Search results

It's also important to remember that there are tiers in paid subscription as well, so if those unsubscribing are predominately coming from the higher tier, they're effectively counted (revenue wise) as two 'regular' subscriptions, and the damage is thus (...I can't help it...) a critical...

I disagree. Nothing about the OGL or the SRD (the content made OGC by WotC) has changed until a court says something, and that can only happen until after WotC sues someone causing such a case to arise. What has changed is the certainty of the lack of a court case associated with their use and...

It's not the case in the USA either. joe b.

I hope you are correct. Sadly, I believe that more hurt is still on the way. joe b.

There is no way to unathorize the ability to reuse and redistribute previously released content without affecting the content. As I've stated several times, I believe they're lying with "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected." but, as it stands, if they are telling the...

They've screwed themselves no matter which way they go, I believe because they desired to make a backwards-compatible edition without allowing the old material to remain OGC as it has always been. IMO, it's a logical impossiblity of desires. joe b.

I am aware of how it works. My point was that in the PR "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected" means that the 1.0a is still functioning as it always has because were that to change, the content already released under 1.0a would be very affected because it would not be...

That is what I am saying by the word "update." Create a new license. joe b.

The PR release does not say that. It says it is updating the license, which WotC has always had the right to do. What we saw of 1.1 shows that they were trying to do that then, but the PR release does not indicate that they will still be trying to do that in 2.0. I suspect they will, but until...

That is my opinion as well. I'll hold reservation about what any of the PR release means until the legal language is put forth. joe b.

Some of those individual products are 3PP replications of the entire WotC SRD. joe b.

It could also infer a fork in the content. Meaning new content created would be under the 2.0 (as they're calling it now) while old 1.0a content remains under 1.0a. I don't think that's what they're aiming for, but the release is unclear regarding what it means. joe b.

That's why I think they're lying when they're saying "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected" because to remain unaffected means to remain replicateable at a later date, as all material released as OGC under the OGL has always been. But currently, if ""Content already...

I'm looking very hard to see where that is stated, but I don't see that in that release. Could you help me find it? {edit: to be clear, content that is already released is already released whether I reprint it in a new work or not) joe b.

Where is that said? I must be missing it. What they say is "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected." Also, I believe they are lying when saying "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected." because they don't intend for that to be the case, but I do...

I'm honestly confused. How is it a misreading? The content released under 1.0a is not just the individual product produced (the ISBN or sku), it is the material that was declared OGC within that release. That includes all the SRDs. joe b.

"Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected." As written in the public relations release, all of the SRDs (including 5e) have been released under 1.0a, so new content would not be an issue, including new 5e content. I do not believe that's their intent, so I'm assuming that...

Yep, it's the profit, not the product, that they're interested in producing. joe b.

And also in The New Republic of all places! LAWFUL EVIL Dungeons & Dragons Fans Prepare to Face Their Greatest Adversary: Corporate Greed Devotees of the legendary role-playing game could end up on the losing side of the next big intellectual property war. joe b.

Yes. This is my understanding as well. joe b.