Search results

This uncertainty is fundamental to the current unrest, I think. If WotC is saying "we are no longer offering open content under v1.0a but those who are current licensees can continue as they were, including the sublicensing and producing new works because that was the agreement we had", I'm...

Eh... when something goes from version 1.0a to 1.1, it seems like an update to the parent item. I mean, if I published a piece of software called Organized Gaming Library and released v1.0a, and some time -- perhaps a long time, I'm a busy person -- related Organized Gaming Library v1.1, people...

Because clearly WotC is concerned about bad press resulting from their actions.

I don't know if there was a payment, but I do know there had to be an agreement other than the OGL. In licensing open content via the OGL, the licensee agrees to not use Product Identity (which includes "product and product line names"). Monster Manual 2 explained what they were doing and named...

Under OGL v1.0a WotC already can copy my open content without recompense... but they do have to give credit, if not explicitly, in that they must follow the OGL v1.0a (or 1.0, I suppose) to do so and the OGL v1.0a requires that they include my Section 15 declarations when they write their own...

I think not, in that if you are using the license and the license requires you to copy the license text, that implicitly/inherently gives you right to copy it.

I suspect you are correct, both in what they're trying to prevent, in how they're trying to prevent it, and that they might even hope that how they try to prevent it has additional effect.

Which is one of the major sources of contention, I expect. If they just called it something else (GSL 2.0, let's say) and said "this is not compatible with OGL and is not an OGL license, and if you accept this license you cannot use OGL v1.0a for any of this", even if it looks a lot like OGL...

I don't doubt my wording is confusing, I'm trying to describe a scenario I think is hypothetical and I hope is nonsensical because That's Not How It Works... What I meant was If OGL v1.0a is revoked and Paizo thus loses the license to use the open content previously licensed under OGL v1.0a...

Right, I was thinking 'agreement' when I wrote 'license'. License is 'just' permission to do/have something, it might have considerations going both ways but is not required to.

Sadly, I expect that's how it would play out. I long ago learned (from observation, thankfully, not experience) that just because you're right doesn't mean you'll win in court. If they keep it to 5e I'm not concerned. I don't play 5e and I'm not interested in publishing for it. My much bigger...

Hmm. Right, wasn't thinking totally clearly, a license is 'just' permission to do something. I was thinking agreement or contract. That's how I interpret it -- if v1.1 says "I agree to no longer use v1.0a" or "I agree this content is not eligible for v1.0a despite v1.0a saying it should be"...

'Drow' evidently goes back to Scots dialect hundreds of years ago or to the Norse saga, depending on which etymology you believe, and in at least one of them describes fey creatures black as pitch. The concept of a tiefling, a creature of fiendish descent, also goes back centuries... might need...

Honestly, if it was just "5.5 is OGL v1.1 and no other licenses", and they leave OGL v1.0a (and all "not-5.5" games) alone, pretty much everyone will be pretty chill. The potential damage if they somehow revoke OGL v1.0a is very, very scary, so people are decidedly not chill. I suspect your...

Seeing as accepting the license and using open content licensed under that license requires that you copy that license, you actually can't lose copyright as long as the agreement is in place. That is, the requirement to copy the text implicitly grants copyright (I don't own it but I have the...

Ooh, I'd overlooked that. I'm not sure it would hold up, but well caught.

I understand part of the hoped-for outcome of the OGL was that WotC could focus on profitable evergreen products (core rulebooks, etc.) and leave much-less-profitable products such as modules and other supplements to third party publishers. I think Ryan (primary architect behind the OGL) didn't...

I'm pretty sure it can. 'Irrevocable' just means you can't back out, that the contracting parties are committed to the contract until it is terminated. Possible termination reasons include a specific period (irrevocable three-month contract; three months from now it ends, but not before then --...

One of the simplest ways to resolve this (for WotC) is to do as 4e did: create a new license for 5.5 and not release the new stuff under OGL anything. The GSL didn't need to 'unauthorize' OGL v1.0a because it was not relevant, and they left it alone for not-4e (i.e. 3e and 3.5) open content. No...

I see two potential challenges here. First, PF1 was built on the SRD from WotC. If that is no longer licensed (because OGL v1.0a that granted them license is gone), do they still have the right to license the formerly-licensed open content? Second, if OGL v1.0a is revoked (WotC has the...