would interact with the existence of derived works in the ecosystem downstream. The ability to unilaterally...

According to the FAQ, yes. But not according to the text itself. Arguably, it's a gross simplification of the following interpretation (emphases mine in the following). From section 3: "Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bullish-insiders-bet-us-1-124908658.html?.tsrc=rss

Some sources would be appreciated. I'm out of the loop.

It is for the actual OGC part, yes. But you don't technically have to contribute to that "bucket". This guy wrote a PhD on it, and he explains it better than I could. https://www.lawinsider.com/resources/contract-teardown/wizards-of-the-coast-open-game-license

If they're set on going down the lawfare route, they're unlikely to have to sue anyone. They will use DMCA takedown notices and scary C&D letters, and many people will just comply out of fear. The USA is a cyberpunk dystopia, remember? You pay your own legal costs even if you win the case. What...

I'd pay zero amount of money for anything like that. Not only do I not want any of that, I do not want to enable the maniac psychopaths who are currently in charge. I will happily pay a monthly contribution to anyone who goes up against them in a lawsuit over the OGL though. Somewhere around...

These are rather alien to open licenses though. Feel free to look at the BSD, Apache, GPL, CC, etc. Even the Microsoft Public License isn't remotely halfway as draconian as any of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_license https://opensource.org/licenses/MS-PL

Can we get The Hypertext d20 SRD (v3.5, 5e & Pathfinder d20 System Reference Document) :: d20srd.org and d20PFSRD in there too?

If you don't find WotC's recent actions to be adversarial, I'm not sure if you have any skin in the game, so to speak. And that's fine. But it means we're on different continents here.

That is letting your adversary frame the conversation through psychological manipulation. You have nothing to gain by believing this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)

That was Vampire, to be fair. But he was a obviously an opinionated individual, and this did sour many on his attempts at intellectual analysis of the medium.