Search results

For a computer game specifically. If you can't find a file on your hard drive, you're not a "reasonable person".

For a computer game specifically, it's trivial to comply with that. Add a text file.

If these are their actual goals, I think a D&D compatibility license with an official-looking Badge of Approval is the way to go. Even the CCA didn't actually ban non-compliant works by threat of lawsuit, forcing publishers to pulp their comics. The distributors that were part of the association...

You’re mistaken. Wizards have made specific representations about that in the past. And who knows what cool CRPGs we could get from indie studios with the OGL 1.0(a) going forward? Q: I want to distribute computer software using the OGL. Is that possible? A: Yes, it's certainly possible. The...

Bad precedent here would wreak havoc on the entire IT industry. We're talking critical infrastructure there too. A huge part of the programming world relies on permissive licenses like the Apache license and the BSD license.

I disagree. This isn't my goal at all. But here's the difference between our positions. My position is fairly and equitably in solidarity with yours, whatever your interests are going forward. By that I mean we would both achieve what we wanted if OGL 1.0a was the line in the sand. Your...

So the purpose of the CC-BY is actually to secure the moral right of attribution? I guess that's actually an important point for some people.

That's a brilliant plan. If EnPublishing can't retract their contribution from the OGC commons "post-deauthorization", neither can WotC. There would be precedent against it. :)

It doesn't actually put the work into public domain. It tries to do a very similar thing through what I believe is a contractual mechanism.

I won't speak to the financial health of 3PPs, but I think it would be great for them if Wizards offered a D&D compatibility license with all the control mechanisms and guardrails they'd need for that. They just don't need to kill the OGL 1.0(a) to do this. But your idea about the benefits to...

You appear to believe that their deceptive tactics to try to kill the old OGL are somehow lawful and sound. Why is that?

Frankly, this is preferable to me. I don't play D&D. I play role-playing games. I don't care which one. And if we're entering the second age of TTRPG litigation, I want Hasbro to hurt for calling off the truce.

You could do a very crude estimate: Take Hasbro’s market cap and multiply it by the proportion of annual revenue that you know derives from D&D. If all Hasbro’s assets were fungible and identical in the eyes of a potential buyer, this would be the market value. But until someone buys the IP...

Here's the text of the CC-BY, the version that WotC is proposing to use for some of its content: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode.txt It's designed to effectively put works irrevocably into the public domain, worldwide. In consideration, you will always get credit as...

The DMs Guild and the OGL are completely unrelated things. I don’t even think they will let people publish anything under the OGL there. https://support.dmsguild.com/hc/en-us/articles/217520927-Ownership-and-License-OGL-Questions

The "viral" clause in the CC 3.0 is section 8(a): "Each time You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work or a Collection, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License." Notably though, the CC-BY...

If you wanted to quickly establish lines of communication with as many aggrieved parties as possible, how would you do it? Paizo could have just written their own license on their own and released it for their own products. Of course, it's good PR for them to do it like this too. I just don't...

Paizo and 1,500 other publishers are in discussions with their lawyer already. I could see a class action lawsuit coming out of that. Not a good move for WotC, I'd say. They need to significantly sweeten the deal, and they need to start acting in good faith. But even then, nobody will believe...

If that's the reason for this illicit scheme, they might already be negotiating with an interested party. I could see this being a very big problem in negotiations, and a huge buyout might be attractive enough for Hasbro to accept the legal risks involved in the OGL debacle. I don't think this...

I'm not bargaining with extortionists. This thing appears designed to prove or force the concession that we've somehow collectively accepted their illegal claim of being able to "deauthorize" the OGL1.0(a). It's not a good faith negotiation. It's a ploy to make litigation over the actual point...