Search results

Y'know, I actually had to go look. I'd assumed 'SRD 5.1' was the new-not-6e version, not the current one. I imagine it would help a lot if they created a new version of the SRD, even if it has all the same text but "5.1" filed off and "5.2" put in. As I see it, if they use 'SRD 5.1' there...

Today, I believe that cannot be so unless they've actually received the license. Surely it can't be accepted before it's offered, unless a TARDIS is involved. Beyond that... surely there must be some grace period to make right. I believe the purported leaked draft said you don't have to start...

IANAL either, but it seems a reasonable interpretation to me. In the name of Don't Repeat Yourself this license says what this license does and does not do (licenses SRD 5.1 and not other SRDs; SRD 5.1 is usable under this license and not v1.0a) and leaves the rest out... the rest is irrelevant...

You might be suspicious, but I think you're not wrong.

Did Paizo use content from SRD 5.1, or just content that has the same text but is from SRD 5e?

Easy to see the SRDs released for 3e and 3.5 are 'Unlicensed Content' as far as OGL v1.1 is concerned. They are not SRD 5.1, therefore are not licensed by this license. However, are they no longer open content? I do have a separate license with WotC (OGL v1.0a) for those ones, but not for use...

It makes sense to me, assuming I read it correctly. "SRD 5.1" is a specific body of content, and this license applies to that content. They even say that v1.1 doesn't apply to other SRDs (which I take to include SRD 3e and SRD 3.5 and SRD Modern). They are loose when referring to 'OGL' and 'SRD'...

As I read it, v1.1 and v1.0a are clearly incompatible. No content released under v1.0a can be used under v1.1 because v1.1 makes it impossible to meet the obligations and requirements of v1.0a. This could be the origin of the "v1.0 is not authorized"; the full statement should be "not authorized...

If I'm not licensed under the OGL, I understand, I could publish a book and mark it 'compatible with D&D' and (potentially) benefit in the marketplace. There are other elements around copyright and using trademarks correctly, but part of using the OGL means giving up that right. Does this count...

(I know I said I was bowing out, but this find seems relevant) "Who thinks this is going to be an update in the sense intended by section 9"? From the FAQ-looking thing in @Morrus ' "WotC Announces OGL 1.1" thread: Seems WotC thinks they're updating the OGL. Whether this has any meaning or...

This has been a very illuminating discussion and I've learned a lot. Thank you everyone for taking part and sharing your wisdom, knowledge, and weird interpretations :) with me. I see several ways this might turn out: how I hope, how I think it should, how I think it will, and how I hope it...

This has been a very illuminating discussion and I've learned a lot. Thank you everyone for taking part and sharing your wisdom, knowledge, and weird interpretations :) with me. I see several ways this might turn out: how I hope, how I think it should, how I think it will, and how I hope it...

Expeditious Retreat had some, there are some very crunch-heavy books out there from other publishers (Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary comes to mind, both editions) that would have almost PI, and so on. As I recall, the entirety of Green Ronin's True20 is OGC except the trade dress and some of...

Previously I don't believe they had that on the OGL. I've seen mention of Valar Project's Book of Erotic Fantasy, which led to a change to the d20 STL (i.e. could no longer use the d20 logo, but was still OGL compliant).

Believe it or not, this seems unclear... or at least, I don't see what the difference is. At least, if 'all content published under it' means only 'open content', I don't see how this differs from what they can do today, if they still have to follow the OGL requirements. If it allows them to...

I've seen claims (haven't confirmed in the source) that v1.1 lets WotC take ownership... which is significantly different from just copying the open content (which is something any licensee can do). Though yes, it seems that being able to build and market an integrated library could make the...

The agreement has to be in writing (per the OGL), but yes, it might have been that simple. The license holder (Contributor) in this case would presumably have been the publisher of Creature Collection, not WotC... but yes, they might have decided it wasn't worth shouting about.

BTW, I just checked the Legal file from the RSRD (3.5 SRD). It includes: I take this to mean that while I can (in fact, must) copy the text of the OGL when I publish open content, this does not give me the right to copy the text of the OGL unless it is so I can publish licensed open content...

I believe this was the intent and what those using the OGL understand. Which is why, I would think, WotC declared in v1.1 that v1.0a is 'unauthorized'. My understanding of 'authorized' in this context is along the lines of 'issued by an entity with the authority to do so. That is, you or I...

(much removed above because I concur that I was mixing several topics in a way that was unclear) Short form, I was trying to understand several potential scenarios. Short answer is almost entirely "it depends, and even then it's not clear". :)